I was approached early yesterday by the Chief Minister of Singapore, proposing a basis for resumption of discussions. As a consequence, I asked the Singapore delegation to meet me informally. Unfortunately, out of the 12 delegates who are still in London only the Chief Minister and two of his Government colleagues found themselves able to attend. When I asked whether these proposals had the support of the delegation he replied that they were purely his own personal suggestions. I stated that I was perfectly ready to discuss these proposals provided that they were put forward either by the delegation or by the Singapore Government. Since this was not the case we reluctantly agreed that the present negotiations could not be usefully prolonged.

As I informed the House last Wednesday, Her Majesty's Government are always prepared to renew discussions on the basis of our present proposals with this or any other Government of Singapore.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realize that, all the time, he uses language that makes it extremely difficult for those with whom he is negotiating? He continually says, "on the basis of the Government's present proposals," whereas what has been attempted is to get away from those proposals to a further modification. Before this lamentable episode finishes, I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he himself is prepared to accept this further modification of the Government's proposals. Surely, at this stage, it is not a question of what the Singapore Government want or does not want it is what Her Majesty's Government themselves would desire—and if the delegation returns to Singapore able to say that this further modification is acceptable to the Government it might change the situation there.

The right hon. Gentleman has not got the whole of this either correctly or in perspective. I said that if, in fact, this particular proposal, which related to the Orders in Council procedure— some part, if not all, of which would have happened anyhow, as part of the normal method of dealing with Orders in Council— were part of a general agreement it was well worth pursuing, but what we could not risk, and what the credit and confidence of Singapore could not risk, was a second breakdown. If, therefore, this proposal were part of a general settlement, and if it were backed either by the delegation or by the Government of Singapore, it was well worth pursuing, but as neither of those considerations arose I reluctantly came to the conclusion which I have mentioned in my statement to the House.

But is it not obvious that the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the Government are prepared to have further discussions upon the basis of proposals already turned down by the delegation? There has emerged, in the course of the discussions, a further proposal which modifies the Government's scheme and which is acceptable to the Chief Minister of Singapore. If that modification can be said to be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, a new situation then arises, around which public opinion in Singapore might begin to form. But so long as the right hon. Gentleman stubbornly says, "We are going to have discussions only upon the basis of proposals already rejected," he is bound to have trouble.

As the right hon. Gentleman should know, it is quite impossible for negotiations of this importance to be carried on in that way. The delegation has clearly disintegrated, and I must take notice of that fact— and that disintegration was certainly not caused by me. It now must be for the political pattern of Singapore to sort itself out before we can usefully resume consideration as to the right path of progress.

As I understand, the proposal put forward by the Chief Minister was a modification of the proposals made by the Secretary of State and, therefore, would, in a sense, accept the major provisions of the policy which he put forward, subject to modification. If the delegation were willing to discuss this modification, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to discuss it also?

I made them perfectly clear yesterday. I said that if it was to have a formal discussion to discuss that proposed modification, I would very readily meet all the delegation yesterday. Some of the very important delegates made their position clear in a public statement in the morning. Others made their position clear in the afternoon, and, in the event, as I say to the House, all that came in the end—and they were very welcome—were the Chief Minister and two of his colleagues. Of his own Labour Front supporters, one did not come, two Alliance supporters of his Government did not come, none of the Liberal-Socialists came and none of the Action Party people came, so it could not possibly be said, in regard to the truth of language, that the delegation was behind these proposals.

Do I take it, therefore —and this is important; there are still two days before the delegation returns—that the position is that the Secretary of State is willing, if the delegation will discuss it with him, to discuss this modification of the proposals which he has put forward? In other words, he does not now say, "I will not vary the proposals as put forward, but I will discuss them." Towards the end of his statement the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be prepared to discuss with this or any other Government in Singapore. Does he envisage, therefore, that when the delegation returns there will be a General Election in Singapore?

That is not for me to say. There is the Constitution in Singapore and there are the normal constitutional processes which would be gone through. That matter must be settled on the spot, and certainly not by me. I made my position quite clear to the Chief Minister—and I am sure that there is no misunderstanding there—namely, that had he come forward on behalf of the delegation, or with the delegation, or with even a majority of the delegation, in favour of these proposals, I would have discussed the matter. But I must say that, the situation having reached the stage it has and it being clear that was not so, my best advice to the people of Singapore and to the delegation will be to allow the political pattern in Singapore to work itself out. Her Majesty's Government's offer remains, that we are always prepared to renew discussions on the basis of our present proposals with this or any other Government of Singapore.

That is a lamentable statement— to allow the political pattern of Singapore to work itself out. Has anyone heard a more lamentable piece of bankruptcy. To work itself out like Cyprus, I suppose?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), most hon. Members and most people in the country will realise that he has gone to the utmost lengths of patience and consideration—

No.

— in dealing with this delegation and will very greatly regret that the delegation has not seen fit to accept what would have been, in substance, full self-government?

I thank my hon. Friend very much.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heath.]

First, I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for having seen fit to call me to speak on the question of the Nile waters, and, secondly, I feel sure that we should all like to welcome my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who has returned from a tour of these parts of the world completely unharmed. I must say that for my hon. Friends to travel in Arabia or the Arab world today is not so safe as it used to be. The patron saint should be St. Stephen, the first Christian to be stoned, rather than St. Christopher. However, we trust that events will not move further till the protector saint of some of my hon. Friends becomes St. Lawrence, who was burnt. We trust that that day is far away.

I raise this question today as a matter of considerable urgency for three reasons. The Nile has flowed for several thousands of years, will continue to flow for many thousands more, and the projected works on the Nile will take many years to complete. First, I believe that this is the last chance in this year, perhaps, of achieving unitary control of the whole Nile waters. Secondly, I believe that the High Dam project which the British Government propose to support in certain circumstances is a bad project. Thirdly, I believe that this whole problem is vital to the peoples not merely of Egypt and the Sudan, but to those living in British East Africa who are the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I believe that, whatever negotiations may be going on between Cairo and Khartoum at the moment, the sooner this whole question is raised the better.

Hon. Members are doubtless aware of some of the problems which have been elucidated by articles and leaders in The Times and by speeches made in this House. The main problem is simply this. When the map from Cairo to the Cape was coloured red, or, in deference to hon. Members opposite, was pink, there was no problem about unitary control. One Government was responsible for the control of those waters and that was Her Majesty's Government, working through Cairo, Khartoum, or the various Govern ments in Central and East Africa. But since Egypt and the Sudan have gained their independence and as Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika will over the next 20 or 30 years move further towards a greater degree of independence, the need to return to some unitary control of the whole Nile waters is obvious.

The demographic problem of the Nile Valley for political purposes must include Uganda, Kenya, and Tanganyika. The populations of these countries are rapidly growing and the amount of water available for their essential agriculture is limited. If we compare the available flow of the Nile with such rivers as the Congo, the Missouri-Mississippi confluence, or even with the Tennessee Valley, it is small. I think it true to say that the actual measurement of water, where it enters or passes through the Cairo-Sudanese frontier, is about 2,800 cubic metres per second. The rate of flow of the Missouri-Mississippi confluence is about 20,000 cubic metres per second. Even in the Tennessee Valley, which is less than 800 miles long, the rate of flow is 1,700 cubic metres per second.

I am sorry to embark on these statistics, but they are vitally important because while the flow of water will not increase, the population is increasing at a staggering rate. The Nile has to flow about 4,000 miles and by the end of this century the population may well have doubled, and these waters will be responsible for irrigating the agriculture with which to feed between 70 and 80 million people. In addition to that, the Nile has certain problems which can best be treated by an overall control. Problems of evaporation, of flood control and of swamp seepage are far best handled by one authority.

On purely mechanical grounds I believe that there is a strong argument for a Nile Valley authority. It is obvious that the advantages which would flow from such an authority are very great indeed. The fair division of the water could be achieved by such an authority as well as a common policy over irrigation and a common policy to see that the water is well used. Undoubtedly, it is being misused in Egypt today and the smaller irrigation channels are not all that they should be.

These obvious advantages of a Nile Valley authority stand out. Only such an authority could fully exploit the one great natural advantage possessed by the Nile, namely, the headwater. When we include Lake Tana, I think that the head of water is about 6,000 feet compared with the 1,000 feet in Tenessee Valley; that is to say, the possibility of hydroelectric projects up and down the Nile is very great, but could only be developed properly by one authority dealing with the matter.

Far more important than these peaceful advantages is the fact that today only such an authority, in my opinion, could avoid the tension which must grow among the peoples inhabiting the Nile Valley. In such a section of agrarian races it is clear that over the next decade or generation war will follow conflict between the peoples about the use of the water. The nearest thing to pitting Cain against Abel in the Middle East is a shortage of water. We have seen that the proposed diverting of the Yarmuc into the Negev by the Israelis has been declared by the Syrian Government to be an act of war.

We see the problem arising between India and Pakistan over the waters of the Indus. Therefore, I would say it is fairly clear, not merely for the purposes of peace but to avoid war, that if a Nile Valley Authority could be established, this country and the whole world, especially the people of the Nile and our peoples who live in East Africa, would benefit enormously.

Finally, on this point, I believe that an international authority, a Nile Valley Authority, is the only way to prevent captious financial power politics and the intervention of such States as Russia. At the moment, we see what can be done. We can see the playing off of one against another; a captious intervention in the shape of the proposal of Russian capital which, were there a Nile Valley Authority, could quite easily be absorbed in debentures and loans—if these people really be such "do good-ers" as some would have us believe.

I know that it is difficult to put forward to peoples who have just achieved independence the idea of any surrender of sovereignty. I know that in the Sudan and in Cairo there is a natural aptitude not to surrender any part of their sovereignty at this stage. But I believe it is essential that we, as an interested Power, and as a Power with control over the head waters of the Nile— through the control of the Nile from the major equatorial lakes— could make clear that this should be done. Unfortunately, far from any idea of a Nile Valley Authority, and the Powers of the Nile Valley moving closer to the idea of an integration of policy, since 1949 we have seen a movement in precisely the contrary direction. That is why I believe it is a matter of such urgency and why I am raising the question today.

In 1949, when Her Majesty's Government agreed with Egypt on the construction of the Owen Falls project, on Lake Victoria, to supply East Africa with electricity and to build up further storage capacity on the lake, it was clear that Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian and Sudanese Governments were considering a common policy on what is, I believe, called the "multiple dam project." On 19th May, 1949, the late Mr. Ernest Bevin announced to the House that the Egyptian Government would welcome the participation of the Sudan in various projects for the control of the Nile "now under consideration." I think that the cost of these projects was a mere £ 70 million, and included the extension of the existing dam at Aswan for about £ 20 million. There were other projects which, if he is successful in catching Mr. Speaker's eye, the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) may develop further. I hope that he will go further into this matter, as he is a technician of great repute.

Since 1949, all this has changed. The multiple dam project has, for various reasons, been lost, and I believe that those reasons are as follow. The attitude of Egypt has changed. Naturally, Egypt now wishes to obtain as much of the water as she may; because, as my hon. and learned Friends will know, by international law, established water usage is a thing which cannot be contraverted. Under General Neguib, Egypt was prepared to agree with the Sudan to the sharing of the waters on a per capita basis. But since that general's incarceration, Colonel Nasser has come out with the rejection of the whole 1949 conception and the construction of this vast dam at Aswan—the policy, so to speak, of the hippopotamus or, at any rate, the hippopotamus's share of the Nile waters.

Following this, and also perhaps, the fact that the Egyptians, in their war with Israel, have spent about £70 million without a victory, the Russian intervention has taken place; and now we seem to be in the mysterious position in which the Russians and the West are competing to help Colonel Nasser. I believe this High Dam project is thoroughly bad, and destroys the whole conception of a unitary approach to the Nile waters. The capital sums proposed to be spent at Aswan on the major works alone, and without considering the necessary tributaries, amounts to about 1,300 million dollars. The previous scheme would have meant the spending of about one-fifth or one-sixth of that sum.

This will result, I believe, in difficulty about the raising of further sums for other parts of the Nile. It will mean that the Nile will be over-capitalised at one point; that the expenditure on irrigation at that point is quite irrelevant to the possible or probable cost, or probably sums of money, that the West or any other Power could find available. Even from the point of view of Egypt, it is questionable whether this scheme is advantageous. Egypt will have to find some of the money, a large part of it, in fact. But for Egypt, with her growing population—the figure may well double in the next generation—there can be no conceivable answer in the further development of irrigation.

The only way it could be met is by the industrialisation of the country; and if money is poured into the High Dam the resources available for industrialisation are absent. I believe that from her point of view, therefore, it is not in her best interests. From the point of view of the Sudan this scheme will not merely render 50,000 people homeless but, unless she is successful in her negotiations with Egypt, huge areas which could have been irrigated by smaller schemes will be left unirrigated. From the point of view of the whole Nile Valley it will establish a water use for Egypt which is, and must be, contrary to the interests of the British peoples in East Africa.

Merely from the irrigation point of view, viewing the Nile Valley as a whole, it will mean that instead of irrigating, as could have been done under the 1949 project, 1¾ million acres in Egypt and 2¾ million acres in the Sudan, at the most a mere 2 million acres will be irrigated in Egypt. Therefore, the Nile Valley as a whole, by this scheme which is costing six times what the original scheme would have cost, will be merely irrigating 2 million instead of 4½ million acres.

From the point of the United Kingdom Government, of our peoples in East Africa, and of defence, I would say that this is an important subject which should be opposed. If we have a base at Fayid which is to be reactivable— I believe that is the Foreign Office word— or reactivatable, I think it would make matters even more difficult. If I were an Egyptian politician I should be even more against reactivation of that base if I knew that there was a dam with 30 million tons of water which could wipe out the Egyptian Government if someone pressed the wrong button. Doubtless these matters have been considered by the Government.

I see that from the point of view of Colonel Nasser there is considerable advantage in building this giant dam. Mahommet Ali built the great barrage on the Delta. The Pharaohs are reported to have built the pyramids, and Nasser will build the greatest dam the world has ever seen.

However, the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and of the World Bank on this question are difficult to explain. Provided the Sudanese agree with the Egyptians— and for reasons of finding agreement on currency control, it is not impossible, however much they dislike it, that they may come to terms with the Egyptians— our commitment and that of the World Bank to the scheme is very large indeed. The World Bank, the British Government and the American Government propose that 400 million dollars should be found towards this project provided, of course, that agreement is reached between the Sudan and Egypt on the question of the high dam.

It is proposed that 200 million dollars should be found by the World Bank— and, of course, I suppose that there is a British director somewhere on the World Bank. It is proposed that 130 million dollars should be found by loans from the British and the American Governments and 70 million dollars by an Anglo-American grant or gift, of which our contribution will be 14 million dollars. At a later stage, provided the various parties agree and Nasser accepts certain financial controls, further loans will be made.

I quite understand that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, sterling balances must be repaid at some point, but I cannot see why a grant should be made to a project which is against our interests and to a country which seems hostile, and by tax payers who have been assured of a cut of £ 100 million this year in Government spending. Furthermore, there is no apparent indication from the Government to see that, at the same time as the grant is given, the Nile Waters Agreement of 1929, which is no longer in the interests of this country, should be reviewed.

When the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs was asked by me why this had been done, he declared that the Government had entered into the international negotiations for financing the Aswan High Dam because, after careful study, they believed the project to be technically sound and of great importance for the welfare of the people of Egypt. I must ask the Government who their technical advisers are. I must also ask whose welfare is more important to the Government, the welfare of the people of Egypt or of the peoples living in East Africa under the control of Her Majesty's Government. It is all very mysterious.

Looking back on the 1949 multiple dam project, one can ask this question: if, today, we are prepared to embark on a scheme costing about £ 450 million why, in 1949, were neither the World Bank nor the British Government prepared to help? There can be only one answer. The only conclusion is that the reason for this sudden offer is fear of Russian intrusion. If this is the way to deal with Russian intrusion, we should think again. This policy of outbidding Russia puts a premium on the local Governments in the various so-called underdeveloped areas to invent special departments for thinking up fantastic schemes which would win in a sort of Dutch auction either Russian or British or American support. It is really a policy of seeing how they can "do" the British taxpayer or the Russian Soviet the better or the quicker. We will have it all the way from Cape Horn to Colombo with special departments set up for swindling the Western taxpayer.

I apply the principle to the Nile. Suppose we grant this money. Suppose the Egyptians and the Sudanese agree. Suppose a great dam is built. What will the next thing be? The Russians will send an embassy down to Khartoum and say, "You want dams; we will build them for you." Suppose we then say that we will build unnecessary dams for the Sudanese, and suppose that in Kamapla independence is achieved. The Russians will go there and say to the Kabaka or his successors, "We will build a dam for you." It really is a policy which is doomed to failure.

There are two quite simple answers to this sort of Russian intervention. One is to say to them, "If you are such do-gooders and so darned rich, take a few shares in the Nile Valley authority," and we should know how to deal with that. I am sure that hon. Members who are directors of companies have good experience of how to deal with shareholders.

If that cannot be done, I suggest that we should turn to the realities of the situation and think of this problem not in economic terms, but in terms of power where such conditions do apply—and they do apply in the Nile, because we control the headwaters of the river. If we wished to do so, we could even divert the river. We could fructify lands in Tanganyika. We could do many things, and really it is time to think more in those terms.

I know that the Government are in a difficulty on this matter. They have made a pledge of assistance under certain conditions. They must be hoping that arrangements will break down between Cairo and Khartoum, and I trust that those arrangements will break down if this fantastic project is to be the outcome of them.

I would interpolate here that I think it is a pity that the onus for being disagreeable should have been put on the Sudanese Government. There should have been a clear policy on the part of this country before—a clear policy throughout—to defend and advance on the multiple dam project which is of almost equal advantage to the Egyptians as the project now envisaged.

Whether the conversations in Cairo or Khartoum break down or not, I believe that the time has come for plain speaking. I do not want to be unreasonable and to say that because of Egypt's hostility over the radio, and so forth, that the pledge that we have made should necessarily be broken, but I would say—it is not as forceful as some suggestions which have been made in the past to the effect that a gunboat should be driven up the Suez—that the time has come, in accordance with the terms of the Nile Commission of 1925, to demand an immediate review and for the setting up simultaneously of a Nile Valley Authority to which initially would belong Egypt, the Sudan, ourselves and the East African territories and into which later, one hopes, would go Abyssinia and the Belgian Congo.

We should say that now, and we should also say that unless these terms were agreed to we shall abrogate the Nile Valley Treaty of 1929 and do what we can to preserve our own interest, as the Egyptians preserve their interest, at the head waters of the river. At the head waters of the Nile we are in a position of power. Power is a terrible responsibility, but a failure to exercise it for the good of our own peoples or of our friends is the final dereliction of national duty. I ask the Government to exercise their power now.

If they do not, these Nile waters will in the next generation become a torrent of contention; who knows?—the great High Dam itself a ruin and on its broken pediments an epitaph to Nasser, the new Osiamandas, and here and there potsherds or broken palimpsests, cenotaphs relating the folly of a British Government and its slaving taxpayers.

I do not know that I can go all the way with the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), but I support what he has said about the desirability of a Nile Valley authority. As to his aspersions upon Colonel Nasser and so on, I am rather in disagreement, as will be quite evident as I go along.

At the outset, I would make it quite clear that I am speaking for myself. Lest anybody should take note of what the hon. Member said about my qualifications, evidently he has not looked them up or he would not have put me down as such a great technician as he did in his opening remarks.

As usual, I want to avoid idle repetition. Therefore I shall devote my time this morning in the main to saying something about the High Dam project, why it should not be proceeded with, and why the alternatives are of much greater advantage to Egypt. I am not really a bit concerned as to whether Egypt competes with the West and Russia for capital. My own convinced view is that if the Egyptians taxed land values they could get all they want for the purposes of putting up any dam, as has indeed been proved elsewhere. However, that is a matter for another debate; it is not a subject for today. I thought I had better work that in early in case it slipped out later without my noticing it.

I want to emphasise that I am speaking as a great friend of Egypt's. I suppose I must declare my interest. The firm of which I have had the honour to be managing director for some 30 years—perhaps some people would say that was too long—has supplied all the control apparatus for all the major works on the Nile inside Egypt since 1900. We are very proud of what the men in the works have done in turning out equipment of first-class workmanship for 50 years. The original gates are in many places still working although they are 50 years old.

Nor am I any critic of Colonel Nasser. Indeed, I am a supporter of his. As I have indicated, I think Colonel Nasser has done more for Egypt and the Government which he controls—if one calls it a Government and not a dictatorship; one can call it what one likes—than any past Government. In Colonel Nasser's period of office in the last few years more has been done for the under-dog in Egypt than throughout the whole of my experience over the last 30 years. I agree that he has not tackled the land problem properly, and I hope he will take note of what I have said in my opening remarks.

One of the things that seem to get neglected when we study the problem is that the Sudan's point of view appears so often to be ignored. I agree with what the hon. Member said. The construction of the dam will mean the flooding of some 150 kilometers upstream. The water will go back somewhere between the third and fourth cataracts. As the hon. Member said, it will mean the removal of a large number of people—the hon. Member said 50,000; I should think it is more like 70,000—from their present habitats. It will also mean the complete and permanent loss of such magnificent temples as Abu-Simbel, which is one of the finest antiquities of its kind in the world.

I want to study for a few minutes the area that will be irrigated. It seems to me that that has a good deal to do with the question. Is it really true, and have Her Majesty's Government satisfied themselves about that, that 2 million more acres of good land really will be irrigated? From my knowledge of the place, I should have thought that it was more likely to be a case of double crops for about 300,000 acres and probably 1 million acres of swamp in lower Egypt being drained and irrigated.

Here comes the landlord again. Having borrowed the money from the International Bank and/or from ourselves or and/or from the Russians as well, all that will really happen will be that the money will be spent and the landlord will scoop the pool. That is surely why it is so necessary that when making arrangements of this kind the authorities concerned at the other end should be urged to introduce a really proper system of land taxation.

What I find bewildering when studying the problem is that there do not seem to be any comprehensive maps issued, nor does there seem to be any real indication of where this land lies. Two million acres is, of course, a considerable area. The total cultivatable area in Egypt is only some 7·8 million acres, and it requires about 60 milliards of water to have it properly irrigated.

The objections to the High Dam scheme can be quite simply summarised in four or five statements. First, it will cost about £400 million, and it seems absurd to spend that money on drowning a large area of the Sudan when one can spend about one-third of the amount, as I shall explain in a minute, and not drown the Sudan and get very nearly as much water.

I have spoken about the 70,000 people who will be displaced and who will have to be resettled somewhere near, I suppose, the junction of the Atbara and the Nile further south. But no one has explained how Egypt will service the debt. Unless it is to be a free gift, the service alone will cost about £17 million a year, which is more than £1 per head of the population, a considerable sum. This would make a very large hole in Egypt's exportable surplus, if indeed she has a suitable exportable surplus at the present time. It does not seem apparent to those who have studied her balance of trade.

I have always been brought up with the idea that, almost, the lifeblood of Egypt is the silt which comes down in the floods from the Blue Nile and the Atbara. The intention is to build a solid dam. Whatever hon. Members may say about the bombs of the future, they must remember that this will be a very solid affair, and I doubt whether a bomb would upset it very much. It will not be like the dams in Germany; there will be no mechanical structure in it at all. Everything mechanical will be under about 200 ft. of solid granite.

But what is going to happen behind the solid dam is that all the silt in the floods of the Atbara and the Blue Nile will settle and none of it, or very little—the estimate is about 10 to 15 per cent.— will ever get to Egypt at all. I have not discovered anybody in Egypt who has anything to do with agriculture who thinks this is a good project. I know that it is claimed in the Reports that only the Basin irrigation is helped by the silt, but that is not true. If we talk to the farmers in Egypt we find that they are always most anxious to get what they call the early flood water, because that has most of the silt in it and a higher proportion of its manurial properties.

It seems to me absolutely crazy to build, as undoubtedly will be built, in support of the dam a canal from the South— that is also part of the multiple dam scheme and also applies to the High Dam— for the purpose of saving 5 milliards of water, pouring the water into an enormous reservoir behind the High Dam which is so vast in extent that about 12 milliards will evaporate. Moreover, such a dam will cost £ 400 million today, including the attendant works.

It seems equally crazy to go in for this adventure and by so doing to keep all the silt from reaching Egypt. Presumably, one would then say, "Since you are no longer getting the manurial properties out of the water, we will generate electricity for the purpose of making artificial manure to compensate you for your loss." Like many people, I think the poison produced by Imperial Chemical Industries ought to be stopped, but that is precisely what we are going to perpetuate in Egypt as a result of this adventure—we are going to poison all the people's food.

One of the other bad things which will happen as a result of all this is on what they call the berms of the Nile— the area between the flood level of the Nile and the ordinary low level, the top of the bank and the bottom, as it were, which amounts to about 300,000 to 500,000 acres of very valuable agricultural land from which the people get considerable crops. What is to happen to all that? Presumably it will be dry and will go out of cultivation.

If we sum up all the arguments, from the water point of view, the result of the High Aswan Dam project will be the evaporation of between 10 milliards and 12 milliards of water a year, and a Sudd Channel—in an attempt to save 5 milliards of water; a total of flow of about 80 milliards, when Egypt needs 60 milliards; and then, having saved one-twelfth of the total, we proceed to lose one-fifth of it behind the High Aswan Dam. If that is not crazy economics, I do not know what is.

I should like to know who were the authorities who advised both the Government and the International Bank that this project is in Egypt's interests, because I do not believe it is. I make these remarks this morning purely as a friend of Egypt.

The alternative to the High Dam is quite simple. It involves building a small dam at Lake Albert for storage purposes and building a channel through the Sudd area or Sudd swamps to carry the water and avoid evaporation. That is known as the Jonglei Canal scheme. I travelled through all this territory years ago and know pretty well what it is like.

It means building a High Dam at Merowe, which is just below the Fourth Cataract, chiefly for flood control, but also for summer storage. It means making use of the Wadi Rayan project in the area about 60 or 70 miles South of Cairo, on the West bank of the Nile, for the purpose of storing water which in the summer period will feed the whole of the Delta area. Coupled with that is the barrage at Beni Suef, a little further South, about a hundred miles South of Cairo, at a cost of about £40 million.

If all this is summed up—the channel through the Sudd, the Lake Albert Dam, the High Dam at Merowe, the Wadi Rayan project—the total at today's figure would be about £150 million to £200 million. By this scheme we should lose no land at all in the Sudan and should get pretty well all the water we required. In addition, the silt would continue to come down into Egypt. In fact, this scheme was drawn up and approved in the 1934–38 period by the Egyptian Government and passed by the Council of Ministers. Since then it has been on the shelf.

I am reminded that the Wadi Rayan project is very much like the Wadi Tharthar scheme which has just been completed in Iraq, by which the flood waters of the Tigris have this year been successfully led off so that they did not flood Baghdad. They are stored in the Wadi Tharthar area and can ultimately be led back into the Tigris or the Euphrates, as the case may be, when the rivers are at low level. The Wadi Rayan project would work in the same way and would be of enormous benefit to Egypt as a whole and to Lower Egypt in particular.

When we examine the reasons advanced for pushing on with the High Aswan scheme I think we shall find that they are based on a fallacy. I believe that what has happened is that the technical people who have gone into it have been asked to assume that they must provide sufficient storage for the worst possible years. That, again, is a crazy approach, because it is bound to involve an enormous capital cost. The last really bad year was 1913, and there have been only three years like that in the last 900 years. It looks as though this scheme has been based on 1913 and, in consequence, the enormous cost is apparently made acceptable because of the assurance of water.

I believe that the difference between what can be gained by the High Dam scheme and that which would naturally come out of the multiple dam scheme is so little, except in the very rare years—once in 300 years—as to make the multiple dam scheme far more advantageous to Egypt.

I was told with great pride the other day by some technicians— I will not say who they were— that this would be a magnificent show, that the power station at the new Aswan Dam would be 200 feet below the surface of the granite and that it did not matter what sort of bomb was dropped on it since the power station would still remain. I replied, "What is the use of that? if they drop a hydrogen bomb on Cairo there will be nobody left to make use of the power. It does not make sense."

It will be twenty years before this scheme is completed. Surely the authorities ought to reflect that in 20 years' time expensive hydro-electric schemes of this kind will be out of date with the arrival of atomic power and nuclear energy. l should have thought that this project would be about as old-fashioned as my grandmother's bonnet is today. I think the days of hydro-electric schemes are numbered and that the new developments which are taking place, schemes of this kind, will never be contemplated in the years to come; and that long before this dam has been completed, those who are responsible for pushing the project will regret that they ever did so. I hope that Her Majesty's Government and the International Bank will think again and examine a little more closely what is involved before they let the Egyptian Government carry out this project.

I think we should all be very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) for raising this matter, because it is a most important one; and despite the thin attendance this morning, this is a rather important debate.

It also raises a very difficult question. It is difficult because it is hard to determine by what principles our decision whether to give our support to this project or not should be governed. I am not a technician, but I find the arguments which my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) have put forward on the technical side extremely strong. I hope that when the Joint Under-Secretary of State comes to reply, he will be able to say something which can allay the very grave doubts about the practicability of the scheme to which both these speeches must have given rise. But, in any case, even if the Government were right to believe that the scheme is technically sound, I am still not quite sure that we should go ahead with it, for one or two reasons which I wish to put forward.

Before the war, when we were responsible for the political destiny of the whole of the Nile Valley, including Egypt, the Sudan and Uganda, we were in a position to judge a scheme of this kind simply on its technical merits; but that is not the case today. We are now one of the interested parties to the scheme, in so far as we represent Uganda. Nor do I think that we can altogether divest ourselves of responsibility for the interests of the Sudan. It is true that we have given the Sudan independence, but, if some of us think that that independence was granted prematurely, that is all the more reason why we should take an active concern in defending Sudanese interests in a matter of such vital importance to that country.

There is another consideration of a rather more general character. Capital for development is not unlimited in the West, and, in deciding whether we should spend and encourage others to spend very large sums on capital development projects in Egypt, we should consider whether they should have priority over others in the world. There are very big development plans, either in the process of coming into operation or still on paper, in parts of the Commonwealth and in other friendly countries, for which there will be a crying need for capital before they are completed. There is the Volta scheme in the Gold Coast and the Kariba scheme in Rhodesia. There are a great many of these schemes. Should Egypt. therefore, have priority?

Against our responsibilities for Uganda, and to a lesser extent for the Sudan, and against our overall responsibilities to the Commonwealth and to other friendly countries, we have to weigh the needs of Egypt. The need of Egypt is, to some extent— and we can say it and be proud of it— the result of British achievements in Egypt over a period of 75 years. The improvements in administration, in medicine and so on which we have introduced into that country have led to an increase in population and to the pressure of that population on the means of subsistence, which in itself has created an extremely serious new problem. Although immense improvements have taken place in Egypt in the last 75 years, the value of these improvements to the individual Egyptian have been very largely cancelled by the growth in the rate of the population. This has also produced in its turn a large, and in a way rather dangerous, intelligentsia for which there is no suitable or sufficiently remunerative employment. This presents us with a great human problem which will be obvious to all hon. Members.

But that is not all. The presence of these social and economic problems in Egypt and the grim conditions of the working classes and the intellectual classes together create a most serious political situation. It means that in Egypt explosive forces are being generated, which tend to drive every Government in Egypt in turn into expansionist policies and tend to produce an emigration of Egyptian intellectuals to other countries, carrying with them that general climate of discontent which has been boiling up in Egypt for some time. You cannot build a hospital in Kuwait without staffing it with Egyptian doctors or a new school in Aden without Egyptian schoolmasters being called in. If you build a new radio station in Amman, Egyptian technicians will be needed. In each case the discontent is spread.

If it were the case that the Aswan Dam project was technically sound, and if by supporting it the growing social and economic tensions inside Egypt could be to some extent resolved, I think most of us would feel that there was a very strong case for going ahead with the dam. And this in spite of the evidence we must weigh very carefully, supporting the claims of the Commonwealth and of other friendly nations against those of Egypt. I think my own leanings have always been in favour of Commonwealth development rather than developments in countries which are not in the Commonwealth; but the importance to us of a friendly Egypt, from the point of view of the security of our interests in the Middle East, is such that, if the technical basis was sound, I would myself have been tempted to support the scheme. Indeed, I have never opposed it, but on one occasion have said a few words in favour of it.

But between these evenly balanced claims there is a decisive consideration. In the ideal state of the brotherhood of man, which some hon. Members opposite preach, the guiding principle was to be "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." In the rather more turbulent world in which we live, before the brotherhood of man is reached, that principle has, I understand, become not "To each according to his need" but "To each according to his work"; that is to say, according to the contribution that he makes. We have to ask ourselves before going ahead with this scheme whether the Egyptian Government themselves are making a contribution both towards the solution of their own problems and towards the solution of the general difficulties of the Middle East.

I have never mistaken Colonel Nasser as a latter-day Sidney Webb. That was one of the reasons why I opposed the Suez Agreement as much as I did. Nevertheless, when the agreement over the base was concluded, I hoped that we might be friends, and I was therefore myself prepared to agree that, the technical considerations being equal, there might be something to be said for supporting the Egyptian view over the Aswan Dam. I do not find that I can take that view any longer, and I do not think that I am alone in this respect. I think it is the growing opinion of all parties in the House, even though it has not yet been said by the right hon. Member for Ipswich, that Colonel Nasser's contribution to Middle Eastern affairs has been increasingly a negative contribution. To that extent, we are all in the Suez Group now.

Let us look at the milestones of Colonel Nasser's conduct in the years since we made such great concessions to him— since we concluded the agreements over the Sudan and the Suez Canal. There is still no freedom of shipping through the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba, despite the ruling of the United Nations. All Colonel Nasser's diplomacy and propaganda remain directed against Britain in the Persian Gulf, in Aden, against the Bagdad Pact, against Israel and against our French Allies in North Africa.

And in Zanzibar.

Yes, and in Zanzibar. Soviet arms have been accepted, together with a good deal of Soviet advice. Nor has Colonel Nasser been making any contribution of a substantial character in the last two or three years towards improving the lot of his own people. There was a land reform, which did not get very far, and not much has been done since the land was redistributed to make sure that the peasants who were given the land were enabled to work it. The cotton crop has been exported very largely to the Soviet Union and used to pay for the aeroplanes, the tanks and the guns sent from behind the Iron Curtain, so that the wretched peasantry are worse off today than at any time under Farouk or under the Wafd. They are not getting the food, they are not getting even the consumer goods that they were getting formerly, precisely because the cotton crop which used to be sold abroad to buy things for the consumer is now being sold to buy arms. It is, indeed, a question of gulls rather than butter. And the people are taxed to maintain a Government which has neither the sanction of tradition nor of popular elections.

For this House of Commons to decide to subsidise this Egyptian regime to build the Aswan Dam would be, in my view, to relieve the Nasser regime to some extent of the responsibility it should be undertaking to solve the social and economic tensions in their own country, and to free Colonel Nasser's hand to continue his present career of aggression. If we did that we should be encouraging him to escape from his own problems and helping him on in his present course. It is quite clear, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone, that we were led into the doubtful project of supporting the Aswan Dam scheme from fear that the Soviet might do it if we did not. Fear is a bad counsellor in these matters, and this is a kind of danegeld which we are asked to pay. It will follow the pattern of the old danegeld— if we pay up they will come again to ask for more.

I do not understand why on earth we should be so anxious to prevent the Russians from burning their fingers in Egypt at the end of communications that they cannot support. The more the Russians got involved there, the happier I should be— and the worse off they would be.

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman raises a slightly different point.

If Colonel Nasser changed his tune, or if we got a friendly Government in Egypt again, things might be different; and there have been friendly Governments in Egypt. I do not think that anybody who was there in 1942 will forget the magnificent and spontaneous co-operation we got from the Wafdist Government of Nahas Pasha when Rommel was at the gate of Alexandria. In such circumstances, and always supposing that the technical argument was in favour of the scheme, the present course might be justifiable, but in the present circumstances I can see no case for over-riding the objections of the Sudan or for giving development in a hostile country priority over development in our own Commonwealth. To help Colonel Nasser build the Aswam Dam is to fasten still further the present military despotism on the back of the people of Egypt and to nourish a regime bent on our destruction in the Middle East—a régime which may still lead to the predominance of Communism in that area.

I believe that this project is really a hangover from the days when we thought — not I, certainly, but the Government thought— that Colonel Nasser might prove to be another Sidney Webb. I hope therefore that the Government will now bring this particular factor of their old Middle Eastern policy into line with the more robust policy, they have recently adopted. I hope they will withdraw their support from this scheme, use their influence with the Americans to the same end, and make it quite clear that this whole question could be discussed again only if Egypt changed its tune and if there was a Government there which had due regard for the interests of its own people and the cause of peace in the Middle East.

For once I can go a long way with the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), but I do feel that this debate should not be used as a peg on which to hang any attacks—overt or covert—on Colonel Nasser and the Egyptian régime. And I part company with the hon. Member when he misquotes or mangles Marx to the extent of saying "to each according to his work." I do hope that he will except old-age pensioners in this particular context.

Debates on Fridays are usually a little tedious. Lawyers make holiday with legislation, or future legislation, and one is a little bored, but this morning we do owe an enormous debt to the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) for his bold and imaginative approach to this subject. His was a forthright and a breezy speech, and there was a lot of meat in it, and I want to address myself to one or two of the things he said, particularly in the light of what may or may not happen about the waters of Lake Victoria and the enormous significance the future establishment of a Nile Valley Authority could have for people, black and white alike, in Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanganyika and Kenya. It is a bold and imaginative project. The conservation of the waters of the Nile opens up an exciting future for the people of those parts.

The hon. Member for Stafford and Stone spoke of Soviet financial intervention. I am the last man to allow fear of Soviet intervention in any way to daunt me, but I want to say that the hon. Member's speech this morning lined up with the admirable address delivered in New York by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in which he spoke of international joint co-operative aid, particularly financial aid to backward -and dependent peoples. Such peoples are suspicious of the old-fashioned individualist, capitalist, interventionist economies, and it is extremely important, if we do spend large sums of money in that way, that the aid should be known to be completely untrammelled and not tied with any political or national strings. The future of the world lies, I am sure, in Colombo Plans and in Tennessee Valley Authorities and such like. We should have not only a Jordon Valley Authority in Israel but a Nile Valley Authority in East Africa.

I have in my hands a Blue Book which is not so famous as it should be-the East Africa Royal Commission Report, 1953–55. I think I can claim to be one of the few people inside or outside the House who have read it from cover to cover. I hope that the Minister has read it—but I will say no more about that. I trust that both this book and the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) this morning will be studied closely, not merely by the Egyptians but by the Ethiopians and the people of Uganda, Tanganyika and Kenya. More and more the future of those people in the headwaters of the valleys depends on the actions of those down below, so to speak, in the valleys.

I will say this much about Colonel Nasser. His actions lately have not been too helpful, nor have those of any of the Arab people whose territories lie North of our Colonies in the Nile Valley. I have only to instance the shameful and scandalous action of the Saudi-Arabian Government in expelling the Desert Locust Commission at Jiddah. Not only does unfriendly action in connection with the headwaters affect all the East African peoples, but so also does this stupid expulsion of that Commission. If not checked, locusts can mean a plague, and famine and death to many people in East Africa and also Ethiopia.

I want to say just a word about the significance of the supply of water in and about Lake Victoria. The Germans, who at one time occupied Tanganyika, were not such bad colonial administrators as some have alleged. I do not go any way with them in their flogging of the Herreros and their shooting of the "Maji-Majis" at the beginning of the century. but they were honest in what they did and said as to their economic imperialist activities. In that regard they called a spade a spade, and were ingenuous enough not only to call a spade a spade in that regard but to call conquest conquest and force force, which is what a lot of others did not do in East Africa.

Amongst other ideas, they had a most stimulating and imaginative scheme for piping off the waters of Lake Victoria into what we now call Sukumaland. I understand that the plans are still there — and not only those but a lot of other plans which are printed in this Blue Book which I have in my hand. But no one can move in Tanganyika, Uganda, or anywhere else, can do anything to drain the swamps in Uganda or Sukumaland or undertake land irrigation by piped water schemes without looking at the 1929 Agreement with Egypt. Therefore, it is very important for the future economic

development of East Africa that we really do adopt some of the ideas advanced by the hon. Member for Stafford and Stone, get together with the Egyptians and the others and have a new settlement of the whole of this ideological and water problem in East Africa.

It is an old saying that soil fertility is one of the basic assets of any country. I would add that water is the catalyst without which it cannot be used. If we have soil fertility and soils which are basically usable and exploitable, we must take the water to them. I could quote many extracts from this Blue Book of the East African Royal Commission relating to schemes which are lying waiting to be developed. We cannot do it until we have something in the way of a Nile Authority, a joint considered effort by Ethiopia, in addition to the Egyptians and the Sudanese, and along with Uganda. They must get together with the Belgians in the Congo to utilise for the common good this enormously valuable supply of water which is pent up in Lake Victoria, which emerges at the dam at Jinja and flows out to the Mediterranean Sea.

I am sure that the whole House will be indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) for initiating this important and timely debate.

We have had some frank speaking this morning. The High Dam project has been blown sky high, and the Government will have to do a lot of explaining why they appear to give their blessing to this project especially at a time when Egypt is engaged in waging a vicious campaign directed against British interests and influence in the Middle East.

It is not unnatural for some people to believe that since we control the headwaters of the Nile, we hold the whip hand and we should use it. I do not think that there is an hon. Member in this House who would subscribe to that view. I certainly reject it myself. It has always been recognised by this country, especially in the days when we had responsibility for the administration of Egypt and the Sudan, that the Nile waters are not just a major factor of importance to the people of Egypt. They are the source of life itself. After all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) reminded us, the population that lives in Egypt today owes an enormous debt to the British engineers who developed their great water system.

Having said that, however, this is clearly a matter which does not touch the interests of Egypt or, indeed, of the Sudan alone. It concerns Ethiopia, British East Africa and the Belgian Congo. Indeed, the situation has changed dramatically since the Nile Waters Agreement, 1929, was concluded. That agreement, the House will probably know, laid down that no irrigation or power works should be carried out on the Nile or any of its tributaries or in any of the lakes under British control without prior consultation with Egypt. Thus, it would appear that the Egyptians have the power of veto upon any irrigation works which we might carry out not only in Uganda, but in Kenya and Tanganyika as well.

I do not believe that either the people of this country or Parliament want that situation to continue. I suspect that it is wholly unacceptable to the Governments of East Africa and that those Governments have represented the matter in that sense to Her Majesty's Government.

Enormous changes have swept over East Africa since the Nile Waters Agreement was concluded more than a quarter of a century ago. First, population has increased enormously. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone said that by the end of this century the population of the whole Nile valley would probably have doubled. I am in no position to argue about that, but I remember that Sir Philip Mitchell, in his famous dispatch of 1951, estimated that the population of British East Africa was increasing in certain areas at the rate of 2 per cent. per annum, and that it would double itself not by the end of the century but within 35 years-that is to say, within 30 years from now.

The second change which has swept over this region is that the importance of irrigation, which was hardly considered in 1929, as a means of improving agriculture and raising the standard of living of the African peasants, is now recognised fully. The East African Royal Commission Report, to which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) made a brief reference, makes it plain, first, that the lack of developed water supplies is a major factor in preventing the use of the region's otherwise productive resources of land and labour and, secondly, that the three basic interlocking requirements for the proper development of East Africa are food, water and communications.

The third change which we should take into consideration in thinking about this matter is that all three East African territories have grown up since 1929. They now exercise considerable control over their own affairs. Uganda is approaching self-government, and as a sovereign State would hardly thank us for having failed to defend its interests while it still remained a dependency of the United Kingdom. In Tanganyika, we have special responsibilities in this matter not only to the people of Tanganyika, but to the whole world through the United Nations.

I suggest, in the light of the Royal Commission's Report, that the time is now ripe for a comprehensive survey of the water resources and likely irrigation requirements of the three East African territories. I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether consideration has been given to that matter. I would like him to consider the suggestion that until such a survey is completed we should enter into no further negotiations in connection with the High Dam project.

It is quite clear from what has been said this morning that there is only one solution to the problem, and that is the establishment of an international Nile Valley authority which pays regard to the interests of the peoples concerned.

A bit of practical planning.

Certainly. There are plenty of precedents. Water not only divides; it unites. There are plenty of examples in the past where in times of great international stress and strain it has been possible for great and small Powers to come together to control navigation or the flow of waters.

Undoubtedly, there is tremendous sympathy and understanding in this country for the position of the new Sudanese Republic. I was astonished to read in The Times of 16th April, however, that the Sudanese Prime Minister agreed that Her Majesty's Government had made representations to the effect that Uganda ought to be admitted to any negotiations between Great Britain and Egypt on the subject of the High Dam but that when he was asked whether he approved of the idea of an international authority he is reported to have said, "I would rather confine it to Egypt and the Sudan".

I respectfully suggest that unwillingness to recognise the changed and changing status of the important African State of Uganda would be as foolish on the part of the Sudan as unwillingness on the part of Egypt to recognise the special interests and needs of the Sudan. If this is to be the attitude of the two major users of Nile waters, then I submit that it would be madness to plunge any further into the High Dam project. It is an astonishing thing that we should even have contemplated going into this project without first making it a condition that the Nile Waters Agreements of 1929, which we have faithfully observed, should, by international agreement, be replaced by a new understanding, and the creation of an international authority responsible, if thought necessary, to the United Nations.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not underestimate the strength of feeling on this subject both in the House and outside, and in the British territories in East Africa. Indeed, I doubt that he will, because, from past experience, I know what great understanding he has shown in these matters and what knowledge he possesses of the regions concerned. I hope he will not hesitate to tell the House this morning exactly where Her Majesty's Government stand in the matter.

The case for an international authority is unanswerable. Unless the whole Nile Valley, from the Lake Victoria basin, is treated as one hydrological unit, the allocation of waters being governed by one authority, and seen to be fair by all concerned, then great ill consequences will flow. As things stand, about half the water which flows into Egypt— according to my information, 30,000 million tons— is wasted. In the Southern Sudan, where the Nile wends it way sluggishly through the swamps, enormous quantities are wasted through evaporation.

Fifty per cent. of the White Nile.

Yes. Indeed, the view might prevail, not only in East Africa but here, that in the absence of effective and proper water control lower down in Egypt and the Sudan, we have no right whatsoever—Nile Waters Agreement or no—to retard the proper water development of East Africa. All water engineers and all great experts on the subject are agreed that the problem cannot be tackled piecemeal, but only as a whole.

I do not know who suggested the High Dam project in the first place. I hope my hon. Friend will let us into the secret; I hope he will tear away the veils which have enshrouded this business from the very start, and tell us who advised this project. when it is quite clear that vast quantities of water will be wasted if it is put into operation.

Clearly, the wisest course to take is to treat the great lakes, Lake Victoria, Lake Kyoga, Lake Albert, and Lake Tana, in Ethiopia, as vast natural reservoirs and great storage units. That is the solution, as every expert I have ever consulted or read on the subject agrees. But, since such a proposal would raise the level of Lake Victoria by at least four feet and would submerge African tribal lands in the most densely populated parts of East Africa, the interests of East African peoples are self-evident.

The problem is not insuperable. The Nile Waters Agreement itself, within its limitations, has worked remarkably well. In general, these matters are governed by technical considerations, the agreements being drawn up by technical men. I am certain that there is still among the responsible technical people in Egypt, in the Sudan, and in this country, a great measure of mutual good will, and I feel sure that if it is possible to proceed along the lines of an international authority we would relieve tension enormously. I hope my hon. Friend will make it quite clear this morning that there will be no further movement towards the High Dam project by the United Kingdom Govern- ment until the concept of an international authority is accepted by all the Powers concerned.

I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to this debate he will be able to gratify the wish of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) that this scheme should not be proceeded with, or at least that scarce British resources will not be squandered upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) did not want to be a critic of Colonel Nasser, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, when he is not speaking for himself, would agree that the present revolutionary dictatorship in Cairo is not the sort of Government upon which we can depend.

My experience of Egypt has been that no Government has lasted more than a year, until this one.

That may be so; but we are at present dealing with this Government which has lasted rather longer than some of the Governments which have preceded it, and it is a Government which has shown to the world that its word cannot be depended upon. It has broken the spirit and the letter of the Agreement which we signed with it in 1954. It has broken the spirit by accepting aircraft and arms from the Soviet bloc, and it has broken the letter by continuing to deny freedom of navigation in the Suez Canal, which it was pledged to grant under the Constantinople Convention of 1888, and which it reaffirmed in the Suez Agreement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) has shown that it is folly to undertake this project for a Government which is compelled inexorably to expand, and expand at our expense. It is not a question of the ambition of the self-styled Saladin of Cairo; the facts and population figures are such that his Government is bound to try to break out in expansion or aggression. When Bonaparte was in Egypt the population was 2.5 million. At the first census in 1897 the population exceeded 9 million. The census of 1947 showed a population of 19 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) has spoken of a probable doubling of the population in the next generation.

It is said that if we build this parvenu Pharaoh his great pyramid, then he will be able to feed the fellaheen, he will be able to make the desert blossom, and he will beat his scimitars into ploughshares. But even if this project is carried out, and I hope it will not be, the effect will not be immediate. It may, perhaps, be a matter of 10 years before it has any effect on the economy of Egypt. The danger of Egyptian expansion and Egyptian aggression is immediate.

It is sometimes said that the heart of Colonel Nasser will be touched if we do this for him. We had our hopes of the Agreement of 1954, but those hopes have been dashed. Again it is said that if we do not help him to build this High Dam at Aswan the Russians will do it for him. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) did not mind if that happened. Perhaps there is something in that; but it is quite certain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone and other hon. Members on both sides have made clear, that the power is in our hands and the sources of the Nile are not in Egypt.

My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East referred to a number of African territories which have a better claim to our consideration in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North referred also to the Volta scheme. One has only to spend a day or two in the Gold Coast to be aware of the great importance which this emergent Dominion of Ghana attaches to that huge project. I hear—I hope it is not true—that some of those concerned in the Volta project are beginning to have doubts whether they should go forward with it.

I would say that the first claim to projects of this kind must be the claim of territories for which we are responsible. A better claim is the claim of the Sudan, which my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary knows so well— the Sudan which, I believe, he loves so much. It is the best policy and it is also good morality that in these as in other matters we should stand by our friends. We should stand by and support those who are most likely to restrain and resist the forces of aggression in the Middle East and in Africa.

I believe that if we make that our policy we may hope to see an improvement in the regime in Cairo; or it may be, as the right hon. Member for Ipswich has said, that Governments there do not last very long. If, however, we do not see an improvement but if we stand firm by our friends, it is possible that we shall see the present regime replaced by a saner and more stable Egyptian Government, less harmful to the people of Egypt, to the world interests of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, to the progress of Africa and to the peace of the Middle East.

It is often said that those who drink the water of the Nile return to drink it again, and I think that everybody who has spoken in this debate so far has drunk the water of the Nile on many occasions, not always unmixed with something else. I know that many of them have returned to drink it quite recently. My hon. Friends who have spoken from this side of the House and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who has been for so many years such a good friend of that country, have done a great deal in putting forward some of the points which I propose to answer this morning.

I have had the privilege of seeing the Nile twice in the last five months and of visiting it last only about two weeks ago. I flew over the upper reaches of the Blue Nile and saw the first red water containing the silt, about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, starting to come down for yet another Nile flood.

My visit to the Middle East on that occasion underlined the importance of what one of my hon. Friends said of water throughout the world and particularly in that area. There are the three different types of country: those who have rainfall and probably a certain amount of irrigation; those which, like Egypt, are almost entirely dependent upon irrigation and, in this case, on the River Nile; and those which have neither. They may have oil, but if they are without water there is a considerable limitation on what can be done in their development.

We know of the importance of water for irrigation and also for hydroelectricity, on which the right hon. Gentleman is a great expert. Whether or not, in the long run, it will be possible to undertake power developments on atomic energy with uranium, which is, I suppose, a wasting source in the world, whereas the water is renewed by Allah annually in the same way as the things that grow on the land, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I will be old enough to see whether his forecast is right. I believe, however, that in the immediate future we must look to hydro-electricity as a source of power in the area which we have been discussing.

In the eight countries which I visited in the last month, I found a most friendly reception wherever I went. I often think that if only one could get as friendly a return when saying "Good morning" to people in the streets of London as one gets in the streets of most Middle Eastern countries, it would be a far more friendly place.

When hon. Members have spoken of the Nile waters, they have spoken in some respects as if it is a matter for Governments, hydrologists and the like, but it is an age-old problem that we face in the Middle East, particularly in Egypt, which has no rainfall. It is the people of these countries that must interest all of us in this House, as they have done in the past, especially during the 70 years of cooperation between the people and Governments of this country and the peoples and Governments of the Nile Valley. Whether it is the High Dam or the other series of dams, or both together, as I believe will be the case in due course, these most important projects are for the benefit of the peoples of these countries and not for the benefit of any one Government, whether it is lasting or not.

I do not suppose that there is any series of projects which will carry so much benefit to the ordinary man, woman and child in the fields and in the towns of the area as the series of developments which we have been discussing this morning. As has often been pointed out, the population of Africa will probably double at least before the end of the century, and the question of where we are to get a doubled food supply, quite apart from anything else, is a problem that must concern all of us. I should first, therefore, like to answer one or two of the specific points which hon. Members have raised and then make some general remarks and fit them within that framework.

The experts who advised that the High Dam was sound were of many nationalities, including advisers of the World Bank and of British firms, among others. I do not have the details with me, but if any hon. Member is interested in pursuing the point I will certainly let him have such details as I possess.

Was it economic as well as engineering advice? I do not dispute the latter.

It was both together. The right hon. Gentleman knows far more about the consulting engineering side than I do. It was not simply a snap decision, but was the result of years of study and exploration by consulting engineers and others of the best way for the Egyptians to use the water that comes in.

My hon. Friend said "for the Egyptians." That, surely, is the point. Does he mean the Egyptians alone and not necessarily other peoples?

I am coming to that.

What we are discussing over the High Dam is the use of the water that reaches the borders of Egypt. East Africa will not be affected by what Egypt does with that water. The picture has to be put in its setting, but the High Dam is what Egypt proposes to do with the water which reaches her borders.

The cost of the Dam and of the civil works will be less than one-quarter of the total cost of £ 400 million which has been mentioned. The rest will go on irrigation, which would be needed under any scheme, compensation, electric power, and so on.

What will be the cost for the electric power?

I am sorry, I cannot give the figures offhand. The scheme will make water available after five years, whereas the other overall schemes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred would not yield benefit for nearly 15 years.

Silt is a matter of controversy; it clogs channels and is expensive to dredge. Personally, I am on the right hon. Gentleman's side on the question of silt, but there is, however, another side to the picture. So, in many ways, fertilisers are better than the silt and, as he mentioned, the Aswan scheme will produce that.

One other relatively small but important point, because it affects the whole of this High Dam discussion, is the right hon. Gentleman's proposal for a land tax. That might raise the money internally, but it would not provide the foreign exchange, which is the main reason why the Egyptian authorities approached the World Bank and ourselves, among others, in order to discuss this problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) asked whether consideration was given to comprehensive water use and needs in East Africa, and the reply to that was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) on 21st March, 1956. Three East African Governments are now looking at this question of the use of water and their needs, and we hope to have their views on that by the autumn, when we can then go to the other Governments concerned and discuss in more detail plans for the future.

The Nile waters and the Nile as a whole have been of great interest to Parliament for about 70 years, and I think that one can claim with pride the association of this country with the tremendous developments which have taken place during that period in the Nile valley. But, as has been pointed out, more than a quarter of the average annual flow of the Nile escapes unused to the sea; and restrictions have to be placed on the use of the water at certain places and at certain times of the year because this water is not kept, as it were, in reserve.

Engineers have worked out great projects for harnessing the water and irrigating the land so as to settle more people on it. But before any of this big development can be undertaken, the countries through which the Nile and its various branches flow must agree how to share the waters. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East said that this work has been carried out with great good feeling between the technical branches of the various Government Departments concerned.

As for the High Dam, which we have been discussing this morning, I think that one might recall with pride that Sir Murdoch Macdonald, who reached his ninetieth birthday about a week ago, and who was a Member of this House for so long, played a prominent part in the building of the original dam at Aswan and thus made made use of the water in Egypt.

This is the best known of the many schemes which have been put before the Governments concerned in the development of the Nile Valley; but I think that the point about this one is that it is planned to provide complete over-year storage of the Nile waters reaching Egypt, so that when all the irrigation works in Egypt are complete none of the river's flow into Egypt will remain unused.

Can my hon. Friend explain—he has not done so yet—why it is that the views of the East African Governments on this subject and the survey which they are now undoubtedly carrying out was not ascertained before a blessing was given to the High Dam project?

I do not think that it really affects the co-operation or the likely co-operation in the future. The East African Governments are putting their proposals forward and when they are complete we shall approach the other Governments. I have no reason to believe that we are likely to run into great difficulties over reaching agreement.

Is the hon. Gentleman then claiming that the High Dam project will bring a material difference in the amount of water that would be stored as compared with the project which I described as the Wadi Rayan project?

Without notice 1 cannot answer that point. I will look into it and let the right hon. Gentleman know. This is one of the things which is argued about between the experts and has been for a number of years. His remarks in this House will, I have no doubt, be taken note of in Egypt by the experts and others, and 1 hope that they will take his views into account, and that when next he goes there he may find that they have modified their scheme.

The dam and all its associated works may cost altogether over £ 400 million and take 15 to 20 years— virtually a generation-to complete. It is not a question of helping this or that regime, but this project is vital to Egypt with its growing population. It will increase the total acreage which can be brought under cultivation by over 20 per cent. and make other improvements possible—a factor of the utmost importance in a country where the population is still expanding rapidly.

What is the acreage?

I cannot say. It is a complicated matter. It is not only a question of acreage increase, but also a question of more crops a year off a certain amount of acreage.

Another point which I would like to stress is that firms of many countries have already shown themselves interested in the project, including British, French and German. It was a German firm that carried out the original survey. A British firm of consulting engineers have been engaged, and negotiations have been continuing for many months, involving the British and American Governments as well as the International Bank, to work out financial arrangements. Her Majesty's Government have very much in mind the importance of seeing that British firms have adequate opportunity to participate in this international enterprise.

The position now is that last December the United States and the British Governments informed Egypt that they would assist the Egyptian Government by means of grants towards developing the foreign exchange costs of the first stages of the work, and an assurance was given that the United States and United Kingdom Governments would, subject to legislative authority, be prepared to consider sympathetically, in the light of the then existing circumstances, further support in financing the later stages to supplement the financing by the International Bank. The Egyptian Government considered our proposals and those of the International Bank, and they made certain counter-suggestions. We and the United States Government are now considering these counter-suggestions and, in due course, any financing arrangements involving a grant will come before the House in the ordinary way.

I should like to say a word or two about the Sudan, because, naturally, Her Majesty's Government have given much thought to the position of the Sudan, for which we were until so recently responsible, and with which we have so many friendly ties. The Sudan Government have stated their own attitude to the High Aswan Dam project. They will agree to it on three conditions. First, there should be an agreed division of the Nile waters. Secondly, the Sudan should be free to use its own share of the waters in whatever way it pleases; and, thirdly, the Egyption Government should provide for the resettlement of those Sudanese who will be displaced by the reservoir created behind the dam.

These conditions have been the subject of much discussion between the Egyptian and Sudanese Governments, which is still continuing. All parties recognise the great importance of an agreement being reached. I can assure the House that there is no question of sacrificing Sudanese interests, as the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs made clear to the House in Answer to a Question on 25th April.

When the High Aswan Dam is built, if it is, there will be more water for both Egypt and the Sudan. But the dam itself will not enable the Sudanese to use their share. They will have to carry out their own storage and irrigation schemes. We believe that there is great scope for future development in the Sudan, and we hope that Western countries will play a big part in helping the development of the Sudan.

I myself recently had talks in Khartoum with the Sudanese Government and also in Addis Ababa with the Ethiopian Government, about the use of the Nile waters. These exchanges of view were cordial and, to me, very valuable.

On the question of other territories, I have informed my hon. Friend that the position is as stated by the Colonial Secretary in reply to his Question. The three territories concerned are Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika. Irrigation has not hitherto featured largely in their development programmes, but there is already very great pressure on the land in Kenya. Detailed surveys are being carried out to determine the potentialities of irrigation and swamp reclamation and the amount of water likely to be required. The surveys should be completed by the coming autumn.

Compared with the vast projects of Egypt and the Sudan, these territories' requirements will be comparatively small. But their position must be safeguarded, and Her Majesty's Government have informed the Governments of Egypt and the Sudan that they formally reserve the right to negotiate for a share of the waters of the Nile for these territories at the appropriate time.

My hon. Friend has pointed out that the 1929 Agreement was based upon the Nile Commission's report, which recommended that the use of the Nile waters should be reviewed from time to time. In effect, that is what is now happening. It is the main subject of the discussions between the Egyptian and Sudanese Governments. When the detailed surveys in our East African territories have been completed, Her Majesty's Government will be in a position to review the requirements of these territories with the other Governments concerned.

The 1929 Agreement between Her Majesty's Government and Egypt provided for arbitration, but I do not think that the Powers concerned are likely to reach such difficulties; at any rate, I hope not. It is not in the interests of Egypt to quarrel with the other users of the Nile about its waters. The Egyptian Government has just paid Uganda nearly £ 250,000 as a result of their obligations under the Owen Falls Agreement.

As far as future development is concerned, I have been asked whether Her Majesty's Government believe that the 1929 Agreement needs to be revised, and I have also been asked whether there should be an international authority for the Nile. As I have said, the answer to the first question is certainly, "Yes." When the shares of the various territories bordering the Nile have been worked out and agreed, it will hardly be possible to apply the present Agreement.

As to an international authority, we believe that such a body might well come into being in time, and if circumstances were right we should welcome it as an imaginative idea. But it is not something into which we can rush precipitately. But the High Dam project as at present proposed is not inconsistent with a Nile Valley Authority, although we are still far from agreement among the Powers concerned. Whereas, some years ago, we had more direct control over the Governments in this area, it now requires political agreement between four Governments, of which Her Majesty's Government is only one. There is all the preliminary ground of agreeing upon shares and on the work that needs to be done, and we must give the Governments concerned time to reach agreement.

Finally, I would like to say that although Her Majesty's Government have no longer the same direct control as in the past over the development of the Nile Valley, it may be that our net participation will be even greater in the enormous schemes which have been foreshadowed in the debate this morning. As a result, let us all hope that in the next 70 years the progress of the people of the Nile Valley-whose growth, I say with pride, is so much due to conditions of political stability, and health and education methods introduced in the period of more direct British control over the past 70 years-will be as great or greater, in health, wealth and happiness.

Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance—as he seemed to do in his speech—that before the £5 million is granted or gifted from this country to the High Dam project, the House will have an opportunity of debating the matter?

As I said, in due course any financial arrangements involving a grant will come before the House in the normal way.

I am very glad to have the opportunity, upon the Adjournment of the House on the eve of the Whitsun Recess, to raise the question of a serious fire disaster which occurred in my constituency on 25th February. in which eight persons lost their lives. This was the worst mill disaster in Britain for many years, and was one of four which occurred within one month in the Yorkshire woollen mills.

I want to pay tribute to the fire brigade and the local police, whose duties were carried out efficiently and with a thoroughness characteristic of their fine tradition, and also to a railwayman, Mr. Bird, who broke open a door and rescued two women. I hope to be present tonight at a function at which his heroism will be suitably rewarded. I also thank the Minister for his personal interest and action in the matter, and the amount of time which he is devoting to clearing up the death-trap conditions which exists in many Yorkshire woollen mills and initiating a successful prosecution against the owners of the firm responsible for the disaster.

Whatever severe criticisms I shall make against the Factories Inspectorate in Keighley, they are in no way directed against the right hon. Gentleman himself. In my humble submission, he has been let down, as I hope to prove beyond peradventure. At the inquest the coroner stated that the ultimate cause of the death of these eight people was the fact that there was no means of giving the factory people warning of fire. That is a very serious indictment against the management and, ipso facto, against the inspectorate.

Not only was there no warning system whatsoever, but the fire escape did not reach all floors. The staircase which was normally used by the workers when they came out of the mill was made of wood, with the exception of the last flight of stairs— seven in number—which were made of concrete. The door at the bottom of these steps was fastened, contrary to all regulations.

Arising from this state of affairs, which was revealed at the inquest, there are obviously questions to be answered. I am very pleased to see the Minister present, because it shows that he realises the urgency and gravity of the problem in the Yorkshire textile mills, and 1 am very grateful to him for that. First, I want to know why this state of affairs was not known by the inspectorate, and why no action was taken by the inspectorate, after their visit to the factory in 1951, to compel the installation of a fire alarm, when the firm had had its notice drawn to this breach of the 1937 Act. Why, after the last visit of the inspector in April, 1954, was the matter not taken up again? Why was the firm not prosecuted before, instead of after, the calamity, under Section 36 (7) of the 1937 Act?

If a summons had been served upon the firm when it was first known they had no fire alarm, this disaster would not have occurred, and these people would still be alive. What action is the hon. Gentleman taking to see that the inspectorate in Keighley do their job, and that Sections 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the Factories Act—which deal with fire safety—are complied with? Again, what disciplinary action is being taken against the person or persons guilty of such a gross dereliction of duty?

The factory was visited in 1951, when it was pointed out that there was no fire alarm. The inspector came again in 1954, but he did not trouble about a fire alarm, and nothing was done until after the disaster. I am not being too censorious in saying that the right hon. Gentleman has been let down by his staff. Nothing I can say will bring back those people who lost their lives by such callous neglect, because that is what it was.

Having said that about the disaster. one must, I submit, pass to the positive side. What can be done? In my Question before the Easter Recess, I asked about new regulations being made. No answer was given. I am not complaining because, indeed, the Chair was exceedingly benevolent towards me, and many supplementary questions were asked. But I should like to know whether the Minister will introduce new regulations to be operable, say. in two years' time laying it down that no machinery in textile mills may be placed on wooden floors because wooden floors rapidly become oil soaked. Not only do the floors become oil soaked, but the beams of the building become oil soaked. I can take the right hon. Gentleman to mills in my constituency where, when the sun is shining, one can see the oil bubbling on the beams.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that sprinkler valves are installed, and in mills over 30 years old make it compulsory for a person to be responsible for fire safety regulations? Will the right hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that the factory inspector will not tip off the management when he is coming because, since the Minister has taken action, his inspectors have, in fact, been visiting the mills, something which they should have done before and not after this disaster? They visited one mill where the fire escape door was locked. The inspector asked why the door was locked and he was told, "Oh, that is normal because the workers leave before time." That, surely, is a question of discipline. There is no reason why people's lives should be placed in jeopardy by action of that sort.

Will the Minister also see that qualified people are recruited to the inspectorate? There seem to me to be far too many art graduates and not enough scientists. After all, the scope of present day factory legislation calls for a tremendous amount of technical knowledge. I am assured by people who know the situation better than I that that section of the right hon. Gentleman's Department is singularly lacking in people with the adequate technical knowledge. Why should factory inspectors be lower paid than mining inspectors? Their duty, while it may not be quite so arduous, certainly covers far more people in so far as it covers the rest of the working population. There is. of course, a grave shortage of recruits —

Is my hon. Friend aware that it must be that, and that, in the main, it is the lower scales which prevent the recruitment of proper scientific personnel to the service at the present time?

I should think that that is probably the reason, particularly as the salaries of the mining inspectorate have recently had to be increased.

There is the case of J. T. Sutcliffe's mill, which I raised with the Minister, and I want to thank him for his prompt action in regard to it. There, again, is a factory without a fire alarm and where the means of escape are not satisfactory. The local authorities are examining the mill at present. Why was it not examined by them before under Sections 36 and 37 of the Act, and how many other mills have not been examined by the local authorities? That is a matter on which we must have the information.

It is with some degree of confidence that I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has certain overriding powers over the local authorities. Section 34 (7) of the Act says:

"If it appears to an inspector that dangerous conditions in regard to escape in case of fire exists in any factory to which this section applies, he may give notice thereof in writing to the district council and it shall be the duty of the council forthwith to examine the factory, and they may by notice in writing require the occupier to make such alterations, within such period, as may be specified in the notice."

The right hon. Gentleman's Department must take action on that section because there is not the slightest doubt that certificates have been issued in cases where the means of escape are not satisfactory.

As far as the mill where the fatalities occurred is concerned-and I am grateful for the information received from the right hon. Gentleman's Department-a certificate had actually been issued. Therefore, there is a case where the Minister's district inspector must overrule the local authority and see that these places are made quite safe.

Section 36 of the Act deals with safety provisions in case of fire. Under that Section, lift shafts, hoist shafts, and, I submit, also the rope race which drives the machinery in some of these mills, must be enclosed in fire-resisting material. In how many mills in Keighley does that appertain? In very few indeed. That, obviously, is something which must be looked into.

Again, the provisions of the Factories Act with regard to whitewashing and cleaning are not being enforced as they should be. These places should be whitewashed every 14 months. There is now a great hurry and scurry in some of the old mills to whitewash them. This is of great importance because when whitewash is used on the beams it reduces the inflammability of the oil. Therefore, that is something which should be done. If my memory serves me right—as a trade union official I have been out of the picture for some little time now—I believe that a register has to be kept showing that whitewashing has been carried out. I shall consider it my duty to report, from time to time to the Department the condition in the mills. I have a list waiting for the attention of "her ladyship," in Keighley. I hope that the inspectors are going round, because there are many other death traps, too.

I now wish to refer to Sections 22 and 23 of the Act which deal with lifting gear and hoists. Here, again, a register must be kept and examination must take place every 14 months. In how many mills has the lifting tackle been examined and in how many is the register properly kept? When last did the inspector see the register? That is one of the grave sins of omission which regularly occur.

I have tried to put the negative and the positive side, but the real point I wish to make is that the foul death-trap conditions which are to be found in mills because their owners will not spend the money are very unfair to the good employers and to those who have good modern mills and who keep them up to date. In the last analysis it is tantamount to unfair competition, and I want to pay my tribute to the good mill owners just as I condemn the bad owners.

It is no good the owners of these death traps— in many cases it is very difficult to find out who are the owners— trying to salve their consciences by giving £ 1,000 to the mayor's relief fund for the victims of this disaster. It would be far better for them to spend what capital resources they have in implementing the 1937 Act.

Finally, I hope that as a result of this debate the Minister will be able to give a message to thousands of my constituents whose livelihood is gained in the woollen mills by saying that firm and prompt action is being taken to make their places of work as safe as is humanly possible from the hazards of fire. We owe this to the memory of those who died, to the orphans and the bereaved left behind. If this is done, those people will not have died in vain, and, if I may humbly say so, the right hon. Gentleman and we as a House of Commons will have done our duty.

First, may I say how much my right hon. Friend and myself welcome this debate. It provides us with an opportunity not only to discuss this tragedy and the result of it, but, if I may take up the closing sentences of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), to say what we propose to do to avoid a repetition of such a disaster.

I would pay a tribute, as I know my right hon. Friend would also wish to do, to the responsible and helpful attitude of the hon. Member for Keighley, which has been apparent from the first moment he raised this matter through Parliamentary Questions, from the action he has taken in his constituency and from the way he has spoken in this debate. I join with him in his tribute to the work of the fire brigade, and to the great bravery of Mr. Bird, which is to be recognised tonight. I also desire to thank the hon. Member for his kind words about the way in which my right hon. Friend has looked into this matter.

I do not object to the strength and force of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms. and the sincerity with which he made them. I assure him that all the detailed points which he made, both critical and positive, will be given serious and careful consideration by my right hon. Friend. I shall deal specifically with many of the important points which the hon. Member raised, but those with which I do not deal now will also receive careful consideration.

The facts about this fire are indeed tragic and deplorable. I realise that they have aroused natural and proper fear and dismay among those employed in similar mills, not only in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but throughout that area. Apart from further action which I propose to describe, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that at this moment our inspectors in Yorkshire have been instructed to take special note of fire risks in the mills in that area which they are doing.

This accident, in which eight people were killed and three were injured, resulted from a clear breach of the Factories Acts provisions. As the hon. Gentleman said, the firm were successfully prosecuted and were fined. But if the failure of the firm to carry out its clear duty was reprehensible, it is also clear, and must be admitted, that this accident revealed that the follow—up procedure of the Factory Inspectorate has not worked as it should in this case. As the hon. Gentleman said, there was the inspection and follow—up letter in November, 1951, about the need for fire alarms; and in five visits since that date the fire alarm matter was not pursued. All the difficulties and criticism which the hon. Member made stem from the fact, which we have to realise, that partly because the war came so quickly on top of it—though the reasons are quite immaterial—the 1937 Factories Act has not been implemented to the extent and with the speed that we should have desired. In most of what I have to say, I shall place emphasis on the action we are now taking to press ahead with the implementation of that Act.

Now I wish to speak with particular reference to fire risks. I am sure the hon. Member would not want me to waste time going over the facts and faults of this tragedy which has happened and cannot be undone, but rather to say how we think a repetition of such a tragedy can be avoided. Following this disaster, my right hon. Friend ordered a complete review of the Ministry of Labour policy under the Factories Acts in relation to fire. The Chief Inspector of Factories has held a special conference of his superintending inspectors not only to consider the facts in this case, but to call for reports from the superintending inspectors about the position in their divisions. I wish to tell the House about the conclusions we have reached as a result of this review and the action we are taking.

I will deal first with the question of fire alarms. If only there had been a fire alarm, quite apart from any other defects in the conditions at the factory, those lives would probably not have been lost. In the 1937 Factories Act it is laid down that a fire alarm must be installed in any factory where there are more than twenty workers or where explosives and highly inflammable materials are stored or used. There is no doubt that noncompliance with this essential provision is widespread and serious. We cannot be certain of the figures, although I hope that soon we shall be, but we estimate that no less than between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the factories covered by this requirement do not have fire alarms. Although we must take account of the fact that many of these firms have small and single-storey buildings with extremely low fire risks, nevertheless this is an excessive degree of non-compliance and cannot be allowed to continue. We shall do our best to see that it does not continue.

I will now explain how we propose to do that. First, there is the question of publicity. The publicity given to this tragedy, both by earlier Questions in this House and locally, and now today by this debate—and also by the successful prosecution of the firm—will help to arouse people, both to their statutory obligations and to their general moral duty to their employees. There is one other point on publicity which I should mention. The hon. Member for Keighley will recall that in a Question about this tragedy on the eve of the Easter Adjournment he asked that we should hold a public inquiry. I said that we should not do that in this case, because we knew all the facts.

The prime object of a public inquiry is to ascertain the facts, but we also realise that perhaps a public inquiry could help in the question of public morale and of the giving of publicity. Under the Factories Acts it has not been our practice to hold public inquiries, although there is power to do so. Since the 1914–18 war there has been only one such public inquiry, which was held in 1928. We do not wish to start making frequent public inquiries because our inspectors are better occupied in doing their job of inspecting than they would be were they unnecessarily involved in public inquiries.

I do not think that such inquiries should become a frequent or regular part of our procedure. But in future, when there are serious accidents involving the loss of life and serious damage and so forth, we shall keep in mind what I might call the public morale and publicity advantages of a public inquiry and not simply the need for information.

Whatever we do about publicity it is not enough, and therefore as a first step the Chief Inspector of Factories is to write to all factory occupiers covered by this provision to remind them of their obligation to install fire alarms. That will be something positive, but even that we do not regard as sufficient. There are 40,000 to 50,000 premises involved, and the problem is how to follow this up urgently without disturbing the normal work of the factory inspectors. Important though fire alarms may be, it would not be right to take our inspectors away from their normal work over the whole range of risks to safety and health. We have to find a way to help the factory inspectors in this task. My right hon. Friend has therefore decided that officers from employment exchanges will assist the district inspectors in carrying out a rapid survey by personal visits to all the factories concerned throughout the country. That should ensure that a survey of the 40,000 or 50,000 premises is completed within a short time. I cannot give the exact period, but the matter is being treated as an urgent operation. To assist the inspectorate generally, as well as factory occupiers, we are preparing a leaflet giving advice on the installation of fire alarms and pointing out some of the difficulties to be avoided.

There are technical difficulties in fixing effective systems of fire alarms. We think that there is need for some simple guidance on this matter, which does not exist at the moment, so in addition to the personal approach there will be this leaflet. In the light of the results which we obtain from the survey, my right hon. Friend will then decide whether further action is needed and what that action should be. That, I think, should mark a new drive to deal with the fire alarm problem.

Then there are the Factories Acts provisions relating to fire risks. In general, the Factories Acts aim at ensuring that workers can escape safely if a fire occurs. They aim at that rather than at the prevention of fire itself, although I shall say something about prevention later. The main provisions of the Factories Acts deal with the provision of satisfactory means of escape, the easy opening of escape doors, the clear marking of fire exits, the keeping free of passageways in factories-obviously a most important feature, because it is no use having an escape door if people cannot get to it quickly-and also with seeing that workers are familiar with the arrange ments which have to be put into operation in the emergency of a fire.

I am sorry to say that there is no doubt that the standards of compliance with some of these provisions are not satisfactory. I should like to deal with each of the main ones in turn and to say what we propose to do about them. First, there is the means of escape which was clearly an important issue in the fire about which we have been talking. The first responsibility for examination and certification rests on the local authorities in all except Crown factories, which I will deal with separately.

This work of examination and certification has not been carried on as fast and as fully as we should have wished. In some areas progress has been very good. In some areas we reckon that 90 per cent., or even 95 per cent., of the factories have been examined and certificated by the local authorities, but in many other areas the story is very different and the percentage examined is probably at least as low as 50 per cent. We hope that councils will now speed up this work. We recognise, however, that the factory inspectors also have power in this matter, and they are now being instructed to use these powers more fully in future than they have done in the past.

First, they have the power to notify the local authority about individual cases where dangerous conditions exist and, having notified them, to require them to take action forthwith. We have to be realistic in this matter. We have to recognise that local authorities are not failing to do this simply through apathy and neglect. In some cases they are meeting real difficulties in carrying out these duties. Merely to notify and require them to take action will not sweep the difficulties away.

Therefore, we intend to ask our inspectors to consult with the local authorities to see whether we can help in overcoming any real difficulties they may have. Moreover, if the difficulties cannot be overcome, and if the local authorities cannot fulfill their obligations in this respect, then our inspectors have power under Section 34 of the Act of 1937 to carry out the examination themselves. We have instructed our inspectors that they are to use this power more freely in future than they have done hitherto.

The responsibility for Crown factories does not rest on the local authorities at all but entirely on the Factory Inspectorate. The examination of Crown factories is not yet 100 per cent. complete, but the great majority have been covered and we have initiated a drive to complete the remaining minority as quickly as possible.

Now I come to the question of doors, passageways, marked fire exits and other points such as those the hon. Member mentioned—whitewashing, the fire protection of lift shafts, the general question of hoists and lifts and other matters. These are all the responsibility of the factory inspectors, and enforcement can be done effectively only in the course of normal day to day inspection. Nevertheless, inspectors have been definitely instructed to pay particular attention to these points in future. The hon. Member can be assured that if sometimes these have been overlooked they will not be overlooked in the future.

I turn to the question of fire drills and instruction to workers about the use of means of escape which exist in the factories. My right hon. Friend has decided to change the policy in applying Section 37 of the 1937 Act in this respect. In the debates on the Act in 1937, it was stated by the then Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs, the Department responsible at that time for these matters, that the Act did not by itself impose any obligation to hold regular fire drills, and inspectors, therefore, have not pressed employers to do so. Fire drills are not essential in all premises and it would be foolish to insist on them in all premises, but they are certainly highly desirable in some premises.

Therefore, our inspectors have been told that they must in future stress the advisability of fire drills in suitable cases, and special attention is to be given to this point. We want to pursue this on a voluntary basis, but if necessary my right hon. Friend will consider whether to use the power which he possesses under Section 37 to introduce regulations to make fire drills compulsory in certain cases. We propose to see that there are fire drills where desirable, to begin with by voluntary action, but if necessary we shall make regulations in the matter.

Now I come to the question of the prevention of fire. As I have stated, the main emphasis of the Factories Acts is to ensure escape rather than to prevent fire itself. Nevertheless, the Minister has general powers under Section 60 of the 1937 Act which enables him to make regulations directed at fire prevention where the fire risk is high and where any fire outbreak would be likely to lead to particular dangers to workers, as opposed to property generally.

Some special regulations have been made in this respect. For example, there are those dealing with the manufacture of celluloids, cinematograph film and cellulose solutions. These are obvious examples, but we are now considering whether new regulations are required to deal with other processes which involve the use of highly inflammable materials. In any consideration of the regulations which may be advisable, I assure the hon. Member that we will take into account what he said about the way in which machines are installed, sprinkler valves, the appointing of a responsible fire officer, and so on. All these points will be considered when we are considering new regulations.

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the special regulations about cellulose, which has a very low flash point. I am sure he is aware that wool fluff which permeates these factories is just as inflammable and that fire spreads at a rapid rate. This mill was destroyed in ten minutes.

I am well aware of the danger with wool, and with cotton it is at least as bad; in fact, it may be even worse. When we are considering further regulations under these general powers given by Section 60, those points will be taken into account. We have to face the fact that regulations of this kind impose rules aimed at fire prevention in special cases. It may not prove possible to make regulations which will apply effectively to whole industries. We are looking into this, but it may be difficult to make effective arrangements to cover wide areas and whole industries.

In any event, whether we can do everything we want by regulations or not—and I think it is probable that we cannot—we have decided to supplement any such action by developing our advisory work to deal with fire prevention in industry generally. As the House will be aware, there are appointed under the 1947 Fire Services Act fire prevention officers who are employees of the fire authorities. The duty of fire prevention officers is to give advice when requested by the occupiers of premises, but they have no power of entry, and in this respect they are at a disadvantage compared with our factory inspectorate. So in 1955 the Chief Inspector of Factories issued instructions that factory inspectors were to advise factory occupiers to seek the help of fire prevention officers. In other words, since fire prevention officers have to be invited before they can go to a factory, we are doing our best to encourage occupiers to invite them to come along.

The Factory Inspectorate is itself seeking to develop a closer co-operation with the work of the fire prevention officers. This was a matter raised by the Select Committee on Estimates in 1954. We are now consulting with the Home Office to ascertain whether this co-operation can be made more effective.

The fire prevention officers constitute one part of the advisory work. In addition, we are going to produce some advisory literature. The only publication at the moment is a memorandum for the guidance of local authorities on some technical problems connected with means of escape. There is nothing at all available for factory occupiers or workers, or, indeed, even for inspectors to help them in developing their personal advisory work. We therefore propose to publish, first of all, the simple leaflet about fire alarms and their installation to which I have referred, and, secondly, a general advisory booklet on fire precaution and means of escape. Both publications will be dealt with urgently, and they will, of course, be prepared in consultation with the Home Office, which has a particular responsibility in this matter.

I should like now to sum up and recapitulate the major positive actions that we are taking. First, on fire alarms, the chief inspector is writing to all factory occupiers and the officers of employment exchanges are being called in to help inspectors carry out a rapid survey of the forty to fifty thousand premises affected by this obligation. A leaflet is being produced dealing with the installation of fire alarms and the types of fire alarm most suitable to different factories.

Secondly, on means of escape, we are going to speed up our work of examination of premises by instructing inspectors to make greater use of the powers which they have than has previously been the case, both in respect of notifying particular cases to local authorities and also, where necessary, by carrying out the examination themselves, as they have the power to do.

Thirdly, on the question of fire drills, we are instructing inspectors to press employers to adopt this procedure in suitable cases, and in the light of the success which we get from this voluntary persuasion, we shall decide whether regulations should be introduced. If necessary, my right hon. Friend will certainly take that action.

Fourthly, on fire prevention, we are examining the need to make further special regulations to deal with abnormal fire risks, and we are also going to intensify our general advisory work on fire prevention both by factory inspectors' work in closer collaboration with the fire prevention officers and by publishing suitable literature on the subject.

All this sums up the positive action that we are taking to reduce the dangers of fire in industry. As I said at the outset, we shall certainly consider also the specific points which have been made by the hon. Member. I hope the House will agree that the action which I have outlined represents an important new initiative on a wide front.

I want briefly to mention two matters which, while having a bearing on the fire risks side of the work and some of the broad aspects of the disaster, also affect the whole of the Factories Acts work which the Ministry of Labour does. First, and most important, the House has been informed, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, of the investigation being carried out by three senior officers of my Department into the staffing and organisation of the Factory Inspectorate. The report has just been completed and submitted to my right hon. Friend, who will be considering it urgently. It bears on such things as the follow-up procedure, which has been such an important point in this disaster, and also the staffing policy, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member.

The second item is the report on accident prevention in industry which has just been published by the National Joint Advisory Council. One of the recommendations is that a standing subcommittee of the Council should be set up to deal specially with improving safety in industry. That has already been done.

We have been discussing particularly this morning the fire hazard aspect of industrial safety. Seriously as we must, and shall, treat the problem of reducing the risks of fire, and dramatic and tragic as the effects are when such an accident occurs, I think it is right to point out that fortunately in total the injuries and fatalities caused by fire are small. In fact, they amount only to a quarter of 1 per cent. of all the factory injuries reported to my Department.

In all about 180,000 people every year are injured sufficiently seriously to be reported to the Ministry. Twenty million production days are lost every year as a result of factory accidents. This is an appalling figure. We were worried, and rightly so, about the 3¾ million days lost last year through industrial disputes. Almost six times as many days were lost as a result of industrial accidents. We simply cannot afford to continue the loss and the suffering which is caused by these accidents. The time has come to make a new drive to reduce them. My right hon. Friend is determined to do all that lies in his power as Minister of Labour to press this campaign forward.

I hope that the hon. Member will feel that this morning's debate is evidence that in the field of fire risk this is no idle promise.

I want to discuss an aspect of Government policy on air trooping. I shall talk mostly about the future and not the past, not even the recent past; but about the recent past I should like to say that we must all welcome the decision of the Air Ministry to suspend trooping on York aircraft pending the outcome of the inquiries into recent accidents.

I am certain that Parliament and public opinion will not allow the Government to get away with any idea of cut-rate trooping for Service families in old aircraft. We have to recognise that the system as at present operated of accepting the lowest tender price, which may have been acceptable some years ago, cannot be acceptable today. When it was first introduced, it was never contemplated that there would be, in the operation of air trooping, aircraft so far below contemporary standards for civil passenger aircraft.

I want to quote from a leading article in the Aeroplane of 11th May. The article discusses an exchange of questions in the House and refers to a number of my hon. Friends and myself and says:

" We think that the point that tends to get overlooked in such discussions is that not only aircraft but certificates of airworthiness grow old."

The Secretary of State for Air had reiterated the point, which was perfectly true, that, of course, the aircraft had certificates of airworthiness. The article said:

" Certificates of airworthiness relate to requirements current at the time of manufacture and are not revised to meet current requirements. Nobody today would build an aeroplane with the runway performance of the York and expect to sell it to operators."

The result of Government policy has been to put inconvenience—I put it no higher than that—on to Service families and to do harm to the prestige of British aviation.

As to the future, I want the Air Ministry to comment on the general point of an increased volume of trooping. I remember that as long as six or seven years ago a calculation was made in the Air Ministry that three hundred-seater transport aircraft at £200,000 each, therefore costing a total of £600,000, with one in reserve, would carry year after year as much as two sea transports each costing initially £4½ million, or a total capital outlay of £9 million. The comparison was between £600,000 and;£9 million. I recognise that the figures of the costs are now out of date, but I wonder whether the ratio is still the same.

The depreciation of an aircraft is far greater than that of a steamship, but I recall that the calculation appealed to the Treasury because the use of aircraft was cheaper. I wonder whether we are doing as much air trooping as we should. One of the obvious advantages is the reduction of the number of troops in the pipeline and on the lines of communication. In other words, air trooping is not only cheaper in itself but is cheaper in manpower.

My next point is to ask what the Air Force is to do about the air transport of the Army's strategic reserve. What aircraft are to be used? In what numbers? What will be available? In passing—and I do not blame the Air Ministry or the Secretary of State for this, although I blame the lack of liaison —the Service was made to look ridiculous at the time the Estimates were published, because it appeared, from what was said. to the rather more informed section of the general public, that the War Office was under the impression that Pioneer aircraft would transport the strategic reserve—not do the tactical transport after the reserve had been moved but do the actual strategic transport. This seemed to indicate lack of liaison between the two Departments.

The subject has been aired a great deal in the House, and I will not dwell on it today beyond saying that now that a larger proportion of the general public know a little about the air, it is important that such mistakes should not be made. Ten or twenty years ago, and certainly thirty years ago, one could talk or write anything about the air without dealing with a public which was informed on the subject. Fortunately that is not so today. Departments such as the War Office and the Air Ministry therefore have a big responsibility so as to ensure that they put in their statements to the Press or other statements in the Secretary of State's name information which can be construed as making sense.

I have several questions to ask—what aircraft will transport the strategic reserve; in what numbers; and when will they be available? Is the Comet to be used for this or is it to be used exclusively as a shuttle aircraft to Australia for our men engaged in the work at Woomera and other experimental stations? What is to replace the Valetta? It cannot go on for ever.

For years there has been a policy of taking a civil aircraft and making substantial adaptations. It has to be adapted to some extent for Service use. Are we certain that that policy of requiring a different mark is wise today? Do the Americans do it? Do the N.A.T.S. insist on an aircraft different from the ordinary commercial version? Is there something we have to learn here? There is no doubt that our policy increases production difficulties and puts up the cost.

When we come to the question of the trooping of men and families, I think we must accept two principles. I ask the Government to accept them. When families are taken, the standards must be comparable with civilian standards. When no families are taken, Service standards are acceptable.

Who is to do the trooping? First, there is Transport Command; next, there are the nationalised air corporations; and next, there are the private operators. As for the last two, I think we should insist on fair competition between the private operators and the nationalised air corporations. By "fair competition", I mean that a proper standard should be set and that non-one should be forbidden to tender.

Personally, I hope that a large proportion of these contracts will be won by the private operator, for two reasons. First, competition in itself is good and, secondly, flying must not become a closed mystique open only to people in the nationalised corporations and the services. Flying and operating techniques are such that all the wisdom in the world does not lie in the Services or in the nationalised corporations. I very much hope that private operators will obtain a share of these contracts, but under fair competition.

Perhaps I may illustrate a point which worries me and which shows how important is the question of fair competition. Yesterday, I put down a Question to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. It is not the first Question I have put about this subject. It was a perfectly sensible straightforward Question asking him how many lives were lost in the last twelve months in accidents to passenger-carrying aircraft operated by the corporations and how many in passenger-carrying aircraft operated by private airline operators respectively. It is not the first time I have put down this Question and on several occasions I have been given the information for which I asked.

For the first time, in answer to my perfectly legitimate written Question, the Minister went out of his way to take a most partisan attitude. The figures, it so happened—and I had no idea that it would be so—show that in the last 12 months the corporations lost 15 lives and private airline operators lost 53. The Minister went out of his way to add:

"Of course, no valid conclusion can be drawn from a comparison based on so short a period;".

—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May. 1956; Vol. 552, c. 196] He then goes on to quote not the preceding 12 months or the 12 months immediately before that but a period which has no relevance whatever to my Question and during which the corporations had more people killed than had the independent companies.

When I was telephoned about this by the Press I said there must be a misprint because I thought no Minister would add a rider which dealt with a period which had no relevance to the Question; but I was wrong. It must have been deliberately selected to show that ratio. My point is that there must be fair competition but that it is wrong to intervene in this way and to appear to try to justify one point of view, or another, by the selection of figures like this.

We must all recognise that one of the major problems is that of finding enough aircraft. How is this to be done? First of all, I submit that Transport Command must be increased and brought up to date, and there is a point here which is most relevant. It would be a very brave or. I think, a rather foolish man who would say that Fighter Command and manned fighters as we know them today will be in existence in ten years' time, or that the bombers which we know today will be in existence in ten years' time, but. when it comes to Transport Command. surely there is no question about it. Transport Command and transport aircraft, much on the same lines as today, are bound to be required. The idea that the whole of Transport Command and its operations will become out of date is one which I do not think anyone would seriously suggest.

The task of fighters may be taken over by guided missiles, and the task of bombers may also be taken over by guided missiles, but can anyone visualise the idea of Transport Command's functions being taken over by guided missiles? Therefore, of all the commands in the Royal Air Force, this is the command which, above all others, can be increased and brought up to date without any possibility of its becoming obsolete in itself. Of course, the planes will become out of date, but the Command itself will never become obsolete.

Secondly, consideration must be given by the Air Ministry in particular to the importance of large continuous orders in order to help the aircraft industry in planning its production. Transport Command must be expanded. Substantial orders must be given by the Corporations. Cannot there be some system by which the Corporations can use aircraft in the peak periods in the summer, and, in the off peak periods, use them for trooping? I do not know how to work it out, but I know that the manning people will say that it is impossible and that we must keep an even flow. The manning people have great problems, and they always will have, but ingenuity will have to be exercised if we are to solve this problem. How are we to make it economically possible to have enough aircraft to perform this task? Can we have the Corporations using their aircraft for peak periods in the summer, and especially B.E.A., using them for trooping in the winter?

As for the private operators, the dilemma is very great. It is difficult to see how the private operators can afford to buy up-to-date aircraft. We have to remember that Parliament and the public will not take kindly to any idea of the State buying aircraft and giving them to private operators to operate, or even leasing them. Already we have reached the position in the aircraft manufacturing industry, in its widest sphere, in which even the inefficient firms are kept in production by a system of subsidies. We have got into that system, and no one knows how to get out of it. If that system is to be duplicated in the operation of private aircraft, I am sure that Parliament will not stand for it.

We have developed this system throughout the years, and I am not blaming anybody now. How to get out of it is the problem. It is a system by which in the private enterprise field of the industry the inefficient firms are subsidised by public money, and we cannot transfer that system into the operations of the private air lines. I cannot see, much as I should like to, how the private operators are to be able to afford the modern aircraft which will make them competitive, if standards are to be maintained.

Therefore, I ask the Government to make a study of the whole problem of how to find the aircraft that are needed, not only because the continuous flow and the larger orders will help our industry, but also because it will help both Transport Command and the Corporations to do their respective tasks. The Government should also study the problem to see if we can give the private operators an opportunity of playing a part.

There is one question, which I will not expect the Under-Secretary of State to answer today, but which I should like him to pass on to his right hon. Friend. It is a complaint which I find everywhere wherever I go into the Services and in the industry. There is a feeling that there is no person highly placed in the Government who is charged with keeping an eye on the papers which come out of the various Departments concerned with aviation. In the days of the Labour Government, we happened to have the late Sir Stafford Cripps, who was genuinely interested in aviation and who did keep an eye on it. Today we have the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, the Air Ministry, the Ministry of Defence, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Ministry of Supply and, of course, the Treasury all concerned in aviation. Does some senior Minister keep an eye on the papers sculling around in the Departments and in the Cabinet Committees and bring them into line, so that a long-range view can be taken, instead of a strictly Departmental view, of the problems of aviation?

I think it is everywhere realised that our future as an industrial nation lies largely in our engineering industry, and particularly in our aviation industry. It is the duty of the Government to help, and not to hinder, our greatest industry of the future. It is our most valuable field for the exercise of skill and enterprise, and if the Government have an imaginative trooping policy, it will give great opportunities to the spirit of enterprise in aviation. It is still a new industry—very new compared with the old industries which have served us so well in the past.

I am particularly glad that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) has been fortunate enough to secure a place in these Adjournment debates today, because there has been a good deal of talk lately about the standards of comfort and safety of air trooping aircraft. Indeed, it has been said that the safety standards of the aircraft were below contemporary standards, and that certificates of airworthiness wear out, like the aircraft themselves. The hon. Gentleman used some quotations, and I got the impression that he agreed with them.

Yes. I did.

We do not accept at all that these aircraft are below contemporary safety standards, and, of course, certificates of airworthiness are re-issued every year after a careful examination of the aircraft. However, I will talk later in more detail about safety.

Another point which the hon. Gentleman raised concerned the financial aspect. I could not give him an answer in figures today to the questions which he asked about the financial advantages of using aircraft as opposed to ships.

On the question of the percentage of the trooping which is done by air as opposed to ships, I fully agree with him that the more we do by air the better for us, from many points of view, and not least the fact that by so doing we are building up a reserve of aircraft in case of need. In fact, the figures have been rising. Last year, 57 per cent. of the trooping was done by air. In the year before it was 56 per cent., and in the year before that it was 54 per cent. there is a steady rise.

As I hope to show later, the standard of safety in air trooping has been extremely good, but there have been two most unfortunate accidents lately. and these have been used by some people to support the thesis that the standards of safety and comfort provided by the independent charter companies leave much to be desired, to put it no higher than that.

As air trooping has become such a feature of Service life, and more and more men and their families are being carried by air, that it is of the very first importance that the Services and the public should have confidence in the aircraft which are used and in the men who man, service and organise them. I hope to be able to show in some detail that such confidence is fully justified, and that the attacks which are being launched against air trooping arrangements as they stand today are thoroughly misplaced.

First, I should like to explain how air trooping contracts are at present arranged, and, later, I will come to the argument which the hon. Gentleman raised as to where the advantage lies between the independent operators, on the one hand, and the Corporations, on the other. When any of the Services want a long-term air trooping contract they send details of their needs to the Movements Branch of the Air Ministry. The Air Ministry sets out the requirement in the minutest detail and sends it to those independent operators who it thinks would be in a position to tender for it.

The forms for tender are long and complicated, but the two parts which I think would be of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman are those which refer to safety and comfort. First, as to comfort; and as he has made quite a number of points on this aspect, I think he will be interested in what I have to say. What does the Air Ministry lay down as comfort requirements? The distance there must be between the seats—in other words, the leg-room—is laid down. The seats must have arms and head rests and they must be adjustable so that the passenger can either sit upright or recline. Portable cots have to be provided for babies, and rugs and blankets for every passenger. Two stewards or stewardesses must go on every flight to attend to the comfort of the passengers. Cigarettes and refreshments must be available for passengers to buy during the flight. The contractor's responsibility to provide meals is explained in great detail. For instance, at least one hot meal besides breakfast must be served during the day. There must not be more than five hours between each meal.

Fruit squashes and tea or coffee must be served with every meal; indeed, fruit drinks must be available at all times during the flight. Meals and accommodation for passengers—including, where necessary, air conditioning—have to be provided by the contractor for overnight stops. Those are just some of the conditions affecting the comfort of passengers, be they troops or families, which are insisted upon by the Air Ministry and with which the operator is bound by contract to comply.

Now, what about the safety standards? These are laid down by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, and no operator will get any contract, long-term or short-term, unless he can satisfy the Minister that his aircraft and its crew meet the necessary standard—and it is a high standard. The standard is exactly the same as that laid down for the Corporations on scheduled services. No differentiation is made, so troops and families travelling by air can be sure that they are protected by exactly the same standards for aircraft and crew as are fare-paying passengers on regular scheduled services.

But we go further than that. Because the passengers in those planes which we in the Air Ministry have chartered are not fare-paying—are not travelling of their own free will and accord, but are travelling to a greater or less degree under orders—we regard it as our duty to make absolutely sure that the safety standards are fulfilled in practice. We therefore provide a further check, beyond those required by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation on scheduled flights. We provide for in-flight inspection by an R.A.F. officer, who travels round and makes checks on the aircraft to ensure that all the regulations are strictly adhered to.

To sum up this part of my argument, I would say that the safety standards which we require are more than comparable with those required of the Corporations—with which, I understand, the hon. Gentleman has no quarrel. Where comfort is concerned, while I will agree that the aircraft used for trooping are not the most modern, the hon. Gentleman would, I think, have difficulty in proving that there is any appreciable difference between air trooping standards and those of tourist traffic on scheduled routes.

I wonder just how deeply these complaints about comfort go? We have heard a good deal about them recently, but the hon. Gentleman has been Under-Secretary of State for Air himself and knows full well that in that job there are not many aspects of Service life considered to be inconvenient by Service men which are not at some time or another brought to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State. Airmen—and soldiers—are fully aware of their right to write to their Members of Parliament, and from my experience I would say that Members of Parliament are not backward in sending on the complaints. I have not been in this job very long, but in the five months that I have been at the Air Ministry between 70,000 and 80,000 men have been trooped by air. I have not received a single complaint from an hon. Member or from any constituent through his Member of Parliament—not one. The Secretary of State has received one—one in five months. I really wonder very much whether these complaints about which the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends have been telling us in the last weeks are so keenly felt in the Services; whether they are all that they are made out to be, or whether, in fact, he is not the leader in that thought himself?

Let me now deal with the prices which we pay for these contracts. The hon. Gentleman wrote an article—rather a surprising article, I thought, coming from him—in Reynolds News last Sunday.

What is surprising about it?

I shall have something more to say about it later, but for the moment I will quote the following sentence:

"Even for the occasional trooping flights such as the one on which the aircraft crashed in Essex, the Corporations are squeezed out because the Chancellor of the Exchequer insists on the Air Ministry paying such cheap rates that only those firms with old, uncomfortable aircraft can get their prices low enough."

If the hon. Gentleman really believes that, he is labouring under a great misapprehension. The interpretation of that sentence is clear. It is that we fix the rates that we are prepared to pay and that the operator then provides the services which he feels able to provide at the price.

As I said in my opening remarks, it was never contemplated that aircraft as old and so far below contemporary standards would be in operation and tendering for these things. Yet, as the years have passed, aircraft like Yorks are still being used for the job and are still tendering. As I have said, the "better currency" has been squeezed out.

This is an unequivocal statement that the rates we pay are so cheap that they can only be met with these very old aircraft. I did not know that a York was all that cheaper to run than is a modern aircraft.

What happens is that we set out our requirements—the number of men to be flown in a specified time over a specified route under certain conditions of safety and comfort. The operators then tender and, other things being equal, we accept the lowest tender which satisfies all our conditions. Surely that must be in the public interest.

The hon. Gentleman may say that we pitch our sights too low and that the standards of comfort are not high enough. I have endeavoured to show him in the earlier part of my speech that our standards of comfort compare not unfavourably with those of ordinary tourist traffic on scheduled airlines. He must agree that, although there may be a difference of opinion about what the standards ought to be, it must be in the public interest that we should set standards of safety and of comfort, and that once those have been established it is equally in the public interest that we should get the best value for the money spent. I do not see any object in putting these contracts out to tender unless, other things being equal, one accepts the lowest tender.

But other things are not equal. I instanced that fact in the leading article in the Aeroplane.

I do not accept all that was said in the leading article in the Aeroplane. I think it was far from correct when it said that certificates of airworthiness wore out.

As to the safety record, the hon. Gentleman mentioned. a Question that he put down for answer yesterday. Of course, it is possible to make figures speak, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. He might have taken the matter further. There has been the unfortunate accident in Malta, in which 44 people were killed. Had the hon. Gentleman taken the figures for that one week instead of for the 12 months—

Surely 12 months is a fair period.

I do not think that it is a fair period. I do not think 12 months is anything like enough if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk in terms of statistics. If he had quoted figures for the week of the crash, the figures would have been even more heavily weighted. I have got all sorts of statistics here, and it is possible to make them talk all sorts of languages.

In this field, comparisons are odious, but I think it would be found on careful examination over a period of years that neither the Corporations nor the independent operating companies would like to challenge the other where their safety rates are concerned. Both are extremely good. I think it is most misleading if one starts to follow a train of thought which leads one to compare statistics in one particular year.

The hon. Gentleman's Question was answered, of course, by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I should imagine that what was in the Minister's mind when he referred to that 12 months' period which had a great bias in a certain direction was to pose the question, "What can you tell from these figures? Accident figures for any period of 12 months cannot give you a fair picture." We in this House, and in the country, may rest assured that we are lucky in having in the independent operators and in the Corporations undertakings which have the highest possible safety standards.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Corporations competing with the charter companies in long-term trooping. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's article on Sunday was eminently suitable for the newspaper concerned, but it hardly did justice to the hon. Gentleman himself. He even had to drag the Coldstream Guards into party polemics, which, I thought, was somewhat unfortunate.

I have the greatest respect for the Coldstream Guards.

I have already read one sentence in that article stating that the Air Ministry pays such cheap rates that only those firms with old aircraft could have a chance of competing. The hon. Gentleman goes on to say:

"The Government's calculated policy of giving financial advantages to the private airlines at the expense of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.—and of the comfort of Service families—is in accordance with their policy of handing over to private owners the lucrative part of transport and leaving the nationalised operator with the essential services which may or may not be profitable."

What I thought when I read this article—and 1 suppose people knowing less than I do may well have thought the same thing—was that it was suggested that air trooping was the lucrative part of transport. But in the preceding paragraphs the hon. Gentleman talks about the cheap rates. Would he like it the other way round? Does he think that the Government ought to give all the trooping to the Corporations and should leave the scheduled air services to the independent operating companies? Does he think that that would be better? He has been slanging us for looking after our friends, for giving all the lucrative transport to our friends.

That is the Government's road transport policy.

The hon. Gentleman says in his article:

"The Government's calculated policy of giving financial advantages to the private airlines, at the expense of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A."

That is what he was talking about. He said that we are giving the lucrative part of transport to private enterprise. I do not want to labour that point, but I think the hon. Gentleman must be aware that there was some inexactitude in that statement.

I am aware that I made a speech and that the hon. Gentleman has not answered the part of my speech in which I asked about the future of Government policy in air trooping. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken for about 20 minutes.

There are another 20 minutes yet.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will get on to that part of the speech.

I have covered quite a lot of ground.

We come to the question of ad hoc charters for which the Corporations are entitled to tender. Quite a lot of business is involved in ad hoc charters. It should not be pooh-poohed. In fact, in 1954–56 the Corporations were successful in obtaining £700,000 worth of ad hoc chartering, which represented 35 per cent. of the total value of the ad hoc charters that were given. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they do not keep aircraft for long-term charter work and they therefore did not tender for long-term contracts; they have not the aircraft to tender with.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of getting competition between the private operators and the Corporations, as if they were two great combines with the Corporations on one side and the private operators on the other. There is, in fact, already a considerable amount of competition. A great deal of competition goes on in the activities of the private charter companies. I think, also, that the hon. Gentleman must realise the difficulty from the fact that he asked me whether there could be an arrangement whereby the Corporations could use their aircraft in summer in the peak period for ordinary scheduled lines and in the winter for air trooping or for charter work. It is just with that sort of thought in mind that we invite the Corporations to tender for ad hoc charter work, and they get a considerable proportion of it.

The hon. Gentleman wondered whether the independent companies would be able to buy any new aircraft. There are, I believe, three Viscounts in operation now and another four on order by the independent operators.

There is one further argument that the hon. Gentleman used—namely, that Transport Command should take over more air trooping. I do not want to go into this matter in too much detail, because we had a debate on this subject on the Estimates and it was fairly well Covered—at least, 1 thought it was. However, I must make it quite clear that we do not envisage using Transport Command in an air trooping rôle. If it were to take over what are now the regular air trooping contracts, it would not be available to fulfil its main purpose, namely, to move the Strategic Reserve.

It must itself be in the nature of a reserve in order to be able to move the reserve of troops, supplies and equipment for the Services to a trouble-spot in any emergency. We cannot keep a standing Army to guard all our commitments at all times, and hence Transport Command is at all times prepared to fly the Army Strategic Reserve wherever it may be needed.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether Transport Command was being re-equipped with more modern aircraft. I would refer him to the debate on the Air Estimates, when these matters were gone into in considerable detail. In fact, there is a three-year re-equipment programme going on at the present time, in which Comets, Britannias and Beverleys are being brought into service. May I give an example of how this process will result in increased efficiency in Transport Command's major rôle in moving the Strategic Reserve about? Whereas, when we had to move two battalions and a brigade headquarters to Cyprus last year, 52 aircraft were used and the job took 40 hours, when Transport Command is re-equipped, as our plans stand at present, that job could be done with five Britannias. Alternatively, the whole force could been moved within 12 hours if all our aircraft were brought to hear upon the task.

No duties should be given to Transport Command which would detract from its state of readiness and efficiency to meet this vital task. Long-term air trooping would obviously not fit in with this role. Apart from air trooping, the Services have a number of requirements for sporadic airlifts, some of them having a security background and others being purely military moves, which Transport Command can and does meet. This work occupies almost the whole of Transport Command's time, and there is not much left for straight trooping at the end. Last year, Transport Command carried only 8 per cent. of the troops carried by air. It surely must be right that Transport Command, the military force, should undertake the diverse, sporadic military functions which it now does and which fit in with its primary task, and that the more regular, schedule-like trooping lifts should be undertaken by the civil fleets.

Far be it from me to say that no changes will ever take place in Her Majesty's Government's policy towards civil aviation; but, broadly speaking, a sensible balance has been struck between the functions of the Corporations, of the charter companies, and, in a somewhat different sphere, of Transport Command. Where trooping, which is the subject of this debate, is concerned, we are satisfied that the most suitable and the best arrangements are made. I hope that to some extent I have succeeded in allaying some of the hon. Gentleman's greater fears.

First I should like to thank those hon. Members concerned with the previous debate for finishing earlier and so enabling what I naturally regard as a very important subject to have a very good or better chance of ventilation than would otherwise have been possible. I am also indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary for being in his place before the proper time. May I add how very grateful I am to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this important subject for debate this afternoon?

The subject I am raising is that of the intake into Her Majesty's Army of men of medical Grade III. There has been grave controversy for some long time concerning many of those who have been called up within this medical category. Hon. Members of this House, and others, have taken part in a campaign, and many newspapers have taken an interest in this matter. I think it would be fair in my opening remarks to pay a tribute to one particular newspaper for having initiated this campaign. I refer to the Star. With regard to calling up Grade III men the Star declared some time ago:

"We believe there should be a complete inquiry into this system of call-up."

Later, when proposals of the then Minister of Labour were announced, the Star went on to say that these proposals

"did not go far enough to satisfy the public anxiety now fully aroused as the result of a number of blunders by Medical Boards."

That was some time ago, and it focussed attention on what many of us regarded as a serious problem, the problem of young men of eighteen years of age who have been down-graded for one reason or another and yet have been found suitable for service in Her Majesty's Army.

Like other Members of the House, I have been keenly interested in this matter, but I have not sought publicity for myself, nor have I sought publicity for my constituents. I have been concerned only with getting results. Here again, may I pay a tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I have found at all times amenable and very interested in this problem. I know he has been gravely worried about it, and I know that he, as much as anyone, has been anxious to do something about it. I will return to that a little later on.

It is right and proper that I should now refer to two good reasons why I have taken an active interest in this whole question. In the first place, it was, reported to me that one of my constituents, a young boy of the name of Smith—not an uncommon name—had been called up into Her Majesty's Army and placed in Grade III; yet this was a young boy who had, at the age of fifteen, been crushed by a lorry. The lorry had been stolen, and, in making their getaway, the thieves had mounted the pavement with the lorry and run over this young lad. His leg was badly crushed. He had a number of operations, and the result was that one leg was shorter than the other. When he reached the age of eighteen he was medically examined and it was found that he should be put into Grade III. and into the Army he went.

One can readily imagine the feelings of that young fellow. He is just an ordinary boy; he is not frightened of the Army or frightened of going overseas. In fact, he would willingly be Grade AI and play an active part in the Army, but, because of his disability, he is restricted at home. As the Parliamentary Secretary said to me in a letter earlier this year, in dealing with the whole question of this individual,

"He is consequently restricted to duties in base units only and excused parades, marching, drill, physical training and guards."

If I may use the expression, Mr. Speaker, this young man can breathe, but cannot do anything else. He is embarrassed and unhappy. It needs little imagination to realise the reality of his situation; he is at an Army camp, limping about—he has a perpetual limp—but because of his medical category he must be treated as a person apart. I concede at once that his medical category was confirmed. The Parliamentary Secretary decided that there should be a special medical examination of this young fellow. His grade was confirmed and he was retained in the Army.

Next I have the case of another of my constituents, a boy named Menday. This youngster was in fact in the Merchant Navy and, whilst in the Merchant Navy, he fell from a derrick on to the deck of a ship, badly injuring his spine. It was a serious injury. It was found that he should never have been employed at this height, and he was adequately compensated and discharged from the Merchant Navy as unfit, with a very badly injured spine. That did not stop the Army from calling him up. He was put into medical Grade III and sent to the Army.

I knew this case personally and wrote to the Minister saying,

"I want strongly to protest against this boy's call-up and to warn the War Office of what I think will be the inevitable consequence."

I related the story of his accident in the Merchant Navy and the nature of the injury to his spine, adding

"The trouble in this case is that the symptoms are not easily diagnosed, but after much exertion he has to go sick. I am convinced that it is a waste of public time and money to call him up, and I would beg of you, even at this late hour, to reconsider the whole matter.

If there is any repercussion with regard to his health as a result of his call-up. I shall certainly raise the matter on the Floor of the House."

There has been a repercussion. This youngster went into the Army, and within a week of call-up his back became worse and he was feverish. He was sent to Millbank Hospital and from there he went to the Royal Herbert Hospital, where he stayed five weeks. It is true that he also had a throat infection, but nevertheless he received treatment for his back. He was told that nothing else could be done for him, but he was still kept in Grade III. This boy cannot even lift his own kitbag; somebody has to carry it for him. Because he is in this obnoxious medical category, however, he is retained in the Army.

When I investigated, not only these two cases but the whole consequences of the grade, I found that the argument by and large was that the Army retained these young men because they were able to do clerical work and in this way they relieved fit men from doing light duties the Al man could go to the front line while the Grade III man was kept at home at base doing clerical work. That is the stock answer of the War Office concerning the call-up of these boys. I appreciate the force of it, for I spent six years in the Army, and I recognise that the fittest men should do the hardest work; but surely the Secretary of State would not claim that Army clerical duties should be done only by those who are unfit. Certainly, a large amount of the clerical work is done by men who are the fittest.

There are no Grade III men in the Royal Navy—I was given the reply "None. Sir" in a Written Answer—although the Navy has a lot of clerical duties. The Royal Air Force has approximately 3,000 Grade III men, but considering the size and range of its clerical duties the same argument does not apply. In the Army the number of Grade III men is 10,000, and it is on behalf of Clem all that I speak today.

I do not think the two individual cases which I have related are exceptional. Obviously, a man must be of a very low medical category to be put in Grade III. This focuses attention, as the newspaper to which I have referred also drew attention, on the fact that the time must now have come when we can dispense with calling up the Grade III boys and we can demobilise those of this grade who are already in the Army.

If the stock answer of the War Office is that Grade III boys are needed to do clerical jobs, will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether he would accept a Grade III man who wished to undertake Regular service? I suggest that he would not take such a man as a Regular soldier. Quite rightly, he would say that the Forces require the fittest men. If that is so, why waste our time and the time of these boys in calling them up for a conscript Army for a period of two years?

One of the boys whom I have mentioned has just finished an apprenticeship. Special facilities for a sitting-down job were given to him for nearly the whole of his time. Now, however, a great disservice has been done both to these two boys and to the Army itself.

It is appropriate that I am raising this matter at the very time when there has been discussion as to whether there should be a cut in the size of the Armed Forces, although it would be wrong to go into that general aspect in this debate. We see in today's papers that Russia is calling upon Great Britain to follow what is called the great example of the Russian Army in making an enormous cut in its numbers. I am not one of those who fall for that line of propaganda, as certain others evidently seem to do. If, however, we could demobilise 10,000 Grade III boys and if we were to let it be known tonight or tomorrow morning, as well as deciding not to waste anyone else's time by calling up this category for the Army again, this would be some small contribution at least to the much bigger problem which we all have to face, and which I am certain the Government are as worried about as I am. I therefore urge the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to be forthcoming and to let us have that kind of announcement.

I said earlier that the reason for calling up these boys was that they were needed for clerical jobs. I believe that that excuse has now been discarded—at least, I hope so. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not say that because there happened to be a cripple, on the one hand, with one leg shorter than the other, and another cripple with a bad back whose kitbag must be lifted for him, that they must be put into uniform to do a clerical job. As the Parliamentary Secretary, from his far more extensive and courageous Army experience than mine, will know, whether a man does a clerical job or not there are still duties to be performed, periods of waiting about and other things which happen in the Army which never occur in civilian life.

I wonder how much time is spent by the 10,000 boys receiving attention from medical officers. It must be an enormous amount of time. From almost their first day in the Army, not because they were malingerers, the two youngsters to whom I have referred have had to visit the medical officer almost every day. I know from experience in the Army that a great deal of time is spent by this type of person in the M.I. room, either being looked at by the orderlies or being attended to by the doctors. This waste of time is tremendous and these men are not able to give the service which the Parliamentary Secretary in his recent letter suggested they were giving.

I have been a Member of the House for ten years, and I do not think I have been able to render any greater service than anyone else to either my constituents or my party, but if we can get this Grade III position clarified and can get these men demobilised, my membership of the House will not have been wasted and I will have done something to justify my election as a Member. I have only two constituents involved, and I am certain that if I were to raise their cases long and hard enough I could probably get them out; but it is not simply these two cases who are involved, for there are many other youngsters in a similar position.

We had the question earlier of why certain sportsmen were called into the Forces while others were not, but if we can remove Grade III altogether we shall never again have this argument of the call-up of the Grade III s. If we can get a favourable reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, 10,000 young men and their families will be extremely grateful to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has rendered a useful service in ventilating the question of Grade III men in the Army. The facts at his disposal and at the disposal of many hon. Members combine to prove that we are not getting value for money. A vast amount of money is wasted in the call-up of Grade III men, from whom we do not get service to correspond with the outlay of time and effort which is involved.

The cry today is for economy. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that very substantial economy could be achieved without detriment to the efficiency of the Service if the call-up of Grade III men were abandoned The number of these men is not great. There are 10,000 in the Army, 3,000 in the Royal Air Force and none at all in the Navy.

These men undergo medical examination before call-up. They are issued with kit, accounts are opened for them in the pay office and the whole elaborate machine is put into motion, but what happens? Straight away, they report to the medical officer, and hours, days and months are spent in trying to put these men right and to get some useful service out of them. The orderly rooms and M.I. rooms are cluttered up with record sheets, and piles of paper accumulate. All that really accumulates, so far as these men are concerned, are huge files, showing that the War Office has made a very bad bargain in insisting upon these men being called up.

It so happens that on 10th April last, I submitted a case to the Under-Secretary of State of a man who had been in the Army since last September. He wrote to me as follows:

"I have got flat feet and pains in my foot when I walk and I cannot wear boots. They are forcing me to wear them, so will you please try to help me?"

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey that when a case is brought to the attention of the war Office the authorities go to a lot of trouble to investigate the details, but the fact remains that I wrote about this man on 10th April, and I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State only this morning.

This is the reply. It is very brief, but it is very relevant to the point which my my hon. Friend made:

"I have made inquiries and find that Private…is a Jamaican who joined the Army in September, 1955. It seems that before coming to England, he rarely wore boots or shoes, and usually went about barefoot. He now has pain when he wears boots and he has been seen by a specialist, who considers that this pain warrants his discharge from the Army, He has, therefore, been examined by a medical board and their recommendation that he should be discharged has been approved."

I should like to know how many hundreds of pounds of public money have been wasted in trying to absorb a man like that into the military machine. It is this kind of case which can be multiplied time and time again, which causes widespread doubts in all parts of the country about, first, the efficiency of the grading system under which these men are brought into the Army and, secondly, about the methods that are employed to find out whether, after they have been called up, they are really of any use.

It is usually possible, when the facts are brought to the notice of the political heads of the Department, to get something done about them, but months elapse before anything is done and, in the meantime, public money is wasted. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to make his contribution to the £100 million economy cut on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at present engaged.

According to reports in the newspapers today, the Chancellor is having difficulty with the Service Departments. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for War is not one of the political heads of Departments who is putting difficulties in the way of the Chancellor's £100 million economy. Whether he is or not, the fact remains that he and the War Office generally could make a useful contribution to this £100 million reduction if they cut out the call-up of Grade III men altogether.

Before I go into the specific points raised by the two hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, I think that it might be useful if I were to enumerate, for the benefit of hon. Members who do not happen to be familiar with the details of the present system, the four grades under which men registered are divided by the Ministery of Labour and National Service.

There are, first, Grades I and II—those who are eligible for posting to the Services. There is then Grade III, of whom some are eligible and some are not eligible for posting, and finally there is Grade IV—those who are definitely not eligible. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) mentioned cases of mistakes made by the medical departments and by doctors, but I would remind the House that after call-up soldiers, and members of the other Services too, undergo a further more detailed medical examination by Service doctors—what we call the P.U.L.H.E.E.M.S. system—and where there is any doubt at all soldiers are kept under constant medical supervision.

This, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey rightly pointed out, is an expensive and laborious business, but we think that it is well worth doing to make sure that there are no mistakes, or that wherever possible mistakes are avoided. The hon. Member mentioned the total number of Grade III men. Perhaps I might recapitulate them briefly, especially as on one perhaps not very important point we differ.

So far as the Army is concerned, the approximate figure—it is difficult to give the exact figure—is 10,000 at the present time and an annual intake of about 5,000 Grade III men a year. The R.A.F. has a total of 3,000 and an annual intake of 2,000—a good deal lower figure—and in the Navy, according to my information. there are 20 Grade III men at the present time and the annual intake is variable—one of us is misinformed here, but I would not venture to say which; our information presumably comes from the same source, but we must check it up

Whilst I am on the subject. I should like to mention a matter which gives rise to a certain amount of misunderstanding—certainly I receive many letters from hon. Members about it—namely, the different standards which exist in the various Services in relation to the acceptance of Grade III men. For instance, the R.A.F. has a different standard from the Army, and different requirements, to some extent. Within the Army itself there are also different standards in respect of National Service men and Regular soldiers. It occasionally happens that a man who wants to make the Army his career is rejected as a Regular, but is later called up as a National Service man. The reason is that the man who is going to make the Army his career must have a higher all-round standard, and must be available to serve in more than one theatre and capacity, whereas those requirements are not so important in respect of National Service men.

Before going any further, I should like to remind the House of the circumstances in which it was first decided to enlist Grade III men into the Services. As hon. Members will probably be aware, up to May, 1951, they were not accepted, but in that month, at the time of the acute manpower crisis which resulted from the Korean War, it became necessary to scrape the barrel, so to speak, for every available man. The Government of the day decided that it was necessary to lower the medical standard and to admit certain men in Grade III. I am sure that that was the right decision in the circumstances then prevailing.

Nobody knows better than I that it is sometimes difficult for the public, and even for Members of Parliament, to understand what use the Army can find for a man with a physical defect—a man who may not be 100 per cent. or even 50 per cent, fit. Any hon. Member with any experience of the Army—such as the two hon. Members who have just spoken—must realise that there are many tasks in the Army, and to a lesser extent in the other Services, which a man who is not 100 per cent. fit can very usefully perform, thereby releasing a man who is 100 per cent. fit for a more active job. Quite clearly, at a time when we need every man we can get, it is a waste to have the jobs of clerks, storemen and similar categories filled by men who are equally well able to serve in a commando.

That would be in time of emergency, and I would concede that argument at once.

The question is what constitutes an emergency—because we now live in times when an emergency has become almost the normal state of affairs. Perhaps I might touch upon the two individual cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Bermondsey. First, there is the case of Sapper Smith. It is quite true that he is not physically fit, but the fact remains—as I told the hon. Member in my last letter to him—that he is able to perform clerical work and is very well fitted for work of that kind by reason of his education and intelligence. He is in fact doing very useful work in the Army at the present time. His case provides quite a good instance of the way in which we are able to employ a man who would not make, say, an infantry soldier. In his capacity as clerk he is serving his country just as usefully as is a man employed in a much more active capacity.

The hon. Gentleman will concede the argument that a certain amount of embarrassment is caused to this young boy who is crippled, and who limps, when he is walking across the barrack square to his Army room or his Army office to do his work. What must that boy feel, with everybody else fit and well, going off on marches and doing drills?

I do not want to appear to be unsympathetic, and I am sure that anybody who comes into contact with Sapper Smith in the course of his duties is not unsympathetic. It is naturally accepted that, through no fault of his own, he is not as fit as other soldiers. The same considerations would apply if he were employed as an engineer, or whatever he does in civil life.

The considerations which I have mentioned in the case of Sapper Smith apply also to the other case mentioned by the hon. Member for Bermondsey. The case of the Jamaican constituent of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) is one which I noted particularly because it was so unusual. It shows the wide divergency of cases with which we in the War Office have to deal. I think the fact that this Jamaican was not immediately discarded either by the Ministry of Labour or as soon as he joined the Army is very understandable. I do not know whether he turned up in boots when he presented himself for his original medical examination or whether he arrived barefooted, but until somebody saw what happened when he put on boots it was very difficult to say what the result would be.

Would not the hon. Gentleman admit that it should not take as long as eight months to find out whether a man who has always gone barefooted is able to wear boots?

I think that the Army has tried different types of boots and shoes. After all, it is well known that the West Indian makes a very good soldier indeed, and here was a man who, as far as I know, was perfectly fitted in every other way. He was a keen, good soldier. I do not think that the Army can really be blamed for exploring every possibility of turning him into a soldier without damaging his feet. It was only when we finally discovered that the two were incompatible that we decided to send him back to civil life.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was only when these problems were taken up with the political heads of the Department that any satisfaction was gained. That is really not accurate. As my right hon. Friend and I keep repeating from this Box, every soldier has recourse to the normal channels. He can always go to his N.C.O.s or his officers, and in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of a thousand he will get a sympathetic reception and the complaint will go on up. It is really only in the exceptional case that it is necessary for a soldier to go to his Member of Parliament. But I would again like to repeat that we are only too glad to have hon. Members take up cases where there is any legitimate complaint and to do our best to put such complaints right. In no case is action of any kind ever taken against a soldier who makes a complaint, whatever his rank or position may be. That is a very important principle and one which cannot be repeated too often.

Since 1951 the manpower shortage has continued and our varying commitments overseas and the need to build up a strategic reserve in this country have made it necessary to keep in the Army every available National Service man capable of rendering useful service. It is true to say that during this period almost every unit in the Army has been fully stretched. Indeed, a good many units have actually been under their proper establishment of troops. All that has made it necessary to retain Grade III men in the Army. But while saying that, I think I should also say that it cannot be denied that the calling up of Grade II men is something which has very definite disadvantages indeed from the point of view of the Army as well as that from the Grade III men themselves.

Both hon. Members have given a great many reasons why that is so, and administrative Army reasons as well as human reasons on the part of their constituents. The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton mentioned the files on the affairs of Grade III men, and I may say that nowhere is there a greater accumulation of such files than in my private office. Certainly, from my own selfish point of view, there is a lot to be said for ending this system.

Another obvious disadvantage is that most Grade III men are restricted by their medical category to employment in a certain limited number of jobs. A great many others are confined to base units which makes for a lack of flexibility in the Army. Obviously the ideal thing is that it should be possible to employ men anywhere and in any capacity. We should have fit men in the Army who can go anywhere and do anything.

Now the hon. Gentleman is talking sense.

I have been talking sense all along.

That is all the more true in a smaller Army, because there the burden and inconvenience of having men who are not fit and have to be left behind when the unit goes overseas is all the greater. Mention has been made of the blunders of medical boards. I do not accept that there are many such blunders, but a certain number occur, and it is unfortunate when they do. But doctors, however good and conscientious, find difficulty in differentiating exactly under the P.U.L.H.E.E.M.S system between a man who is fit to do a useful job and one who is not. The result is that while some Grade III men are able to do useful jobs, there are others—I hope that the majority of them have already been released—who spend most of their time in hospital or changing from one job to another and causing an immense amount of work administratively. That adds up to a considerable expense and waste of effort. It means that calling up Grade III men is an expensive proposition which may be undertaken or continued only when it is absolutely unavoidable.

That stage has been passed.

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman would allow me to carry my argument to its logical conclusion.

We recognise that it is an expensive and uneconomic proposition. But, for the reasons I gave earlier, I am sure that the decision of the then Government to accept Grade III into the Services was right. I am equally sure that for the same reasons successive Governments have found the continuance of this policy unavoidable. But in recent months it has been possible to undertake a reduction in the overall strength of the Armed Forces, which will be carried out between now and 1958. The review of our manpower resources has led us to the conclusion that we can safely revert to the system prevailing before 1951, and in future call up no more men in the medical category known as Grade III to any of the three Services. Those who are already serving will be required to complete their engagements. Otherwise, the sudden release of so large a block of men—there are 10,000 in the Army and most of them are trained—would cause undue dislocation. Grade III men at present serving will leave the Army, Navy and Air Force by the normal process of discharge spread over the next two years and starting now.

I beg the hon. Gentleman to look at that matter again. I am grateful for what he has said up to now, but surely he realises that these Grade III people in the Army will have the knowledge that no more of that category will be called up in future and that will create an awful problem for these chaps. Will the hon. Gentleman look at that again?

That has been gone into very carefully indeed. We have been forced to the conclusion that it is not possible to release 10,000 trained soldiers simultaneously without causing very grave dislocation indeed. The run-down will take place by the ordinary process of discharge. Some have only a week more to serve, some have a month, six months or two years.

I understand that it would be very difficult to discharge 10,000 men overnight, but could it not be done within, say, six months? That would give the Army time to arrange machinery for the disposal of these men. As the hon. Gentleman has said, many of them are not doing a useful job of work, anyway.

Many of them are doing a useful job. The hon. Member can be sure that we do not want to keep anybody in the Army who is not serving a useful purpose there. If we find any means of accelerating the process, we will certainly examine it very closely, but I cannot hold out any hope whatever.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether consideration might be given to the possibility of giving discretion to the commanding officers of units where there are such men whose services might possibly be spared before their ordinary time for demobilisation is reached without interfering unduly with the life of the unit? I appreciate that many of these men are performing important duties but of the 10,000 there must be many who could be spared. Could there not be room for discretion?

That is already the position. The hon. and learned Member must realise that not only commanding officers but the whole machine has discretion to release men if it is considered that they are not serving a useful purpose. if hon. Members will continue to write to me about cases, I shall be only too glad to look into them as I have done so far.

My hon. and learned Friend's point was that if a commanding officer can say that X number of Grade III men in his unit are performing a useful job but nevertheless could be dispensed with without causing any sort of dislocation in the unit's activities, surely there is a case for the men being disposed of immediately. There seems to be no justification for keeping my two constituents, one of whom had a broken back and one of whom has one leg shorter than the other, for a full two years merely because of some ruling that they were called up for two years and therefore they must stay. Surely if their services can be dispensed with, that should be done.

The criterion must be whether they are serving a useful purpose by remaining in the Army. That is the criterion that has existed up to now and it must continue. Suppose the commanding officer of one or other of the hon. Gentleman's constituents agreed to let him out and the commanding officer of the other found that he could not spare the other one, there would be considerable injustice between the two. We must have the rule that if a man is needed for the Army he is kept in the Army. If a man is not serving a useful purpose we are always prepared to let him out; but we have to treat these matters—we cannot make exceptions—in accordance with the general rule, otherwise we should get injustices.

Will the hon. Gentleman clear up one point? Is it right that men in Grade III will not be called up from today? Is it from today, or is it from some date that the hon. Gentleman did not specify?

I think I am right in saying that it is from today. Obviously a line will have to be drawn at some specific point of time, and it would be wrong for me to say that it is from this minute.

There may be men who have had their medical examination but have not yet been asked to report for duty. Will the exemption apply to them?

I think I am right in saying that from a date last week no further men in Grade III are being called up.

First, I think I should offer an apology to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for detaining her on yet another Friday. I have the impression that for many months hardly a Friday has gone by without her being detained in a similar capacity. As we might have had this discussion last week but for an accident, I am sure she will forgive me for having brought her here again today.

I wish to draw some attention to the difficulties faced by the Ministry in recruiting a sufficient number of men and women to nurse the mentally sick and the mentally defective. In doing so, I hope to offer some positive steps which might be taken to solve the problem, which has been with us for a very long time—indeed, far too long—and is really nothing new.

There are some interesting figures in the Ministry's Report for 1954. The average number of staffed beds per nurse in 1954 was 6·6 in mental hospitals and 7 in mental deficiency hospitals. At the same time, there were 765 beds not in use because of the lack of staff in mental hospitals, and 1,336 beds not in use in mental deficiency institutions for a similar reason.

Comparing 1954 with 1953, we are able to see what has been happening. We find that the number of beds not in use in mental hospitals in 1953 was 1,099 and in mental deficiency institutions 1,750. Thus, an improvement between the two years is manifest. At the same time, when we realise that there are 1,336 beds in mental deficiency institutions and 765 in mental hospitals unstaffed because of lack of trained personnel, it is apparent that we must find a remedy for this even whilst we think in terms of building new hospitals, for these beds are available and everything is ready except that we have not the staff for them.

The Ministry has been fully aware of the problem and has acted in all sorts of ways to improve recruiting. I will list some of the steps taken. First, there have been special training courses for mental nurses. Secondly, there was an increase in remuneration in 1954, and new scales negotiated by the Whitley Council have recently been published. Thirdly, there has been deferment from call-up of male student nurses. Fourthly, local recruiting campaigns have been held in many parts of the country, particularly in the larger cities. The results of our recruiting campaigns, as I know the Parliamentary Secretary will agree. have, unfortunately, not been very good.

Fifthly, we know that there has been some increase in the expenditure on the buildings of the hospitals and institutions, and this increase in expenditure must in some ways have brought about an improvement for the staff in the amenities provided. But, again, I know the Parliamentary Secretary will agree when I say that there are some hospitals where such amenities are still sadly lacking and where much greater improvement is required.

Lastly, all the efforts made by the Ministry over quite a long period were noted in the Answer which the Parliamentary Secretary gave on 30th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Collins), but the Answer made manifest that for 1954 we showed a net loss. More people still in training left in 1954 than the total number of new entrants we gained for that year. There was almost 100 per cent. wastage for the year 1955.

I have looked at other figures given to me, not by the Parliamentary Secretary but by the General Secretary of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, and it seems that for other years the wastage has been extremely high, averaging, for men, over a number of years, about 80 per cent. and over 90 per cent. for women.

I should like to say a few words about the recent salary revision. There has been an improvement over the old salary scale in certain respects—for instance, the number of annual increments have been reduced from eight to six, which obviously is a good thing, and there has been an increase, in some cases quite appreciable, in basic allowances—but there are anomalies in the recent revision and in the present salary scale. I have listed these as four. Perhaps I may put them briefly.

First, there is the question of the male student mental nurse who is over 21, is married and has one child. In her answer on this point, the Parliamentary Secretary told us on 23rd April, as reported in c. 1448 of HANSARD:

"In every instance there is a gain to all grades, and to some a very substantial gain."

—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1956; Vol. 551, c. 1448.] I have gone into that and I think the hon. Lady is wrong in respect of these married men over 21, in their first year, who have a wife and child. Formerly, these men received, I am advised, £357 16s. a year in their first year. That included the allowances for wife and child. Now they have no allowances, but they start at £390 a year; but the cost of meals for a year is £41, and this they must pay themselves. If my figures are correct these men are, therefore, worse off than they were before.

The second anomaly concerns charges for board and lodging. I believe it is a fact that the nurses are charged the same prices for board and lodging irrespective of what it is like. A nurse may have a room to himself or herself or may have to share it with one, two or three others. In both cases the board and lodging charge is the same. Moreover, I am told that in some cases the charges can be increased by more than the pay increases in certain respects. I wonder whether that is true. If it is true, it is wrong that at the same time as they receive increases in payment, the charges should be increased more rapidly than the rate of pay. If that does happen—and I am advised that it does—the situation becomes absurd. I should like to point out that no rebate is given to nurses for meals which they may take out, add nurses do have time off, and I wonder whether this was taken into account. They also have holidays, and must eat on holiday.

The fourth anomaly in the present salary revision is that the demand for overtime rates has been refused, and this has had to go to arbitration. Before 1944, overtime was consistently and universally paid. I was given a letter by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) from a mental nurse, which is an extraordinary document, because the writer pointed out in his letter that he was a charge nurse, in charge of 448 beds, which is a very large number of beds for anyone to be in sole charge of at night. He has no assistant charge nurse to help him, and he says that if he had an assistant charge nurse, he would receive in addition to his salary, an additional £40 a year.

As it is impossible to give him an assistant—and I should have thought that it was not only desirable but essential to have assistants—he receives only the salary and £25 a year, instead of the salary and £40 a year. He rightly makes the point in his letter to my hon. Friend that, if he was in charge of only 50 beds and not 448, and had an assistant charge nurse, he would be better off than he is now, when he has infinitely more responsibility and very much more work to do.

I would bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary this interesting point. A chief male nurse in the service today is paid on the number of beds which he has in his care, so is a deputy chief male nurse. Why should a nurse in charge at night of 448 beds receive only £25 over and above the normal salary for nurses for such a post of responsibility?

I come now to the question of how we can solve the problem which I am now raising, and I should like to read to the Parliamentary Secretary a letter sent by the Secretary-General of the Confederation of Health Service Employees to the Medical Officer of Stoke-on-Trent, and dated 3rd May. It is headed, "Pay and Conditions of Student Mental Nurses." As it is not a long letter, I will read it in full, because it puts clearly the point between the Secretary-General of this union and the Medical Officer of Health. It is as follows:

"I thank you for your letter of the 1st instant, and I am grateful for your interest in this matter. I have no doubt that the chief cause of the existing dissatisfaction is the constitution of the Nurses and Midwives Council, and until we have a separate Whitley Council for mental nurses the position is not likely to improve. Representation is not based on membership (as is the case with most committees), and the Royal College of Nursing and associated professional organisations far outnumber the representatives of N.A.L.G.O., C.O.H.S.E. and all other trade unions combined."

I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary shakes her head, and I must say that when I looked at the figures I did not find that I was entirely in agreement with what I have just read out. On numbers, they seem to be, in the Nurses and Midwives' Council, well represented, but we will come to that point no doubt in the answer that will be given. The letter goes on:

"My organisation has four seats out of a total of 41, and as we have always been recognised as the union especially catering for mental nurses, you can appreciate how difficult it is to persuade the Royal College and the associated organisations that an increase in the differential between general nurses' salaries and those of mental nurses is called for. The reply of Miss Hornsby-Smith is quite correct."

That was the reply that she gave me, on, I think, 23rd April. The letter continues:

"what is not realised is that we are absolutely dependent on the support of organisations which have no real knowledge of the conditions in mental hospitals and mental deficiency institutions."

I think that is a real point, and I do ask the hon. Lady to accept that I believe this to be so from my own medical knowledge. The letter adds that:

"An increase in the differential would probably cause complaints from their own members"—

that is, the general nurses—

"and they must be influenced by that consideration."

The argument for a separate Whitley Council here is the crux of my reason for raising this matter today. This subject has been debated before and those arguments have been put previously to the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure that the Minister must have had this matter under consideration and I hope that it will still be considered.

The arguments run something like this. In the first place, mental nursing does differ from general nursing. I hope that that is accepted. In support of that, it is advanced that custodial care is now a prominent feature, and one which is increasing as more and more people come from out of our prisons into our civilian mental hospitals. Then, the staff are older than they tend to be in general nursing, and in many more cases they have greater responsibility. There is less prospect of advancement outside this service than is noted in general nursing. That is a point which was raised in a Question to the Parliamentary Secretary on 30th April. Another point is that hospital management committees of mental deficiency hospitals are better qualified to understand the problem than are those of general hospitals, who are not conversant with conditions in our asylums or our mental deficiency institutions.

If we are to improve recruitment we must so widen the scope of the service as to make it more attractive. Social service training should be made available to enable mental nurses to qualify. There the first problem is the qualification by some people as psychiatric social workers. But as that would require a university course I think that grants and scholarships should be made available to enable those who show special aptitude to go to the university and be trained. It would be easy, however. to consider the next three points. It should be possible for them to become occupational centre officers. duly authorised officers and dis trict mental officers. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has had all these things in her mind and has answered Questions about them.

I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will accede to my request, and that she and her right hon. Friend will consider afresh whether a separate Whitley Council is not now desirable in order to help solve this problem. After all, the present Whitley Council machinery was set up as a result of the Ministry's intervention and, if it so wills, the Ministry can equally bring about a change. I hope that it may so will it.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) for raising this matter, although I confess that I could have wished that he had raised it last Friday and not today. Nevertheless, this is a very important subject, and I will deal first with two items which he raised initially before going into detail on the new Whitley agreement.

First of all, I will give him the 1955 figures of mental nursing staff compared with the 1952 figures which he quoted. The figures for total nursing staff are 4 per cent. higher for full-timers and 8 per cent. higher for part-timers. I do not suggest that that is enough, but it shows that our recruiting endeavours and the various methods which we have been pursuing in the last few years to shorten the period of pure training and in breaking down the barrier between the general nursing and mental nursing sides are beginning to show a result. We hope that there will be a much higher result this year.

The matter of board and lodging is for the Whitley Council to decide, but it would be administratively extremely difficult to have a variable range of board and lodging charges according to whether they are incurred in general hospitals or mental hospitals. It has been accepted by the Whitley Council that the only practical means of dealing with this matter is to have a uniform board and lodging charge for nurses in both sections, general and mental. I think it is fair to say that whereas some accommodation is better than others. the fact remains that in no hospital does the cost levied on the nurse cover the charge for her board and lodging. There is indirectly a hidden increment in the fact that the board and lodging charge is not in any hospital sufficient to cover its total cost.

On the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the increase in pay in some circumstances was not as great as the increase made for the board and lodging charge, I frankly know no instance of that whatever. If the hon. Gentleman has any case in mind, I shall be happy to look into it. The normal procedure is that, on an average, one-third of the increase in pay has generally been the amount by which the board and lodging charge has been increased and I know of no case where the board and lodging increase was higher than the increase in pay.

I should like to deal in some detail with the new Whitley Agreement, because it sets a new pattern for the rates of pay and the conditions of service of student and other staff on the mental hospital side. In some cases it is a radical departure from the previous method, and it is an extremely important agreement which was arrived at by the Staff and Management sides of the Whitley Council with what, I think, was reasonable expedition.

In view of recent criticism of the Whitley machinery on account of delay, it is only fair to point out that this very important and complex claim for all grades of staff was settled by agreement in just over two months from the time the claim was lodged, during which period the two sides met on three occasions, referred back to their various committees, thrashed the matter out and finally came to complete agreement on a very far-reaching claim.

The agreement provides considerably better rates of pay for all existing mental nurses and, with one very limited exception to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and with which I will deal later. much more attractive rates for new entrants. An important change has been made in the structure of allowances for student mental nurses. Hitherto, like student general nurses, they have received allowances according to the stage which they reach in their training. In the future they are going to be paid allowances based on age of entry.

The present allowances are £285 in the first year, £295 in the second year and

£310 in the third year. Under the new arrangement students will receive £305 at the age of 18, £315 at 19 and £330 at 20. A student entering training at the age of 21 will start at £390 a year. if they are aged 21 or over when they take up training, they will receive £390 for the first year, £405 for the second year and £420 in the final year.

The younger student will, therefore, get increases from £20 to £45, and the rates for those over 21 will normally be increased by as much as £105, except where a dependant's allowance would have been payable under the present arrangements. These dependants' allowances which the hon. Member has in mind are now to be withdrawn. The proficiency allowances payable on passing the preliminary and final examinations will be retained. Generally, the new rates will provide a stimulus to recruiting in mental nursing, and they should be particularly attractive to persons over twenty-one years of age who are thinking of taking up nursing as a career.

I say quite frankly that the Whitley Council has taken a bold step in adopting this new scheme. It represents a complete break with the past, and I hope very much it is going to play an important part in increasing the flow of student mental nurses, in order that we may have adequate staff.

Staff nurses and ward sisters in mental hospitals will receive the same increases as their colleagues in general hospitals. The new scale for the woman staff nurse will be £462 rising to £567, and for a ward sister, £532 rising to £660. What is more important, the maximum of their scale will in the future be reached in six yearly increments instead of eight. For matrons. there are similar increases.

With regard to nursing assistants, up to now all new entrants to this grade have been required to serve two years in a lower category. This constituted a deterrent to the older man or woman. and. for that reason, the lower category is now abolished all new entrants will be paid age rates if under twenty-one and a salary scale if twenty-one or over. The pattern is the same as for unqualified nursing staff in general hospitals, but the rates are higher because of the incremented service in mental hospitals.

I now turn to the subject of students' allowances. The Whitley Council were in complete agreement on the new policy of a consolidated rate of pay. There was no disagreement from members of the Staff Side, including, as I shall outline presently, many members who are in the mental nursing service. There was no disagreement on the new policy of a consolidated rate of pay and doing away with dependants' allowances. That was the goal of the Whitley Council, with which the Staff Side agreed. The old scheme of allowances was unattractive to adults without dependants, and the new agreement, whilst still providing allowances for students under 21 which maintain the existing lead of £45 over general students, seeks to encourage the recruitment of older persons by paying them allowances at the same rates as they would receive in salary as nursing assistants.

On the question of meals, it should be appreciated that the nursing assistants already pay for their meals, so that if students over 21 are now to receive the same rates of pay as nursing assistants, it is not illogical that those who live outside hospital should in future do so as well. Those under 21 will continue to receive meals free to maintain their position in relation to student general nurses.

The new agreement, whilst providing substantial increases for the vast majority of mental nurses, could, in the case of a student in training who has dependants, result in a lower net payment. To meet this, the Council has agreed that student mental nurses in this category can opt to continue on the basis of the old training allowance, plus dependants' allowance, plus a special increase of £15, and without deduction for meals. The result is that no existing mental nurse will gain less than £15 a year out of this new agreement.

When was this decision reached?

It is all part of the agreement; these are the terms of the Whitley Agreement. For the future, and in view of the very high percentage of unmarried students who come in for mental nursing, the Whitley Council was in agreement that they should go in for higher consolidated rates of pay and do away with dependants' allowances. The total amounts for an existing student who has a wife and child—the case the hon. Member had in mind—will increase from £358 to £373 in the first year, and will then go up in the second and third years of training.

In general, the scheme provides a common entry portal for all new recruits in mental nursing. Those desirous of training for the register will be enrolled as student mental nurses. Those not wishing to take up training or not suitable for it will be engaged as nursing assistants. Whichever they become, all recruits of the same age will be paid at the same rates.

Those who are student nurses will become staff nurses on the successful completion of their training and will qualify for proficiency allowances of £40 and £50 on passing the preliminary and final examinations, which is a not inconsiderable addition. Nursing assistants are paid the rate for the job and, therefore, like other staff, have never received dependants' allowances and have always paid for their meals on duty. Now that student mental nurses are to be paid at the same rates as nursing assistants, the Council felt that there was no justification for giving them the dependants' allowances in addition.

The position, therefore. of existing student mental nurses with dependants has been safeguarded because they will be able to continue as at present, plus an addition of £15. As a result of this agreement, student nurses and nursing assistants will get the same rate of pay and recruits will not, therefore, be adversely affected because they enrolled as student nurses. One of the criticisms has been that somebody enrolling as a student nurse received less than someone who enrolled as a nursing assistant. This anomaly has been wiped out. The important point about the new agreement is that all direct entrants into mental nursing will now be treated alike.

The new structure of allowances was devised with the object of improving recruitment and it will, I believe, be of great value to us in our recruiting campaign. The structure must be viewed as a whole. I freely confess that this is a radical departure from the old principle, but it has been done with the complete agreement of the Staff Side. It was accepted by both sides as meeting the very special needs of mental nursing. Now that the National Whitley Council has been concerned for seven years about mental nursing recruiting, it has been able to see the disadvantages of the lower rates for the student as against the nursing assistant and the much lower rates for the unmarried staff, which were greater deterrents to recruitment. The vast majority of students are, in fact, unmarried.

I recognise the special plea by the hon. Member for a separate Mental Nursing Whitley Council, but I disagree with him whole-heartedly. In a claim of this nature, the whole policy of the Staff Side is considered by the Mental Nurses' Standing Committee of the Whitley Council, which comprises 12 members. Five of them are serving staff in mental hospitals and four are trade union officials. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants some of the trade union officials changed for people serving in hospitals, but there are these nine members who can justly claim directly to represent the mental nursing side. Two of the 12 are matrons in general hospitals, although one of the matrons has direct responsibility for mental nursing training in the psychiatric wing of a hospital. Here, again, is someone who is very much associated with the mental nursing side. The twelfth member is a sister tutor.

I do not think that anyone could say that the mental nursing side is not properly represented, and in selecting the members who should negotiate this Whitley machinery the larger Whitley Council gave full consideration and representation to members from the Mental Nurses' Standing Committee, knowing their interest and experience in these problems. There is no question that the mental side had a full voice in dealing with its own problem.

Does the hon. Lady not agree that the State mental hospitals, which do similar work. have their own machinery?

The hon. Member is talking about Broadmoor and Rampton, which are in a different category. They are to some extent under the jurisdiction of the Home Office and are criminal mental hospitals. The hon. Member is not perhaps drawing a fair parallel between the real medical scope of work which has to be done in recruiting and training mental nurses and the difficult and separate problem of the criminal mental hospital.

Any question of redeployment of Whitley Councils is not a matter for action by the Minister. The form of any negotiating machinery must accord with the wishes of all concerned if it is to work harmoniously.

It cannot be imposed from above. Admittedly the Minister at the beginning of the National Health Service had to lay down the general structure of the committees, but it has been implicit in the Whitley machinery that any radical change must come from joint agreement between the Staff and Management sides, and therefore any alteration in the present Whitley structure must come from within. It must be acceptable to both management and staff.

It is fair to say that discussion on the subject of a Whitley Council for mental nurses took place between the two sides of the Nurses and Midwives Council but that the consensus of opinion on both sides was against the establishment of a completely separate body. May I say this in great sincerity, because I know that the hon. Member is as sincere in his desire to see a great stimulus to our mental nurse recruitment as I am, that here I differ from him fundamentally on a point of principle.

The work of mental nursing has changed radically in the last ten or twenty years. From a task of mainly care and custody, it has changed to one embodying increasing medical skills. Patients today come into mental hospitals for treatment and cure, and the status of the mental nurse is now, after many years, comparable to that of the general nurse. The whole emphasis of our campaign is that the care of the sick mind is as important as the care of the sick body and that in status the mental nurse is side by side with her sister the general nurse.

The iron curtain of prejudice has been swept away—not without many hard battles in some of which I have been proud to participate, and the status of the mental nurse has been enhanced very considerably in the past few years so that she is now established beside her sister in the general nursing field. Great efforts are being made to encourage integration. We are having marked success in the integration of programmes between general and mental hospitals and the exchange of general nurses to do a turn of psychiatric work and of mental nurses to do the shortened 18 months to get the double registration on the register.

I believe that this has come about far more quickly because of this highly-important and extremely well-represented joint Whitley Council. Over the last few years we have literally battered down the old prejudice between the two sides of the profession. To go back on this new approach towards the integration of the sisters in the profession on the general and mental side, or to do anything which would suggest a division between two competing Whitley councils—and let us not hide it; they would be competing if they were set up separately—might be a retrograde step.

We want to enhance the status of all nurses and to establish beyond question the real link between the nursing of the sick mind and the sick body. There is great scope for advancement within the service, and, as I said in an Adjournment debate only a few days ago, committees are now dealing with psychiatric social workers, occupational therapy and the like work which mental nurses may do. The Whitley agreement recently concluded is clear evidence of the fact that the particular interests of the mental field are being kept in mind.

The new arrangements for remunerating student mental nurses and nursing assistants represent a complete break with the past and show a very full appreciation of the need for radical measures to attract suitable recruits in sufficient numbers into mental nursing. Multiplicity of such bodies would break down much of the good will which, in the past, we have been able to achieve in mental nursing.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Four o'clock till Tuesday, 29th May, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.