asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the reasons for the delay in the publication of the Hunter Committee's Report.

The Committee's first Report was published in July, 1963. There has been no delay in its deliberations and the final Report is expected by about May of this year.

As the Order postponing the ban on the drift netting of salmon was placed only in February, was it not then understood that the Report would be ready by the time the ban was originally supposed to have been lifted?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a complicated matter and that there are conflicting interests, some being rather controversial. We asked the Hunter Committee to produce an interim report, and this is what it did, and action has to be taken in relation to the interim Report until such time as we get the final Report. There has been no delay.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the Departmental Committee of Inquiry appointed by the previous administration to inquire into the typhoid outbreak in Aberdeen in 1964 has produced a Report, Cmnd. 2542, which has exceeded its terms of reference by expressing opinions without evidence to support them, and in particular by attacking Dr. Ian MacQueen, the Medical Officer of Health of Aberdeen, who succeeded in bringing the typhoid epidemic to an end; and if he will now appoint another Committee presided over by a High Court judge to review that problem and report upon it.

I do not accept that the Milne Report attacked Dr. MacQueen. It praised the speed and efficiency with which he and his staff tackled the outbreak, but came to a conclusion on the medical factors involved in the spread of the disease which differed from Dr. MacQueen's own assessment. From this followed the Report's criticisms concerning publicity, which were intended as guidance in future outbreaks. The Committee performed its task very thoroughly and there is no justification for a further inquiry.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that so much time has passed since I first tabled the Question, during which so many tributes have been paid to Dr. MacQueen and his staff for their very successful work on that occasion, that I no longer press the Question? However, does he realise that in future cases of this kind the chairman of such a committee should be a Scottish High Court judge and not a member of the Civil Service presiding over an inquiry into his own Department, as was so in this case?

My hon. and learned Friend should appreciate that one of the reasons why the Report was so well received and accepted as valuable was the services of that gentleman. He did a first-class job. It would be unfair to suggest that there was any bias in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of undulant fever have occurred in Scotland in each of the past five years.

Undulant fever is not in itself a notifiable disease and complete statistics are not available. The only figures I have relate to people treated in hospital for this disease for the years 1961–1963. There were 35 in 1961, 22 in 1962, and 32 in 1963.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that a policy of eradication of brucellosis among cattle would reduce the risk of undulant fever and would be a great contribution to public health? In view of the attitude of the Minister of Agriculture, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to initiate such a policy in Scotland?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the present time we have considerably reduced the risks in this respect by the free vaccination scheme, to which we are giving further publicity. He will also be aware that there has been a survey of the incidence of brucellosis in milk herds, and that there is a study group working on the problem on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture. After we get its report, which should come fairly soon, we should have all the information on which to base any further scheme. However, it is too early at the moment to start out on an eradication scheme.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that fewer calves are being vaccinated since the vaccination service has become free? Is he aware that Scotland is the only country in Western Europe, with the exception of England, where undulant fever is not a notifiable disease? Ought he not to accept the recommendations of the B.M.A. and make this a notifiable disease in Scotland?

There has been a survey, and the Government are studying the results. There is at the moment a working party looking into the subject. Eventually we shall have a full picture of what should be done. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman suggests that the results are disappointing in England and Wales. I hope that he was not speaking for Scotland.

I was.

Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) did—keep Scotland out ahead? Will he take a lead in the matter of brucellosis, particularly remembering a fact of which both sides of the House must be proud, that it was Scotland which took the lead in eradicating tuberculosis?

Yes, Sir. The part of the world from which I come was one of the first to achieve 100 per cent. eradication. However, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the lead which his right hon. Friend took was to introduce the scheme which the hon. Gentleman is now criticising.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had regarding the operation of the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act, 1964; and what reply he has sent.

Representations have been been made to my Department by the National Farmers' Union and other organisations representing hill sheep farmers in Scotland that the provisions in the Act governing the use of rubber rings should be amended by raising the age limit from one week to two months. The reply given in each case was that there was no prospect of introducing amending legislation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that veterinary opinion is by no means agreed that the rubber ring method of castration causes unnecessary suffering? Is he prepared to instruct the Department of Agriculture to advise hill farmers in Scotland on an alternative method?

The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that farming opinion was consulted before the Act was put on the Statute Book, that the advice was available of our own veterinary officers in the Scottish Department and those of various associations not only in Scotland but elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and that they were all agreed that the Act should be introduced. We also had surveillance at that time over the Department of Agriculture of a man who was not undistinguished in the sheep breeding field, and also of a distinguished farmer in Scotland. Therefore, I am surprised that these protests did not come when the Bill was going through the House. The Measure came into force only in August last year. I appreciate that there have been protests. We have already stated that if we get evidence of a substantial character that some change should be made we will look at it.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman know—I am certain that if he asks, his Department will tell him—that when the Act was agreed both the Scottish National Farmers' Union and the British Veterinary Association were to some extent confused about the evidence that they gave to the Scottish Office at the time. There has been a very considerable change since. This is a serious problem. It is right that the right hon. Gentleman should look at it again in the light of the fact that within a month or two these lambs will be born.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) has already been told that we are prepared to look at any evidence that might come forward in relation to this problem to prove that a wrong decision has been taken by the House. It should be remembered that it was this House which decided in favour of the Bill without any amendment. There was opportunity to make protests between the time the Measure came from another place and its consideration in this House, but none came, and the Bill was passed without amendment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a real problem here? Throughout the whole of Scotland it is almost impossible for this part of the law to be observed and quite impossible for it to be enforced. Is there not a danger that the continuation of such legislation will lead to the law falling into disrepute generally?

the hon. Gentleman surprises me because he, too, was a member of the Government which allowed the Measure to go through.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong for him to put too much stress on the wisdom and knowledge of gentlemen farmers sitting on the Opposition benches? Would it not be better for him to pay a greater degree of attention to the practical farmers of Scotland, who find it very difficult to implement this part of the Act? Might I draw his attention to the simple fact that bringing the sheep in for the purpose of getting the lambs castrated at an early age does more damage to the unborn lambs in the sheep? Is not this an important subject, and ought not my right hon. Friend to give it very special consideration?

I noted this when my hon. Friend first stated it. I was here when he made the point. I can assure him that what further action we take will depend on the weight of evidence that backs up the protests which have been made and have been brought to my notice by hon. Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will adjust the grants to residents of houses affected by clean air Orders, particularly where the total cost of conforming with the provisions of the orders exceeds £100.

The standard grant is seven-tenths of the approved cost, but where a local authority thinks fit it has a discretion to pay all or part of the balance.

While I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask whether he does not agree that the general practice of Scottish local authorities is to pay a grant similar to that of the Government? While in general, in the areas covered by these Orders, the average total cost of conversion is under £40, in the King's Park and Croft-foot area of my constituency the contribution of the residents will have to be more than £40 towards the total cost of £112. As hardship is involved, will the right hon. Gentleman look at the grant structure?

The structure is quite clear. The standard grant is 70 per cent. of the cost, and 40 per cent. is borne by the Government and 30 per cent. by the local authority. There is discretion for the local authorities to pay more, and I understand that they decide in respect of this on the question of hardship. If hardship is proved and a further grant is paid, then the addition is met by the Government and the local authority in the same proportions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Minister of Power the necessity for ensuring that adequate fuel stocks are available in the area before the Order becomes effective?

That is a different question but I have noted it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to introduce specially favourable borrowing rates of interest for housing.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce a scheme for specially favourable borrowing rates for housing; and what information he has about the effect of high interest rates in relation to the number of new houses started in the last quarter of 1964.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the provision of specially favourable borrowing rates of interest for housing.

In Answer to a Question on 19th January, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced measures to mitigate the effects of the increased Bank Rate on the housing programme. Before deciding our long-term policy about loans for local authority housing, we wish to complete our reviews of housing subsidies and finance in conjuction with the local authority associations. I do not think high interest rates since October have materially affected the number of new houses started in the last quarter of 1964.

What is the right hon. Gentleman doing now to carry out the policy, stated on page 15 of the Labour Party manifesto, which promised special, low rates of interest for housing as compared with other interest rates?

The hon. Gentleman must have confused long-term policy with short-term measures necessitated by the long-term failures of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Is it not about time the right hon. Gentleman made a public apology to the people of Scotland, whose illusions have been so shattered by this repudiation of a firm election promise? Does not this merely go to show that Labour Party election manifestoes are not worth the paper they are written on?

That depends who writes them, and if the noble Lord writes them, then I agree. He might make a public apology for the assumption he made in the latter part of his Question, which related to houses started in the month of October. As he knows, tenders are submitted six months beforehand.

As the right hon. Gentleman's reply is a further blow to the people who believed that what the party opposite said at the election they would carry out, could not the right hon. Gentleman try to help local authorities which find themselves in difficulty because of these higher interest rates by encouraging places such as Glasgow to charge more reasonable rents? In Glasgow, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, rent actually paid is only one-third of the cost of providing houses.

Has the hon. Gentleman changed his mind? He used to think that interest rates did not matter. He said that they were "a hoary old chestnut" which the Opposition—then the Labour Party—persisted in regarding as a "hot potato". He should read the Answer given on 18th November and see what was then already being done in respect of this matter.

We consider this to be a short-term measure. Let him take his mind back to the statement by the then Under-Secretary of State, who told us in 1956 that high interest rates were temporary. They were temporary for about eight years.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House and the country how long it will take the Government to get us out the morass left behind by the previous Administration?

They took 13 years to get us into it. It will not take us 13 years to get out of it.

I do not want to follow the right hon. Gentleman on the last Question, although I would have a great deal of pleasure in doing so. Does not he remember that, month after month, he alleged that high interest rates were the main reason for difficulty in housing? Has he changed his mind?

No. I always thought that the main reason for difficulty in housing was the Tory Government.

Mr. Taylor.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree—

Order. It is my fault for not making my intention distinct. I called the hon. Gentleman in respect of the next Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what official discussions took place between his Joint Under-Secretary and Glasgow's Convener of Education regarding the city's school building programme when the Joint Under-Secretary visited Glasgow or 11th January; and what decisions were reached about additional school building projects.

Informal discussions took place, but there was no question of reaching decisions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Answer appears rather shocking to those who listened to previous protestations about so-called savage building cuts in Glasgow and elsewhere? In these circumstances will he, as a matter of urgency, urge local authorities to use their allocations of money wisely by building less extravagant and lavish schools but building more of them?

I do not see how that supplementary question is related to the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his tour on 13th January of Scotland designed to increase trade, industry and employment there, indicating the places and firms he visited and his plans based on the results of those visits.

As part of a three-day programme of visits to firms in the East and West of Scotland, I visited Richards Ltd. and the Hall Russell shipyard in Aberdeen, and the food processing factory of Robert Lawson & Sons at Dyce. I also met the Lord Provost, the County Convener, and representatives of their Councils. The up-to-date appreciation these visits gave me of the needs and prospects of industry in the area will be of great value in completing the regional economic studies which the Government intend should form part of the basis of a comprehensive economic plan for the whole of Scotland.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that his very successful visit has done much to stimulate trade, industry, commerce and employment in the north-east of Scotland? Will he follow this up by building advance factories to accommodate the new industries which we now hope will go there?

Perhaps I should catch the train for Aberdeen right away.

Will the right hon. Gentleman enumerate in what way his visit had this extraordinary effect? When is the North-East project likely to be published? It was well under way during the last Administration.

The hon. Lady will appreciate that the success of my visit as recounted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) is not something for me to explain. Nevertheless, my hon. and learned Friend is usually very reliable in reflecting what happens in that part of the country.

The North-East Study was started during the last Administration but they never said that they would publish it. The study itself will have to be incorporated into the plan for the whole of Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the expansion of industry and employment in Scotland during the next 12 months; how much of it will be confined to the central belt; and how much to the rest of the country.

From projects for which industrial development certificates have been issued, the employment expected to accrue is 35,000, of which about 32,000 will be in the central belt, including Dundee. The rate of manning up varies, but on past experience about one-third of all these jobs might arise in 1965. There are no corresponding figures for the expansion of other types of employment, but in recent years employment in the service industries in Scotland has risen by an average of about 18,000 annually, and I can see no reason why this rate of increase should not be maintained.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I hope that that moderately optimistic survey will at least be more accurate than some of the surveys we have had in the past from right hon. and hon. Members opposite, because nothing the Government have done so far has in any way helped the expansion of industry and employment in Scotland and in some cases has even hindered it? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is at least as militant and enthusiastic about getting work to other parts of the country, as well as to the central belt?

My concern about the whole of Scotland has already been proclaimed, and proclaimed in the part of the world from which the hon. Member comes. I do not know, but he strikes me as being completely out of touch with what is happening in Scotland. As to what is happening in the North-East, I can assure him that we are determined to carry out our pledges to the people of Scotland to ensure that they have a fair share of the expansion of industry in this country.

Will the Secretary of State answer the question which I put to him earlier? When does he expect the detailed study of the North-East to be ready? And secondly, what are the considerations which made him decide not to publish it?

I have not made any declaration not to publish it. I have said that it was a study, and what we do publish are plans co-ordinated with the other plans. I think that it is much more coherent to consider how they will affect a part of Scotland in the context of their effect on the whole of Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the decrease in the dairy cow population in Scotland from January, 1960, until December, 1964; and how many producers between the above dates abandoned dairying.

There was a decrease of about 12,000 in the dairy cow population during this period. The number of producers producing milk for sale in the area of the three Milk Marketing Boards decreased by 1,116 in the same period.

Do not those figures confirm that there is a serious situation in Scotland? Will not my right hon. Friend further agree that speedy remedial action should now be taken in order to avoid the danger of a further reduction in milk production?

Milk production during the period did not fall but rose because of higher productivity. We are, however, naturally concerned about the whole trend of things. We want to achieve a proper balance.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although there was a very considerable increase at the last Price Review, the profitability for a dairy cow has fallen to a very low level? This is a very important industry in the south-west of Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to try to increase the price, although his sympathies lie more with the urban consumer in Kilmarnock and other places?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have very considerable interest in agriculture and in milk production in Kilmarnock and district. My constituency is not urban. He will be aware that certain discussions are taking place at the moment elsewhere and it would be very unwise of me to reply on this matter now or to be drawn in relation to the outcome of those discussions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the subject of alternatives to dairying is very important and that there is a general lack of confidence at the moment engendered by the failure of his right hon. Friend to support the efforts of the Potato Marketing Board?

Answer.

If I could find what the Potato Marketing Board had to do with milk, I would answer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many small milk producers are greatly worried by recent increases in rent, which in some cases have amounted to 7 per cent., representing as much as 2d. or 3d. in the gallon? Is he aware that my farming constituents are greatly annoyed by the policy of the landowners of Scotland, who would not hesitate to steal milk from a blind kitten?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to amend the Housing Act 1964 to permit local authorities, where houses are structually sound and landlords refuse to use improvement grants to install baths, inside toilets and hot water, to purchase the houses compulsorily and provide these amenities themselves.

Section 23 of the Housing Act, 1964, empowers Scottish local authorities to acquire tenements in order to improve the houses in them. They also have a general power under Part V of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, to provide accommodation by acquiring and improving individual houses.

Is my right hon. Friend perfectly certain that the 1964 Act allows local authorities compulsorily to acquire houses for modernisation where the landlord refuses to do so? Is he aware that if we can get local authorities to modernise structurally sound buildings, we will ultimately save many hundreds of thousands of pounds in local rates and national taxation?

Yes, I am satisfied that the local authorities have this power under the 1964 Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the paragraphs relating to the Cadco project were published in the Annual Report of the Glenrothes Development Corporation; and whether he will make a statement concerning those paragraphs.

Because they were included in the Report for the year ended 31st March, 1964, as submitted by the Development Corporation to my predecessor in May, 1964, and presented to Parliament by him in July, 1964. I do not doubt that the paragraphs fairly record the Corporation's view of the project at the time when it prepared the Report.

Is my right hon. Friend saying that in May, 1964, the Corporation had no inkling of the financial unsoundness of the Cadco project? In view of the cynicism with which these paragraphs were bound to be met by the local population, ought not extraordinary steps to have been taken to make sure that these paragraphs were not included? Paragraph 42, for example, regards the project as "most interesting".

The Report itself was a matter not for the Scottish Office but for the new town Corporation. It is only right that I should accept that the Corporation regarded this at the time as a fair record of the project.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the use of the Forth Road Bridge by private and State road haulage is in line with his estimates; and if he will make a statement.

During the 20 weeks to 22nd January 1,609,000 vehicles crossed the bridge. No differentiation of type of vehicle was made in the count. In proposing a 2s. 6d. toll the Joint Board assumed that at least 5 million vehicles would cross the bridge in the first year.

May we take it from that reply that the figure of 2s 6d. for a toll appears to be working out all right?

It will be some time before we have a full year's working and can make an assessment. There has to be a statutory review after a year, and although we do not yet have any summer figures and have nothing to work on in that respect, it strikes me that this is working out fairly well.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations from his hon. Friends for the removal of these tolls since he took over the office of Secretary of State?

If the hon. Gentleman had been attending to his Parliamentary duties, he would have known that there have been Questions on the Order Paper about this subject.

But I regret to say that my right hon. Friend has not responded to those Questions. Will he give an undertaking that at the annual statutory review he will remove the tolls?

I shall not put myself under any such obligation. I said that I would have a look at the whole problem at the time.

Was it not suggested in a publication which was issued just before the election and called "Signposts for Scotland" that tolls should be abolished?

No, Sir. It did not say that.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much agricultural lime was used in Scotland during 1963 and 1964, respectively; and what percentage of the total tonnage required in each year was produced in Scotland.

The amounts of agricultural lime used in Scotland in 1963 and 1964 were 992,000 tons and 1,064,000 tons respectively; the percentages of these tonnages produced in Scotland were 52 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the percentage of the production in Scotland is falling? Does he think that it is due to the operation of the 100-mile cut-off in the subsidy scheme, and is he therefore considering this, remembering the review which was promised after the agreement which was made with the farmers' unions and the lime producers?

Yes, we are looking at the agreement to see how it works out, but it is far too early to say that the falling off is due to the reasons suggested. As the hon. Gentleman well knows—because he was sitting on this Front Bench on the night this scheme was prayed against, when he did not say a word—this is a complicated matter and more than just the transport element is involved.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he considers it fair that Scottish lime should receive a subsidy of 5s. a ton less than English lime?

It does not necessarily follow. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the lime scheme is different for Scotland and there are further regional differences within Scotland. It is a very complicated formula, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to know why it was introduced, let him look at the Report of the Public Accounts Committee which criticised the previous lime scheme, which the last Government changed last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet concluded the review of the hospital building programme which he has undertaken.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will complete his review of the hospital building programme in Scotland.

My review of the hospital building programme will necessarily take some time to complete. The results will be published as soon as possible but I cannot yet say when that will be.

Can the right hon. Gentleman square to the satisfaction of the House his criticisms of the review last year, which he criticised on the ground that it followed within two years of the original plan, and his intention now to review the review within seven months? Can he say what is the purpose of the second review? Is it to reduce the total building programme, or increase it, or merely to adjust priorities within it?

We want to ensure that the priorities of the last Administration were right. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there were certain criticisms of the second review of the hospital programme and we have every reason and, I believe, duty to review the hospital building programme to see exactly what should be done.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is he and his right hon. Friends who have their priorities upside down? Is he aware that the cost of abolishing prescription charges in Scotland is about £2 million a year, which represents roughly half the cost of a new 600-bed general hospital? Would he not be better employed using this money to buy hospitals instead of buying votes?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have got our priorities right. May I remind him, in respect of what he says about prescription charges, that this country was in difficulties. The Tory Government introduced those charges when "We never had it so good"; they forgot all about them, and never put them down.

Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman perhaps has not noticed that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has announced an extra amount for the English hospital programme. We, therefore, in Scotland would rather have expected him to have done the same. Is he slower in his review, or merely less convincing to his colleagues?

No. If the same situation had arisen in Scotland we would have taken exactly the same steps. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that even before that we had got an adjustment of £500,000 for hospital building, arising out of the decision which was taken about the siting of a university in Scotland.

So the right hon. Gentleman in fact is saying he has not anything to do now because we did it?

rose—

We must get on. We have got through a minimal number of Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the causes of delay in commencing building operations in the Anderston Cross redevelopment area of Kelvingrove; and if he will take steps to ensure that the housing element of the scheme is proceeded with without further delay.

I am glad to say that work on the first development of 117 houses will start at the beginning of March.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that Glasgow Corporation gave approval to the full, detailed plans for this comprehensive development area in June, 1959, and due to the procrastination of the last Administration in this respect, during which they permitted vested interests to delay the beginning of this scheme, almost six years have gone by—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—and not one brick has been laid? Would he ensure that in the future, when schemes of this type are approved by corporations such as Glasgow Corporation, delaying tactics, such as were used by individuals in this case, are not permitted to thwart the rights of people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—who must expect that their elected representatives do as they are asked to do?

I can well appreciate the frustrations of the hon. Gentleman who had to cope with this as a local councilor in this area and now has to do so as Member of Parliament for this district, but I think he will be the first to appreciate the gigantic nature of the task to be undertaken here, where a whole area has to be comprehensively cleared to be redeveloped from both the housing point of view and that of new industry. It does mean a tremendous task of compulsory purchase. It has been revised and changed, and as a matter of fact, 3,300 houses have had to be cleared, meaning the rehousing of more than 11,000 people, and not all, of course, in the same area again. We cannot override all the rights of individuals here. It is a complicated and a long task, but I can give the hon. Member an assurance that in future schemes we shall try as far as possible to speed matters up to ensure that we deal as quickly as possible with the housing problem of Glasgow or of any other area.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last travelled officially by car from Berwick-on-Tweed to Edinburgh by the A.1 road.

I have not yet had occasion to do so.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he will find time to visit this important part of Scotland? Would he be good enough, when he does so, to allow the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian to accompany him on the journey so that I may not only show him the good work which has been done in the last 12 years but also point out to him much work which still requires to be done, in particular on the stretch of road at the Dunbar bypass?

I suspected that that was coming up. The right hon. Gentleman has undertaken two tasks, to show me what has been done and to show me what needs to be done. I feel sure that the second will take much longer than the first. I hope that I may be able to fit in some official engagement which will allow me to go to that part of Scotland, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall treat him in the same way as I have treated all other Members of Parliament whose areas I have been to: I welcome their company during my visits.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now received all the representations from local authorities on the Brunton Report; and what action he proposes to take upon them.

Twenty-nine of the 35 education authorities have sent me their proposals for implementing the Brunton recommendations, and I expect the remainder shortly. Generally, the proposals are very satisfactory, and I shall keep in close touch with the authorities about their implementation.

Am I right in thinking that it was suggested that those replies should be returned by the end of October? What action has the right hon. Gentleman taken to encourage the remaining local authorities to come to some conclusion? Can he also say what has been the general nature of the replies he has received?

Yes. I agree that the hon. Lady is quite right about that, but I certainly think that in some cases we should not unduly press the authorities if they can show reasons for delays which can properly be accepted. After all, 29 out of 35 is not bad at all. The actual plans are quite interesting, because we have a recognition of the part which vocational education will play in respect of the link-up with industry. Some are directly related to that. Others are of a more experimental nature. We are studying them all in the formulation of the advice to be given to local authorities and in the discussions taking place between the inspectorate and education authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to provide graduates with a salary instead of a student's allowance during their training at a college of education.

I have nothing to add at present to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), on 23rd December last.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when all those representing Scottish seats on the benches opposite were in opposition they said that this was a very easy and simple thing to do, and asked the Government why it could not be carried out? How is it that he has taken so long not to do this easy and simple thing?

The hon. Lady no doubt remembers the Knox Committee's Report in 1957. She did not do very much in respect of that from 1957 to 1964. I trust that she will give us a few months where she took years to do nothing. I hope she will appreciate what I said in my Answer, and I meant it, that I was not yet convinced about what should be done. Not all my hon. Friends nor I spoke on this aspect of education at the time. Many of us realised the difficulties.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the reason given by many graduates for taking a job in industry is that a salary is at once payable? Would not he agree that they do this rather than go to colleges of education where they feel that it is an unfair sacrifice to have to do without a salary for a whole year, which salary they can get at once in industry? Would not it be a useful experiment to see whether it would be possible to pay them the salary of probationer teachers during their training period at colleges of education?

I think that there is a lot in what my right hon. Friend says. That is why we are looking into this at the moment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it was precisely because we saw the difficulties that we did not do anything about this recommendation of the Knox Committee? I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on at last seeing the wisdom of the last Administration.

As I understand the position, the Opposition have made up their mind that nothing can be done about this. I have said that I am prepared to be convinced that something can be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the percentage decrease in new local authority houses started in the fourth quarter of 1964 and the same period in 1963.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the percentage decrease in new houses started by local authorities in the final quarter of 1964 and the same quarter of 1963; and what were the reasons for the decrease.

Almost 27 per cent. This was due to a drop in the number of tenders approved between March and October, 1964.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that in the first quarter of this year, when the Labour Government will have been in power for a complete quarter, there will not be a similar drop in starts for new local authority houses? Before he gives this assurance, will he remember that many assurances given during the election have not been kept?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, for the simple reason that the starts on houses are related to the tenders approved, and tenders are submitted and approved about six months before, so the failure to approve tenders, whatever the reason may have been, six months before determined the fact that there was a drop of 27 per cent. in the last quarter of 1964.

Fully conscious of the window-dressing by the last Government on the eve of the General Election, can my right hon. Friend now give us the figures for the second and third quarters of 1964, and can he also give us the figures since he took office?

I can tell my hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman seems to be upset by a decline in starts in the last quarter of 1964, which was 27 per cent., but if he had asked for the quarter before, the decline compared with 1963 was 29·4 per cent., and in the quarter before that it was 2·4 per cent.

With regard to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I can assure him that the tenders approved in the last quarter of 1964, for which we have some responsibility, were the highest for 10 years.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why 11,144 new houses were completed in the last quarter of 1964, but only 7,519 started.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why work on only 7,519 houses was commenced in the last quarter of 1964; and what steps he is taking to improve on this.

Construction of public authority houses begins on an average some five months after the tenders have been approved. Tenders for only 9,000 houses were approved in the six months between March and October, 1964, whereas more than 15,000 were approved in the same period of 1963. I am glad to say that during the last three months of 1964 tenders for 9,857 houses were approved and I am giving public authorities every possible encouragement to build houses.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that in this quarter there was a considerable increase in the number of houses completed by housing associations? As he and his hon. Friends were lukewarm about the assistance to be given to housing associations when the Housing Act of 1962 was being discussed, can he say whether he is going to encourage private enterprise building such as this, or whether he is going to try to strangle it as the last Labour Government did?

The hon. Gentleman's memory is at fault if he is recalling the speeches that I made on the subject of housing corporations. I gave them every encouragement, and, as I have said at this Box, I continue to do so.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in the number of houses commenced in the last quarter is a clear indication that the last Administration was much more concerned about planning the election than with getting on with the building of houses, and that the position now outlined by him is much more encouraging indeed?

The tenders approved in the second quarter of last year were the lowest for 10 years. The tenders approved by this Administration in the last quarter were the highest for 10 years.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what change there has been in the Scottish road programme announced in the Official Report of 27th July 1964.

No, Sir. The five year road programme is reviewed annually in July.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication about whether he will observe the higher rate of programming approved by the late Government?

I think that the hon. Gentleman should wait for the review that is to take place in July.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the capital cost per pig housed in the piggeries built at Glenrothes for the Cadco Company.

As the number of pigs to be housed is not known, I regret that I am unable to answer the Question.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that as the piggeries were completed anyone who had any knowledge of agricultural subjects would very quickly be able to calculate that?

Provided he was able also to tell what the through-put of pigs was from the piggeries.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to implement the recommendation in the Verdon-Smith Report that there be developed a national meat inspection service.

I am at present examining this question in consultation with my right hon. Friends, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of Health, as part of the wider issues raised by the Verdon-Smith Committee's Report.

While I agree that a study of this question is very desirable on the part of the Ministers concerned, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there are wide variations in the standards applied by local authorities in the inspection at the moment, and does not this indicate that there may be serious danger to public health if the standards are too low? In these circumstances, will he circulate local authorities laying down standards which should be applied?

As I have said, we are in consultation about this. I have received representations, and I take these representations and the point made by the hon. Gentleman with considerable seriousness.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of what he has said? Does not he recollect that no less than 10 days ago his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture remarked that he had already, in his mind, made a decision on the Verdon-Smith Report? Is the right hon. Gentleman really asking the House to believe that he is slower in making up his mind than the Minister of Agriculture?

I do not recall that my right hon. Friend declared what that change was.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the additional cost of the Tay Road Bridge over the original estimate; and if the building programme is up to time.

I am informed by the Joint Board that the cost of completing the scheme may be about £51 million as compared with the Provisional Order estimate of £4·386 million. To this must be added the interest which will accrue on loans advanced during the construction period. There is a good prospect that the bridge will be ready for the target date of June, 1966.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Police Federation about pay and conditions in the police forces in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

I apologise in advance for the length of this reply. On 3rd February the Scottish Police Federation gave my Department a memorandum identical to the one given by the Police Federation of England and Wales to my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary. The memorandum proposes a general increase in the pay of constables, the introduction of a five-day week, improvements in the scale and quality of police equipment and improvements in methods of management.

The proposals relating to pay and hours of duty are initially the concern of the Police Council for Great Britain, to which the Federation has referred them, and it would be improper for me to comment on them at this stage. The other questions are for the Scottish Police Council, and I hope to arrange for them to be discussed at a meeting with that body in March.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great shortage of police in Scotland, and that many of the conditions in the forces are not good? What steps will he take to rectify the position?

If the hon. Member will read the Answer that I gave on this point a few weeks ago he will see that we are seized of the situation and are taking it into account. It will be taken into account in the discussions that will take place.

It is a matter of some regret to me that the first speech which I make in this House on the subject of the National Health Service should be made at a time when it is plain to everyone that a crisis faces the Service, some say the greatest crisis since 1948. The focal point of this crisis, as the House will be only too well aware, is the anxiety and dissatisfaction that exists among general practitioners. I will come to that focal point later.

I will, first, speak generally about the National Health Service. This is a short debate and I understand that a number of hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that nothing I say will make more difficult the task of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, which is, as I see it, to develop and improve the services not only to those who are unwell, but to those who are not unwell; both the curative and preventive services.

Looking back, I think that we all agree that the idea of a comprehensive service was not only a most imaginative one, but was also extremely bold, because the resources with which to implement it—the human resources, resources of building equipment, and so on—never were and never will be unlimited. The competing claims on those resources were and always will be strong and the demand for benefits, not only at the start but right through, has remained keen and buoyant.

Therefore, the danger has existed, since the very inception of the Health Service, that at times or at some time the demand for medical care would overwhelm or intolerably strain the means of providing it. As we are aware, this pressure on resources has been evident at various points and times since the inception of the Service. At present, it is the general practitioners who are likely to occupy the attention of the nation and Parliament, so much of what I say—and much of what all hon. Members will say today—will be concerned with the general practitioner.

We are also conscious of the strain which is at present imposed on the nursing services, physiotherapists—I had occasion this morning, in one of the newer hospitals, to discuss these difficulties—and a host of ancillary workers whose contribution to the National Health Service is indispensable. And in the local authority sphere of health and welfare there is a similar pressure of demand.

In the promises which appeared in the Socialist election manifesto and in the election addresses of a number of prominent Labour candidates who now occupy extremely lofty positions in Her Majesty's Government we noticed a great deal of vague speculation—which was, no doubt, attractive to some—about the acceleration of programmes, more staff, improved conditions and expansion in the various branches of the Health Service. We had from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs these words:

"The health of the nation demands, and will get, an intensive programme of new hospital building, an increased supply of doctors, nurses and other qualified staff."

When I recently suggested to the Minister of Health that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends who had criticised the modesty of the Conservative plans for hospital building—which seems to be a clear implication of the election address of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs—he, with his great astuteness, referred me to the earlier view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; that the Conservative programme could not be exceeded by any party with any degree of responsibility. No doubt it is that remark which both he and the Prime Minister would most like to recall.

Instead of the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs' intensive programme of hospital building we have a review of the building programme which, the Minister of Health told us last week, would be "a lengthy business." All we know of the immediate future, or of the future at all, is that the Government intend to provide £5 million more than the original estimate of expenditure for 1965–66. I find this most welcome, but I am bound to say that its significance in real terms is beginning to be a little doubtful in view of the cost increases which are now taking place.

What the Minister of Health has done, if I may so describe it, is to switch off the light which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) cast on this subject; and after the end of the next financial year we will find ourselves plunged into a darkness which will make it impossible for us to deduce either the intentions of the Government, or the rapidity of their desire to honour the pledges of the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and others to get on with the intensive programme of hospital building. Perhaps this is the whole point of the exercise. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will give us some idea of the likely duration of the review, of what this "lengthy business" means.

I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm his intention, when the review is completed, then to announce its result and his conclusions to the House of Commons so that hon. Members will be able to satisfy themselves that the anxieties of their constituents are being fully attended to and that the momentum of hospital building in the early 'sixties is being fully maintained.

The problem which, naturally, will claim most of our attention today is the mounting strain on the medical services, the dissatisfaction of general practitioners with the recent pay award and the deep anxiety of a great many of them about their future. This problem faces us as a great crisis because of the place of general practitioners in our medical system. This seems to be of such importance that any serious breakdown in this part of the system carries an immediate threat to the whole structure of the Health Service.

It is the general practitioner alone who really knows the individual, his family, his past and his whole background. The general practitioner must play a leading part in the health team, in its task of curing the patient. While he may not have the specialised knowledge of the consultants who are dealing with his patients, it is he who has the specialised knowledge of the individuals with whom the consultants must deal.

The Review Body set up in 1962 to advise the Prime Minister has now issued its fifth Report. The Government have accepted its recommendations and the general practitioners have made no secret of their dissatisfaction. That is the situation, as I see it, which we face this afternoon.

Some time ago the Minister of Health declined in the House of Commons to give a description of the pool system, not because he lacked the ability to do so but because he feared, probably rightly, that most hon. Members—including myself would lack the ability to comprehend it. If I were tempted to describe the pool system I should be deterred from doing so for precisely the opposite reasons.

I intend to make a shot at describing it today.

We look forward to that and hope that our comprehension will have improved.

I was about to make the boast that although I do not intend to have a shot at it, I will lay my hand on my heart and claim to have mastered its essential principles. I have frequently learned from experience that when complicated intellectual conceptions, after years of struggle, are finally squeezed within the scope of my mental equipment, those conceptions have the awkward habit of suddenly and disconcertingly losing all practical significance.

It has happened to me very often. Sad as I should be to feel that my weary hours of studying, and mastering, the pool system should be completely wasted, I must admit to very serious doubts whether a system of remuneration, either in its present form or with the modifications proposed by the Review Body, which seems to be so widely disliked and distrusted by general practitioners, can long continue to occupy the place in the Health Service which it has held since that Service started.

I realize—and, of course, the doctors do—that this was the system that they chose in 1948, but many of us—including, I think, the right hon. Gentleman himself—have become very conscious of its weaknesses. In fact, I recall that in the debate on 27th July last the right hon. Gentleman said—and perhaps he intends to remind us of it today:

"… I am sure that it is possible, even without any change in the basic system of capitation fees, to evolve a simpler, more acceptable, and satisfactory method of paying general practitioners than the present pool allows."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 1012.]

My understanding of this is that, whilst it is the Review Body which recommends the amount of remuneration, the method of remuneration is properly a matter for discussion directly between the Ministry of Health and the profession, either within or outside the Working Party on General Practice—the France Committee.

Therefore, I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us today, either that he has already begun talks with the profession on these lines or that he is prepared to do so immediately, with a view to reaching agreement on an alternative method of remuneration which the doctors will find satisfactory. Perhaps he will, at the same time, tell us whether he has yet reached agreement with the profession on a change in the method of reimbursing practice expenses.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether or not he and his predecessors have given undertakings to the profession—as I believe they did give them—that such changes will not be introduced without the profession agreeing to them?

In that debate of 27th July of last year, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), who is now a Joint Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science—expressed himself on remuneration in forthright it not particularly scientific terms. He said:

"People have … said that money is not the root of all their discontent, but we know that at the bottom it jolly well is …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1964; Vol. 699, c. 1060.]

I would not dare to be so dogmatic. I have no doubt that remuneration is of great importance, but I also have no doubt that other things in this connection are most important, too. Long hours, constant availability, responsibility—literally—for life and death are bound to impose their own strain on any human being, and I suppose that most people—and I expect that most of us this afternoon will have a go at it—could name a long list of additions to these natural burdens.

There is the widespread feeling that the doctor's professional skill is not being used to the best advantage; that there is no link between skill or experience and reward; that there is no proper career structure. Many doctors feel that the doctor has too little time for his patients, who very often need reassurance and advice, which can take a very long time to give, more than any actual treatment in the narrow sense. They feel that the doctor has too little opportunity to maintain contact with his patients in hospital, especially those who are in for short stay. The doctor very often finds difficulty in arranging home helps or home nursing for his patients.

There is also the difficulty—and this is of extreme importance—of remaining a good doctor. I think that it was the Porritt Committee which emphasised the increased importance of postgraduate training, but how many hard-pressed general practitioners can, in these days, keep up with the continual accumulation of new knowledge? Then there are the doctor's personal anxieties—the burden on his wife, the problem of educating his children, and the future for his wife and children if he overworks and dies.

I do not think that any hon. Member doubts the sincerity and sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman, although many of the election statements of his right hon. Friends make some of us suspect that they do not share his knowledge or his insight into these very important problems. He himself told us last year that his party planned to establish at least four new medical schools. His right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his election address, told the voters of Huyton that they could expect urgent steps to overcome the serious staffing difficulty. Everyone appreciates that staffing difficulties cannot immediately be overcome, but we are justified in expecting, from the Prime Minister's words in his election address, that the steps will be taken at once, particularly as we were told that all Labour's plans were poised four months ago to "swing into instant operation".

We would, therefore, like the Minister to tell us this afternoon what plans he has for reducing shortages of staff, when they would be put into operation, and when they will begin to have effect. We should also like him to tell us whether or not he has already persuaded his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide the money, not only for the new medical schools but for the expansion of places at existing schools, and for the encouragement of such improvements as a widened system of group practice. Further, will he refrain, particularly at the present time, from putting new burdens on to general practitioners and, instead, do all that he possibly can to reduce the load they carry at present?

My third point is one that I have already made, and it is by far the most important. I hope that he will be able to answer in perfectly satisfactory terms the request that the Government should accept the responsibility that now lies upon them to lead the way out of this grave crisis that at present faces the National Health Service and that, therefore, he will immediately begin discussions with the profession with a view to devising a new framework within which general practitioners will be willing to work and to provide the best service for their patients.

Perhaps I may begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) on his first speech in his "shadow" capacity. I am sure that the whole House will agree that in so far as his speech related to the immediate crisis it was constructive; and that nothing he said has made my task any more difficult than it already is. I am grateful to him for that.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other things besides the doctors' dispute, and perhaps I should here warn you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that it is my intention later to seek leave of the House to reply very briefly to the debate. I should like to deal with those other topics then, but I want to devote my opening remarks to the doctors' dispute. First, however, I should like to speak briefly about another and no less essential profession—that of nursing.

There are amongst nurses recruitment and staffing problems, but the latest available total for all grades of nursing and midwifery staff in Great Britain is the highest we have ever had. It is true that the number of student nurses has regrettably fallen slightly below last year's figure, but it remains the second highest figure ever recorded. I hope that recruitment of nurses will be helped by the pay settlement for student nurses which has just been reached, with increases ranging from between 6 per cent. and 12 per cent. in rough figures, which will become effective on 1st March. Negotiations on increases for other nursing staffs are continuing amicably and I hope that a settlement will be reached in a couple of months.

Does the Minister intend to say anything about pupil nurses while he is dealing with recruitment?

The figures I gave of student nurses included pupil nurses. I have not separate figures for pupil nurse recruitment, but they, too, benefit from this pay increase. I hope all this has some relevance to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman about the staffing of hospitals. I hope, too, that the House will note a marked contrast here with the bitter pay negotiations for nurses about three years ago.

There is, I think, not a great deal between the two sides of the House on the question of the crisis in the general medical services, but there is one point which, I think to his credit, the right hon. Gentleman did not make, but which has been made in the Press and, which, according to the Press, may be made by hon. Members opposite during the debate and which I should like to get out of the way before I get to the main part of my speech. That is the Government's decision to abolish prescription charges. I think that it is wholly irrelevant to the main issue in this debate. I am not aware that the decision was opposed by the party opposite and it has not so far tabled a Prayer to annul the Regulations. Should it do so, I should be glad to deploy the full case.

I only want to say today very briefly that the Labour Party has been pledged for more than 10 years to get rid of these charges—for very good reasons, in our view Throughout that period until last July we were supported in our view wholeheartedly by the doctors themselves, and then on a single occasion, at a meeting highly charged with emotion over a number of different issues, the doctors suddenly and without any previous warning reversed their decision. This they were perfectly entitled to do, but what would the country and the party opposite have said if the Labour Party had casually jettisoned, on the eve of a General Election, a specific pledge to the electorate which had been repeated times without number?

Anyhow, what was the censure debate on 2nd February about if it was not about alleged breaches of election pledges by the Labour Government, pledges which were considered to be broken because they had not been redeemed within the first 100 days? This is a specific pledge, redeemed and in full operation 15 weeks after our taking office.

Further, we do not, and we did not, share the only coherent reason which has been given by the doctors themselves for reversing their attitude, namely, the fear of increased work load and of widespread abuse by patients. These fears were reiterated with increasing force amongst doctors as 1st February approached. I said then that I thought they were exaggerated and that I did not share them. Little has been heard of these fears since 1st February. There is no evidence so far of any substantial increase in prescriptions over the country as a whole and no evidence whatever of abuse by patients.

This issue has been raised by and on behalf of general practitioners because somehow they seem to think that, but for this decision, £22 million would have been available to increase their remuneration. The fact is that no remuneration has been withheld from them because of this expenditure on behalf of their patients, any more than it has been withheld on account of the increase in old-age pensions. The only circumstance that might have made this point relevant and anything more than a red herring would have been if the Government had rejected the award of the independent Review Body. Instead of that, we accepted it.

I want now to turn to the main problem and I want, during the course of my remarks, to try to clear away a number of dangerous misunderstandings about the present position. I cannot regard it as anything but somewhat ironical that it should be on my head that the wrath of the family doctors is being visited because, like the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who, about 10 years ago, held the office that I now hold, I am the son of a family doctor. Although, perhaps, I had no valid judgment at the time, I have plenty of evidence that my father was a good general practitioner. At least I know that he loved his work and that he worked hard at it. No doubt he worked too hard, because he died of a coronary thrombosis at the age of 42. That was over 40 years ago, when conditions were very different and perhaps even in some respects hard for the G.P. than they are today.

But, young as I was, I absorbed the atmosphere of a family doctor's home which was also his surgery, and what one absorbs in the first dozen years of one's life stays with one for life. So I do claim first-hand knowledge of what is involved in being a family doctor and any prejudices I may have are likely to be in sympathy with the family doctor rather than to the contrary.

I think, also, that I can claim to have shown some awareness of the serious situation which for some years has been developing in general practice. Of a number of articles that I wrote and speeches I made while in opposition perhaps I need only mention my speech in the debate to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the debate I initiated on 27th July last year, on the family doctor service. In that speech I referred to the many warning signs over the years which had been ignored by a succession of Conservative Ministers of Health, until the profession erupted in 1963. Let the House face this fact. Here is one more critical situation inherited from the previous Government which had been festering through years of neglect.

Shortly after taking office I wrote a personal letter to all family doctors, the first time, I understand, that any Minister of Health has done this. I wrote it in an effort to convey to them my good will and my concern that good family doctoring should flourish. The letter included the statement that I was

"ready to discuss more radical reforms in general practice, either through the medium of the Working Party or in any other way that may be thought appropriate".

The response to this letter from the profession was a mixed one. Of the very many doctors who wrote in reply to me, the majority at least showed appreciation of my intentions and some desire to co-operate constructively. Some replies and some comments in the journals were cynical, suspicious and even downright abusive. For my part, I can only say that I wrote the letter in complete sincerity and that I stand by every word of it. At least, the replies encourage me to believe that there are enough family doctors willing to work constructively for the genuine partnership between profession and Government that is essential for the future of the Health Service.

Now there has been another and more violent eruption. Perhaps the right attitude to adopt to this is that it was bound to come sooner or later without a considerable change in the general practice set-up—that the situation was unstable and must reach this crisis before a remedy could be found. Whether the eruption would have been quite so violent and bitter under a Conservative Government is a question on which there has been some speculation in the Press and elsewhere. One can only wonder. However that may be, the crisis is upon us and out of it can come an opportunity which the Government are willing to seize, if the profession will do the same.

I would be the last to deny that there are very real problems connected with general practice that the medical profession and I have to face and tackle today. Some of them go far deeper than levels of remuneration, though pay and methods of pay must certainly loom large. The detonator of the latest explosion, if I may so describe it, was the award of the indepent Review Body, of which I shall say more later, but to understand it I must try, as I promised the right hon. Gentleman, to explain the basis of the pool system which is now the focus of the family doctor's discontent.

The pool system, in essence, goes back more than half a century, far beyond the beginning of the National Health Service, to the old National Insurance days. There are two elements which go into the pool. The first is the agreed average net income for all official services of G.Ps., multiplied by the total number of G.Ps., broadly speaking. The second element is the total practice expenses of all those G.Ps. as agreed by the Inland Revenue, for tax purposes. That is the global total.

From the global total is deducted all separately remunerated payments to G.Ps. from public services—for example, hospital and local government work—and then the balance that remains is distributed amongst G.Ps. on a capitation basis, that is a fee, with certain loadings, for each patient on each G.P's. list. I have simplified what is an extremely complex system. I hope that I have not misrepresented it in any way in so doing. It is a system which is fully understood by few doctors and by even fewer members of the public.

One undesirable result of this system to which I called attention long before either the leaders of the profession or the previous Government got around to discussing it, is that, though 100 per cent. of practice expenses are repaid to the profession as a whole, they are repaid not according to what each doctor incurred but on an averaged basis as part of the capitation fee. Thus, a doctor spending a great deal on ancillary help or maintenance of his premises in order to give a better service to his patients does so by encroaching on what should be his net income, while at the other end of the scale the doctor who is content to spend the very minimum on his practice is able to pocket as net income a large proportion of what is intended to be reimbursement of expenses.

Thus, it can fairly be said that the second category is being subsidised by the first; or perhaps I can put it in another way. There could hardly be a bigger financial disincentive to improving and modernising the standards of general practice.

The pool system is not anything that has been imposed on the profession by machiavellian Governments or Ministers of Health, as many doctors appear to believe today. The profession has always accepted it willingly, and it made no attempt in evidence before the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration, which reported in 1960, to seek any change. The Royal Commission's Report endorsed the system in these words:

"Because of the practical advantages … and because the profession is accustomed to it and on the whole likes it we recommend a continuance of the pool system."

Now the profession considers that these latest developments—and I quote again—

"demonstrate … the improbability of ever securing justice for family doctors so long as the present pool system remains the basis of remuneration."

But I have already expressed my willingness to discuss methods of remuneration, and I cannot understand why it should be necessary to demand such discussions as the profession is now demanding with the truculence that is being exhibited. There is a similar demand for a new contract of service, on which it has always been open to the profession to make suggestions. I have not shown myself difficult of access to the profession. Since I took office, in four months I have had at least half a dozen meetings with B.M.A. leaders on such questions as immigration, compensation and prescription charges. There is only one subject on which there is a request for a meeting at present outstanding, and that is on free drugs for private Patients—