I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit monitoring of private telephone conversations by unauthorised persons.

The attention of the public was excited by Questions in the House on 17th November last year on the tapping of the telephone conversations of right hon. and hon. Members. Naturally, I accept without qualification the assurance given to the House on that occasion by the Prime Minister that there is no tapping of the telephones of right hon. and hon. Members. The House will, however, recognise, and I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree, that that undertaking applied only to tapping of telephone conversations by the authority of the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister or other responsible Ministers.

I would like to make it clear at the outset that my Bill does not seek to restrict in any way the provision whereby telephone conversations of any person, be he a Member of the House or not, shall be the subject of monitoring in the interests of the security of the State, provided that such monitoring or tapping is undertaken on the authority of the Secretary of State. Nor would it restrict the provisions which already exist to permit the police to carry out their work by this means and that also of the officers of Customs and Excise. These things were recommended in Part III of the Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors appointed to inquire into the interception of communications, as presented to Parliament by the then Prime Minister in October, 1957. My sole objective is to prevent unauthorised persons from using mechanical devices which enable them to listen to or to record the private telephone conversations of people using the Post Office telephone service.

It is important to note that in the Report which was submitted to the House in 1957, and to which I have referred, the Committee, which comprised the late Lords Birkett and Monckton and the present Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker), stated in paragraph 130 that whilst unauthorised tapping of telephone conversations might be more difficult in this country than in America, there was no certainty that such tapping did not occur. The Committee continued, in paragraph 131:

"In these circumstances Parliament may wish to consider whether legislation should be passed to render the unauthorised tapping of a telephone line an offence."

I recognise that there are certain difficulties of a technical nature, but I am advised that these need not present a serious problem. For example, anyone who has a telephone installed by the G.P.O. on a party line is informed of this arrangement by the appropriate telephone manager and is, therefore, aware that he cannot expect his conversations to be treated as confidential. There is every possibility that another subscriber on the party line may accidentally overhear the conversation by picking up another instrument. There is also the inevitable problem which occurs as a result of mechanical difficulties and failures at the telephone exchange which will result in what most people know as a crossed line, which again results in other persons overhearing a conversation between people using a separate telephone. These are hazards to which every subscriber is subject and which he must accept as inevitable.

There is, however, a grave distinction between an accidental interception by a third party of a telephone conversation and the deliberate tapping of a telephone or telephone lines with the specific intention of obtaining information which may be of pecuniary value to the person obtaining the information or which is a deliberate and calculated intrusion upon the liberty and privacy of the individual—an individual who is not suspected of any criminal activity or of anything likely to be detrimental to the security of the State. Not for the first time, Mr. Bernard Braden rendered a service to the public by his exposure of the ease whereby any person or corporate body may arrange for a private telephone to be tapped through agencies which are willing to do this for a fee without question or inquiry as to the reason why the person engaging them wishes another individual's telephone to be tapped and the conversation monitored.

In his programme "On the Braden Beat" on 17th December last year, Mr. Braden revealed that he had been able to discover without difficulty two agencies who were delighted to tell him that on payment of a fee they would arrange for anyone's telephone to be tapped. They were not in the least concerned with the reasons why Mr. Braden's investigators might require this to be done.

There are three reasons why I believe this practice to be extremely dangerous. In the nature of business today, it is customary for members of boards of directors or the executives of companies to transmit vital information to each other or to business associates by telephone. It therefore follows that trade secrets, business negotiations and other matters affecting the progress of private or public companies or nationalised industries, and, consequently, the employment of many people, could be jeopardised. The State has a duty to protect corporate bodies and individuals against the abuse of a privacy which is vital for the progress of industry and commerce.

Secondly, it is surely quite wrong that judicial decisions, for example, in cases of divorce, should be prejudiced or even influenced by information or evidence obtained by these means and which is totally contrary to the standards of liberty and personal privacy which have been safeguarded so vigorously by this House over the centuries.

A case was reported in The Times of 26th January involving the recording of private telephone conversations of several individuals who featured in a divorce action. In the Evening Standard of 25th January, with reference to that case, it was reported that private detectives had made secret tape recordings for some six months. I cannot believe that there is any lawyer in the House who would approve of the violation of privacy exposed by that case.

It has been represented to me also—I do not stress this too far but it has been represented—that, in addition to the danger of trade secrets and so forth being disclosed and the intrusion on privacy, there is the sinister threat of an unfriendly Government obtaining the services of an agency, or, for that matter, doing the work themselves, to monitor the private telephones of civil servants, members of the Government or other responsible persons who might be compelled in an emergency to discuss matters on the telephone which would affect the security of the State and would normally be subject to the Official Secrets Act.

My Bill has the support of hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House and in all parties. I am most grateful to the very many hon. Members who have taken the trouble to write, telephone or speak to me to give me their cordial assurances of wholehearted support. I have not had a single example of an hon. Member expressing other than agreement with this proposed legislation.

I have asked the House to consider three imperative reasons why the Bill should be allowed to commence its progress through Parliament, and I call in aid of my submission the Report of Privy Councillors to which I referred earlier. Since that Report was presented to Parliament, just over nine years ago, there has been conclusive evidence that the suspicion expressed by the Committee is no longer a matter of doubt and that the unauthorised tapping of telephone conversations which the Committee clearly felt to be wholly undesirable now occurs. The suggestion contained in paragraph 131 of the Report should, therefore, be acted upon.

Finally, I appeal to every hon. and right hon. Member to support the Bill not only because I believe that it will be welcomed by the public at large, by the legal profession and by all who are concerned with the security of our nation but, most of all, because privacy and liberty are one and indivisible. This is a comparatively small Measure but it is designed to protect something which is at the foundation of our national heritage, namely, the right of every honest citizen to security and privacy.

I beg to move,

That the Diplomatic Privileges (Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) (Amendment) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.

The Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964, lays down the privileges and immunities to which members of the staff of diplomatic missions are entitled and gives the force of law in the United Kingdom to certain provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. One effect of the Act was to restrict the privileges which could be enjoyed by United Kingdom citizens employed by Commonwealth and foreign diplomatic missions in this country. It has, however, been considered necessary to provide for the cases of certain individuals, few in number, who possess both citizenship of the United Kingdom and citizenship of the mission in which they are serving in this country.

The Diplomatic Privileges (Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) Order, 1964, accordingly provided that members of Commonwealth diplomatic missions who possess dual citizenship should be treated as though they did not have United Kingdom citizenship. This Order was made under powers contained in Section 2(6) of the 1964 Act, and Article 2(2) of the Order lists the countries to which these provisions apply. The present Order is merely the latest of a series of amending Orders made necessary by the addition to the Commonwealth of newly independent member countries. The amendment is effected by adding the names of the countries concerned—Singapore, Guyana, Lesotho, Botswana and Barbados—to Article 2(2) of the principal Order to which I have referred.

The Order is made under Section 2(6) and Section 6(2) of the 1964 Act, the latter subsection giving power to amend the principal Order previously made under the former subsection. It will be clear to the House, therefore, that the Order does not involve any alteration in the nature or extent of diplomatic privileges but simply applies the existing law contained in the Act and the principal Order to the above-mentioned newly independent Commonwealth countries. I know that it will be the wish of both sides of the House that this Order should now be approved.

I thank the Minister of State for his brief and lucid explanation of what even he will admit to be a quite complicated matter, but I have one or two questions to ask. I am very conscious, Mr. Speaker, of a reminder which you gave a month or so ago that Orders of this kind are extremely narrowly drawn and I shall, therefore, do my best not to offend as I did on that occasion.

Article 38 of the Vienna Convention, as set out in Schedule 2 to the 1964 Act, made clear that any national of the receiving State employed by a foreign mission receives immunity only in respect of official acts performed in the exercise of his functions. The first Order made under that Act provided that nationals of Commonwealth countries employed in diplomatic missions, even though they were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, should be treated as though they were foreigners for the purposes of diplomatic privileges. We all recognise that this was not only a sensible provision but a necessary change in order to take into account developments in the Commonwealth; and the last Order added Malta and The Gambia. As the Minister said, this Order merely adds further countries to the list of those qualifying in this way. My first question is the general one: does the immunity now to be accorded to the representatives of the five new countries in Britain and the immunity accorded to the representatives of Britain in the five new countries proceed simultaneously? In other words, are the privileges and immunity always the same for the representatives in this country and the representatives of this country in the other countries concerned?

My second question relates to the timing of the Order. Why has it been brought forward at this precise moment? Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether another Order will be necessary whenever there is a substantial change in the membership of the Commonwealth? In particular, will another Order be necessary to deal with future representation in Great Britain of the new States in the West Indies which almost at this very moment are coming into their new status of association?

My third question is to ask the Minister for his interpretation of

"… official acts performed in the exercise of his functions."

I am anxious to know, for example, the position in regard to newspaper articles written by representatives of a Commonwealth State in this country. Are the writers of those articles—

Order. One cannot discuss the privileges and immunities themselves except as they apply to the countries referred to in the Order. We are discussing whether we add those new countries to those already granted certain privileges and immunities.

I knew that this question would be very difficult, Mr. Speaker, because the Order is obviously very narrowly drawn. but am I not right in thinking that we are discussing whether the privileges which you have in mind should now be enjoyed by those new Commonwealth countries, and is it not in order for me to ask whether the privileges that will be enjoyed if the Order is approved by the House includes certain privileges about which I am in doubt?

I think that it is, but the question must apply merely to the countries that are mentioned in the Order.

It very much applies to a country that is mentioned in the Order, because it refers to what I think was an unfortunate article written by a representative of one of those five countries about the relationship between Britain and that country. I do not know whether the article is privileged under the Order. But whether or not it is privileged, I hope that the Minister will see fit to make representations to the Government of Lesotho about the action here of their High Commissioner in writing an article in this month's edtition of New World, in which he expressed views directly contrary to those of the present Prime Minister, Chief Jonathan, at the Basutoland Independence Conference last June.

I shall not read the article, because I think that that would strain your toleration too far, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman probably has it in mind, and I should be grateful if he could give me an answer on the principle of the matter. Whatever rules we and other countries make, and are making today, for the immunity and protection of official representatives, they are presumably framed to allow those representatives the better to represent their Government without let or hindrance. But in cases like this, where views are expressed which are not only offensive to the receiving country but are plainly in contradiction to the known views of the home Government, I ask the Minister at the very least to undertake to make perfectly clear that they offend against the spirit, if not also against the letter, of the Order.

I am very grateful for the customary courtesy shown by the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) this morning; he always approaches these subjects with a great deal of courtesy.

The Order simply extends to these new members of the Commonwealth, as sovereign Powers. the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the other High Commissioners who serve in this country. To that extent, there is no change in the privileges applying to the High Commissioner of Lesotho any more than to the High Commissioner of Canada. I have taken note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I would have thought that if Lesotho's High Commissioner is out of harmony with his own Government that is a matter for them.

In so far as the High Commissioner misrepresents his own Government, that might be an internal matter between the High Commissioner and the Government, but the point is whether he would be covered by privilege if he were to libel or slander a British subject.

If the person referred to is of dual United Kingdom and Lesotho citizenship, the Order would give him immunity from civil jurisdiction of the courts in respect of the newspaper article. The Order has nothing to do with immunities and privileges outside the United Kingdom. Although I understand the reason for raising the matter, I would soon be in trouble with Mr. Speaker if I went into details, and the House will appreciate that I must confine myself to the Order.

However, I promise the right hon. Member for Bridlington that I shall write to him about the points he has raised, and perhaps we can discuss any doubts that still remain in his mind.

I do not want to introduce an unnecessary note of discord into the air of geniality which has pervaded our discussions so far, but the Order extends diplomatic privilege to the representatives of a number of countries, to their staffs and, under certain circumstances, to subjects of the United Kingdom working for them. The Minister said nothing about how many people the new extensions will apply to, nor did he tell us the number of people to whom the immunities and privileges already apply. To bring that point into order, I should like to ask to what figure the new additions will raise the number of people who will now enjoy diplomatic immunity in this country.

Those people are exempt from the process of civil law and I believe that unless the diplomatic privilege is withdrawn from them they are also exempt from the criminal law, although I am not sure on that point. They have enormous privileges, both concerning the operation of the law and on the question of taxation. Their numbers are growing year by year—I recognise the reason—until one day we shall find that more people are exempt from the law than are subject to it.

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would take an early opportunity to put clearly before the House and the country the numbers of those people that the Order affects. How many people are not subject to our civil and criminal laws, and the laws concerning Purchase Tax and Excise Duties? Those matters should be brought to the notice of the House. I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to answer my questions now necessarily, but I hope that he will take an early opportunity, perhaps by means of an Answer to a Question, to say what the dimensions of this matter are.

I shall be very brief. I want, however, to make one single point—which my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) has, to a large extent, already made—and one suggestion. We all accept—certainly I do—that we must treat these new countries with precisely the same degree of respect with which, we believe, we treat the older countries. I accept and I understand the Minister of State's difficulties.

But the fact remains that, with the vast extension in the number of countries, the number of diplomatic staff enjoying these privileges is becoming almost intolerable. Since it might cause awkwardness to other countries, I shall not draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to some of the personal difficulties which have arisen, of which he may be aware, such as matters of debt and other things that I would not like to mention. But these have arisen and are likely to arise again.

Surely, when a new country for the first time seeks diplomatic representation, it would not be unreasonable to place some limit on the number of diplomatic staff it might have here. We might point out to it that we are willing and anxious to grant immunity but that we should like to know how many staff will be involved. Is that question ever asked? Is there any reason why it should not be asked? It would reduce to a large extent the area of the problem if the number of staff bore some relation to the size of the country.

Do I need the permission of the House to speak again, Mr. Speaker?

No.

Perhaps the House would have refused it, in which case I would have been saved quite a lot of trouble.

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) exaggerated so much that I must draw attention to what he said. He claimed that we were now getting to the position when more people had diplomatic privileges than not. I am afraid that he lives in a fairy land. What concerns the House today is whether we are to deal with people of the new Commonwealth on the same basis as we deal with the diplomatic missions of older countries here. As more new sovereignties are acknowledged, there are bound to be more diplomatic missions. The number of British missions abroad has increased as the number of overseas missions in London has increased.

The Order deals only with those people who enjoy dual nationality. The missions of these four newly independent countries already have immunity under the Act but not under this Order, which merely deals with dual citizenship. I am quite sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to extend the same facilities to these countries as we have extended to others with which it is our privilege to work.

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the London Transport (Alteration of Wages Grades Pension Schemes) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1556), dated 7th December 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be annulled.

I say at the outset that we on this side of the House realise that it is the intention of the London Transport Board to provide a better pension scheme for its employees. We entirely welcome that. It is not our purpose to frustrate or delay the new scheme in any way—quite the reverse. We wish it well.

Nevertheless, this Order gives rise to concern. The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has already shown its concern and has made a report upon it. I understand the history of the matter to be that before 1954 there was no general occupational pension scheme for wage grades in the British Transport Commission but that, in that year, a scheme was set up which was an unfunded scheme—in other words, no funds were set aside for it.

In 1962, the responsibility was transferred to the Railways Board following the Transport Act, 1962. In 1966, a new scheme was set up which was still an unfunded scheme and that scheme was administered under the responsibility of the London Transport Board. At the same time, it was decided to introduce a completely new scheme on a funded basis and this, of course, involves the appointment of trustees and the transferring of the funds into the names of those trustees.

Now we come to the legal difficulties which we feel arise under the Order. Both the Minister of Transport and the Board itself have power to establish pension schemes. The Minister's power in this respect is granted by Section 74(1) of the 1962 Act, which reads:

"The Minister may make orders—

(a) with respect to the provision of pensions by the Boards and the Holding Company and by the subsidiaries of the Boards and of the Holding Company for or in respect of—

(i) their employees, or persons who have been in their employment …"

Thus Section 74 gives power to the Minister to establish a pension scheme; Section 73 gives power to the Boards in the following terms:

"Subject to the next following section, each of the Boards and the Holding Company shall have power to pay pensions and enter into obligations under pension schemes."

In this Order a decision has been taken to allow the Board to set up a new scheme by its powers under Section 73 of the Act. The Order deals with the interim period between cessation of the old scheme and the coming into force of the new scheme and provides for the termination by employees of membership of the old scheme. The new scheme has to have the consent of the Minister, who must be satisfied that no employees are prejudiced by the new arrangements. The authority for that is in Section 74(2):

"Without prejudice to the powers conferred by the foregoing subsection, the Minister may make orders—

(a) for enabling … all or any of the participants in a pension scheme to become instead participants in another pension scheme."

Presumably it is this provision that is being used in the Order. Section 74(6) says:

"Orders under this section shall be so framed as to secure that no person other than the boards, the Holding Company and any subsidiary of any Board, or of the Holding Company, is placed in any worse position by reason of the order."

The House must be satisfied, therefore, that no employee could possibly be prejudiced by the new arrangements. It is here that the real difficulty arises.

In this Order, we are given no details of the new scheme. In Article 1(2) we read

"… 'the New Fund' means the London Transport Pension Fund which is to be introduced on 1st January 1967 by the Board with the consent of the Minister of Transport;"

That is all we are told in the Order. This matter has been gone into very fully by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which met on 16th February. The facts are that the Order was made on 7th December last and two days later, on 9th December, a "skeleton" deed or, in other words, an interim deed, was executed. I have with me a copy of that deed. This is the interim trust deed which was executed two days after the Order was made.

The first recital to that deed is as follows:

"The Board are desirous of establishing a Pension Scheme to be effective on and from the first day of January, 1967 … for the purpose of paying pensions to wages staff and certain other staff of the Board and to that end have determined to establish under irrevocable trusts as on and from the said date a Pension Scheme to be known as the London Transport Pension Fund … for providing retirement pensions and other benefits for such of the said staff as are or shall hereafter become eligible to participate therein … in accordance with the regulations governing the Fund to be set out in a Definitive Trust Deed … and in Rules … made under the provisions of the Definitive Deed."

As I understand it, the definitive trust deed has still not been executed. The Parliamentary Secretary appears to agree that this is so. I understand that it may be many months before a definitive trust deed is ready and is executed.

We thus have the curious position that the definition in the Order of the new fund refers indirectly to an instrument, the interim deed, which was not in existence when the Order was made on 7th December. This seems to us to be a very unusual procedure and we should like to hear how the Parliamentary Secretary can explain it.

We must make quite certain that no employees are in a worse position as a result of the new scheme. We are apprehensive that some employees may be in a worse position. We are informed that the age of entry under the new scheme is to be higher than the age of entry under the existing scheme. Under the new scheme, an employee cannot join until he is 25 years of age. Under the existing scheme, he can join at the age of 21. We are also informed that to earn benefits under either scheme, 10 years' service is essential. One can, therefore, visualise cases in which the dependants of a man who dies between the ages of 31 and 35 might be in a worse position as a result of the proposed changes. We should therefore like to have the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance on this point also.

My final point relates to Section 92 of the Transport Act, 1962, which is the Definition Section. It defines a pension scheme in these words:

"'pension scheme' includes any form of arrangement for the payment of pensions, whether subsisting by virtue of Act of Parliament, trust, contract or otherwise".

We do not consider that on 7th December, the day when the Order was made, there was a new pension scheme in existence which fulfilled that definition. Certainly, there was no new pension scheme subsisting by virtue of Act of Parliament. There was no new pension scheme subsisting by virtue of a trust, because the interim trust deed was executed two days later. We do not think that there was a new pension scheme existing by virtue of contract either.

This point was dealt with in great detail by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, whose Chairman said on 16th February:

"But the pension fund was established by this Interim Trust Deed, so that the fund was there on 9th December, and I find it a little strange that the Order could not have waited two days, when it would have been nice and tidy and there would have been a document which clearly established the fund, which in the Order itself is not much more than an expression of intention. I find it difficult to accept the suggestion that, without the Trust Deed, there was a legal obligation, or that the employees had legal rights."

If we are right in this, if there was no subsisting new pension scheme by virtue of Act of Parliament, trust or contract, we should not approve this Order, which provides for termination of membership of the 1954 and 1966 schemes and does not provide for any new scheme in a correct and legal way. Those are our worries and doubts. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to try to allay them.

I welcome the opportunity to explain the Order and I welcome the assurance of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) that he and his hon. Friends do not in any way wish to challenge the establishment of a new and better pension fund for the employees of London Transport. I understand the apprehensions which have been created about the mode of making the Order rather than the purpose for which it is made. I hope that I shall be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the reasons why these actions were taken.

There is no need for me to go into the historical background, because the hon. Member has given it briefly and accurately, concerning the old British Transport Commission flat-rate scheme. I therefore come straight away to the Order against which the Prayer is directed.

In 1966, after negotiations between the London Transport Board and the trade unions and other bodies, details were agreed for a new pension deal for the workers of London Transport. This new deal involved the setting up of a funded pension scheme which would provide for employees' pensions on a much more generous scale than those provided in 1954 and carried over in 1966 in the unfunded London Transport (Male Wages Grades) Pension Scheme as it was called. The Board and the negotiating bodies agreed that the new arrangements should become effective from 1st January, 1967.

The establishment of a new pension fund involved many actuarial and other detailed problems. I am advised that it is normal practice in the commercial world for a new fund to be set up on the basis of an interim trust deed to be followed some time after, and sometimes a substantial time after, by a definitive deed. This was the only means by which the new London Transport Pension Fund could possibly be introduced in this short time between the opening of the negotiations in 1966 and the effective date negotiated between the Board and the unions of 1st January, 1967.

The Minister was advised that the new fund could be set up by the London Transport Board in that way under the powers of Section 73 which the hon. Member for Chippenham has quoted, of the Transport Act, 1962. Under that Section, the Board has power to pay pensions and to enter into obligations in pension schemes subject to the provisions of Section 74 of the Act. The latter Section gives the Minister power to make Orders about pensions. Such an Order was made in 1962, the so-called British Transport Reorganisation (Pensions of Employees) (No. 3) Order, 1962, Article 17 of which had the effect that the Board was not to enter into a pension scheme without the Minister's consent. It is under those provisions that the present case has been dealt with. When the provisions of the new proposed fund were sufficiently firm, arising from the negotiations between the Board and the unions, announcements were made to the staff of the London Transport Board giving sufficient detail to enable employees to decide whether the new scheme was one which they wanted to join.

In addition, employees were provided with forms of application for membership of the new fund and for the surrender of their rights under the existing schemes. All this was put in hand in the autumn of last year, and 30th November, 1966, was the latest date for the exercising of options by the persons concerned. In addition, the London Transport Board prepared an interim trust deed, which is the deed referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and that deed was finally executed with the Minister's consent on 9th December, 1966.

The definitive deed which the interim deed envisages has not yet been finalised and may not be for some time. But, of course, the outline of the scheme of pensions is explained in a booklet issued in the month of July, 1966, which opens with the words:

"The new Pension Fund to be set up on 1st January, 1967, described in this booklet, will provide retirement pensions for men and women in full-time employment with London Transport in the wages grades. It has been planned jointly by the Board and by the Trade Unions principally concerned. It will be very different from the present arrangements and a big improvement on them. It will be open to men and women."

I may say in passing that the fact that, for the first time, this scheme is open to both men and women gives particular pleasure to my right hon. Friend.

The establishment of the new fund in this way left the problem of avoiding an overlapping of the new fund with the existing schemes, and, as the existing schemes were provided by Statutory Instruments, they could be amended only in the same way. In order to effect the necessary amendments to the 1954 and 1966 schemes so as to avoid overlapping, it was necessary to make the Instrument which is now under discussion. I must emphasise that all this Order does is to make certain modifications to the existing schemes so as to avoid overlapping. The Order does not itself set up the new fund.

The Order was made on 7th December. As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, at that time the interim trust deed had not been executed and, therefore, it was necessary in the Order to define the "new fund" in the manner adopted in Article 1(2) of the Order; that is to say,

"… the London Transport Pensions Fund which is to be introduced on the 1st January, 1967, by the Board with the consent of the Minister of Transport."

Had the interim trust deed been executed by 7th December, it would have been possible in the Order to define the new fund by reference to the deed. But, in any case the deed was only an interim deed which did not more than formalise an existing commitment between the Board and its employees. As it was essential not to delay the making of the Order, the form of words used in the Order had to be adopted.

In that connection, let me reply directly to the criticism made by the hon. Gentleman. The point here was that of Parliamentary time and the necessity of making the Order before the Christmas Recess and in advance of 1st January, 1967, which was the effective date negotiated between the Board and the unions. As a result, the Statutory Instrument was made slightly in advance of the making of the interim trust deed. However, my right hon. Friend was aware at that time not only of the details of the fund given in the announcement made by the London Transport Board but of the fact that the interim trust deed was about to be made.

Will the hon. Gentleman admit that it is slightly unusual procedure to do it in that way?

Had it been possible to make the Order slightly after instead of slightly before, that might have been found to be more satisfactory. It will be appreciated that, as a result of the negotiations and the agreement between the Board and the unions, the scheme had to become operative from 1st January, 1967. My right hon. Friend was anxious to take no chances about the making of the necessary Statutory Instrument in advance of Parliament's Christmas Recess. Therefore, it was lodged two days in advance of the interim trust deed being executed. It is true that the interim trust deed was executed only two days after the Order was made, but the timing of its execution was unavoidably in doubt in the period immediately prior to the making of the Order.

Now let me turn to the question whether the requirements of Section 74(6) of the Transport Act, 1962, have been met. As the hon. Gentleman says, that requires that an Order must be framed so as to secure that no person is placed in any worse position by reason of the Order. I want to emphasise that the provisions of the new fund were agreed between the London Transport Board and the unions in the months of 1966. A good indication of the superiority of the new scheme over the old is given by the fact that 68 per cent. of eligible employees have opted to join the new fund on the basis of the details set out in the booklet published in July, 1966.

However, I must draw attention to the fact that Section 74(6) of the Act provides that an Order shall not be invalid by reason that it does not avoid placing all persons in any worse position. It goes on to provide that, if the Minister is satisfied that any Order has failed to secure that result, the Minister shall as soon as may be make the necessary amending Order. There are also provisions for any dispute about the effect of an Order to be referred to a referee. Any case which it was appropriate to deal with under those provisions would be dealt with accordingly.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the discussion which took place before the Select Committee about the age limits for eligibility in the new scheme. I grant straight away that there is hypothetically a possibility that a very small percentage might be worsened as compared with the old scheme. For actuarial reasons, the rights under the new scheme are dated from the age of 25 so as to give the 40-year period of working life from 25 to 65. On the flat-rate basis of the old scheme, the rights arose after 10 years of membership from the age of 21. Thus there arises the theoretical possibility that, among those who had the right to come under the old scheme between the ages of 31 and 35, there are some who could have been disadvantaged. We regard that as an almost negligible possibility, but, as I have said, naturally my right hon. Friend will take that into account on the basis, of course, that those who are joining the employment of London Transport after 1st July, 1966, no longer have the option to be under the old scheme; as part of their terms of employment, they must accept the terms and conditions of the new scheme which gives such greatly improved benefits to them.

We have been discussing a matter which is somewhat complex, because of the actuarial provisions, and which it is difficult to reduce to simple terms. I hope that I have managed to satisfy the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Board has gone to great lengths to produce a timely and fully satisfactory arrangement which will be of substantial and improved benefit to its employees, and that, before consenting to the arrangements, my right hon. Friend was wholly satisfied that they were entirely appropriate.

Any pension scheme, which must attempt to meet the varied circumstances of a large body of employees, is bound to affect individuals according to their circumstances. It is for that sort of reason that Section 74(6) of the 1962 Act provides the ultimate safeguard of determination of any dispute about the effects of an Order.

In these circumstances, I hope that the House will agree that the position of all individuals is fully safeguarded under the Order.

rose—

Has the hon. Member informed the Minister that he proposes to raise this matter on the Adjournment?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have, and I understand that the Minister will be attending.

Thank you.

I am grateful for this opportunity of raising a subject which was down for debate last Wednesday in the form of a Prayer but unfortunately was not reached on that occasion owing to the length of time which was taken with earlier business. I am grateful, too, to the Minister who has agreed to come here to answer the points which I wish to put to him.

The Statutory Instrument to which I wish to draw attention is No. 1553 which came into operation on 1st January of this year. It deals with changes in the pay-bed Regulations, and I wish to ask a number of questions on this which are of considerable interest to those people who are personally concerned. The Regulations make minor amendments in charges for pay beds and amenity beds, and abolish the limit on charges by doctors and dentists for hospital inpatient treatment.

As I say, this is of personal interest to the growing number of people who are prepared to pay for the specialist of their choice. Many of the people concerned are of moderate means. Indeed, more than 2 million people now have health insurance cover through provident associations, and membership of these schemes is growing at an accelerated rate. Quite often employers help with the subscriptions through group schemes. In fact, more and more employers are coming to regard assistance of this kind as a valuable fringe benefit which they consider is an appropriate one to offer to their employees.

It is possible to get good cover for hospital treatment for a man with a wife and two children for the modest sum of about 10s. a week. I do not wish on this occasion to discuss the significance of these developments, but I should like to pay a tribute to the provident associations and to employers for the way in which they have brought this type of cover within the reach of a large number of people. In our view people should be free to spend their money on health if they so wish. We shall not get an improvement in the National Health Service by preventing people from doing things for themselves, and we should be ware that in the pursuit of public affluence we do not end up with private squalor.

In that connection, I believe that the memorandum produced by the Central Consultants and Specialists Committee made a very appropriate defence of these arrangements when it said:

"There are sound social and economic reasons for allowing the continuance of private practice in hospitals and, indeed, for extending the meagre facilities at present available. The opportunity of treatment as a private patient should not be denied to those who desire, for perfectly legitimate reasons, to have the Consultant of their choice, to choose a time for admission which is convenient to themselves and to enjoy privacy in the hospital. Patients who opt for private accommodation thereby reduce the pressure on public accommodation. Moreover, a leaven of private practice has a stimulating effect upon standards of service."

Would not the hon. Gentleman admit that though it might provide a good deal of privileged service for those who pay, by allowing private patients to take consultants' time, this acts against that very valuable time being spread fairly and evenly throughout the National Health Service?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall be dealing with this a little later, but I believe, at the same time, that the more we can encourage people to make provision for themselves, the more likely we are to raise the standards of service, to reduce pressure on the National Health Service, and, perhaps, more important, to prevent doctors going abroad who might otherwise stay. These seem to me to be valuable points.

I am grateful to the Minister for coming here at fairly short notice. I have not as yet put any questions in the course of the few remarks that I have made. I would merely say that I welcome the Minister's statement that he does not intend to abolish pay beds, but to uphold the pledge which was given by the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan when the National Health Service was introduced.

After those preliminary remarks, may I now turn to these Regulations and ask one or two questions about them? The first point, and perhaps the least important, is that these Regulations give a small but welcome relief in the charges which private patients pay when they are away from their beds, when they are not occupying their beds for more than one day. This will be appropriate, particularly in the case of psychiatric patients who may well go home perhaps for a long weekend. Does this apply to what are called the "no ceiling" beds? In other words, does it apply to all private beds? My second question concerns the proviso to Regulation 3. As I understand it, Regulation 8A does not apply in the case of Section 4 patients paying charges less than those prescribed in the National Health Service (Pay-Bed Accommodation in Hospitals etc.) Regulations 1961, and such patients should not have their charges reduced during periods of absence. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the charges are not to be reduced in this case.

Much more important than that relatively minor change is the charge for pay beds as a whole, which has been rising steeply, and requires a fairer method of assessment. We shall await with interest the Minister's subsequent statements on this matter.

The main change in these Regulations concerns the abolition of the limit on charges made by doctors for patients in hospitals. As the House knows, these limitations were introduced in 1948, and they have an honourable history. Before the National Health Service, the majority of private beds were established by donors to help people of moderate means. This principle was carried forward in the National Health Service in respect of limitation on fees but not, of course, on charges for accommodation. None the less, in spite of the honourable history of it, I agree that fees are now out of date, that there are many anomalies in them, and the matter is now best left for arrangement between the doctor and the patient. It is true also, now that they are firmly established and covering a growing number of people, that provident associations are in many respects meeting the needs of people of moderate means which were met by the old arrangements in earlier times.

For these reasons, I do not dispute the Minister's conclusion that the limitations on charges should be abolished, but, now that they are abolished, it is important that restraint be exercised. I am sure that we can confidently look to doctors and specialists to exercise restraint in the matter. They know as well as anyone else that it would be in no one's interest if they priced private patients out by sharp increases in their fees. I am glad to see that the Joint Consultants Committee is keeping in close touch with the provident associations on the subject, and I am sure that doctors will respond to the appeal which has been made by the Joint Consultants Committee.

This is what the appeal said:

"Given that we may expect continuing high charges for accommodation, the pocket of the private patient can be protected only by full consideration on the part of the doctor concerned. It is hoped and expected that the tradition of charging modified fees to those of moderate means and to subscribers to provident schemes will continue to be observed. Failure on the part of individuals to be reasonable in this respect could easily invite public criticism and endanger the whole status of private practice within the hospital service."

I very much agree with that appeal for moderation, and I am sure that we can look confidently to doctors to respond to it, as they have done in the past.

Do I understand that we are debating these Regulations, and is my hon. Friend speaking to them?

My hon. Friend may be a little puzzled by the procedure. As I understand it, we are on the Adjournment, but I am directing my remarks entirely to the Regulations, Statutory Instrument No. 1553. Does that help?

Yes, it does, but, in the circumstances, I wish now to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we know where we are getting with morning sittings? They are becoming more farcical than ever. I turned up for this Instrument, and the rest of the business, apparently, collapsed.

The Minister was not here.

The Minister had to come very quickly in order to be here, and I came in after the debate had started.

This is what I should like to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I raise it with you as a point of order. We are now debating the matter on the Adjournment and we are not really discussing the Regulations. As I understand it, if we put down a Motion against the Regulations, it would be out of order anyway, so that, even though we may discuss the Regulations, we can have no effect on them. This seems to be an extraordinary state of affairs. What can we do about it, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis). This is a rather unusual procedural arrangement. He says that morning sittings are becoming a farce, but I think that the position which we have reached on these Regulations is the result of confusion on the part of the Opposition. The Regulations were down to be prayed against last Wednesday morning, which was the last day on which a Prayer could be tabled against them, it being, I think, the fortieth day since the laying of the Instrument. Because the Opposition chose so to arrange their part of the proceedings on Wednesday morning, the Prayer was not reached. Naturally, one thought that the Prayer against the Regulations had fallen. I understand that there was some talk of tabling a Motion to discuss the Regulations, but it was ruled out of order.

If we are now reaching a situation in which any Prayer which is out of time can be raised on the Adjournment, it seems to me that we might abandon the 40-day limit on Prayers. Perhaps this is a matter to which Mr. Speaker might give his attention.

All I can say from the Chair is that we are not debating the Instrument itself. That would be out of order because the time has expired. But, as we are on the Adjournment and any subject is admissible, it is quite in order to discuss the subject of the Regulations which might have been put down or prayed against in the past.

The question of morning sittings is not for the Chair. It is a matter for the House, and I can rule only that what is being done this morning is in order. I call the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) to continue.

I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All I say in answer to the Minister is that the Regulations were put down to be prayed against last Wednesday. The Prayer was not reached, and the Opposition have exercised their undoubted right to introduce a debate on them. We have been fortunate enough, with the business collapsing this morning, to have plenty of time, far more time than we should have had on the other occasion, to talk about this important matter.

I was saying that we can look confidently to specialists to exercise moderation in the charges which they make to their private patients. But the appeal which the Joint Consultants Committee made clearly implies that the Minister, too, has his part to play because he is responsible for charges for private bed accommodation.

While I in no way dispute the conclusion to which the Minister has arrived in this matter, I can regard the timing only as exceedingly strange. Why has the right hon. Gentleman chosen to abolish this limitation during the period of severe restraint on prices and incomes? Paragraph 4 of the White Paper, Prices and Incomes Standstill: Period of Severe Restraint, says:

"The Government will use their statutory powers for the sole purpose of ensuring that the voluntary support of the majority is not undermined by the actions of a few".

In this instance, the Minister is one of the few, and he is using his statutory powers in order to be one of the few. This is a strange interpretation of the whole theme of voluntary support and statutory powers being used only to prevent the minority getting out of step with the majority. As I say, the Minister is using his statutory powers to be one of the few and is undermining the principles of the severe restraint White Paper.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot be surprised if the wage-frozen and now wage-restrained private patient takes a rather jaundiced view of a Minister who acts contrary to his own Government's policy. I hope, therefore, that he will tell us why he has selected this moment to take the action he has.

My next question relates to the charges for private out-patients. When, in answer to a Question on 31st January, 1966, the right hon. Gentleman announced that he proposed to make various changes, of which these Regulations are part, he said that he intended at the same time to revise and bring up to date the schedule of hospital charges for private out-patients. Perhaps he can explain why that change was not included with the other changes proposed in Statutory Instrument 1553. Can the Minister also say whether the Secretary of State for Scotland proposes to make similar changes for Scotland?

This is just one part of the Minister's proposals concerning private patients. We believe strongly that people who choose to provide for the health needs of their families out of their own resources should not be denied this right, and we look to the Minister to uphold the assurances which he has given in this respect.

I wonder whether I might be allowed to animadvert to what the Minister said when my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said that morning sittings were a farce. I shall not dwell on that, but when one looks at the benches on both sides of the House it is hard not to take that view. However, the Minister went on to say that we had done something which he seemed to think was wrong because we had raised this matter on the Adjournment. I find this impossible to follow.

It is true that it would have been better if the Motion had been discussed last Wednesday. There are many Motions to negative Orders which we should like to discuss. I hope that the Minister will not take the view that it is not within our rights to raise on the Adjournment anything that we cannot discuss in other ways. As it has turned out, it is better that the matter has been raised on the Adjournment because we can take a much wider view and range much further than we would have been able to do had we been confined to the Regulations.

The second part of the Regulations provide that a doctor or dentist can charge anything he likes—there is no limit—for the services which he performs. This is a most remarkable state of affairs at this time. This is what puts the Opposition in difficulty. What the Instrument says, in effect, is that it is impracticable for the Government to seek to impose a prices standstill and to limit fees and that the idea should be abandoned. We on this side of the House entirely agree. I have long thought that any kind of price dictation by Government Departments was impracticable and that it would break down. We agree with the Minister, and this is what places the Opposition in difficulty.

Out of whose mouth do these strange words come? Does the Prime Minister know what the Minister is arguing? Does the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs know what the Minister is arguing? How far is this doctrine, which we welcome, to be pushed? There has been nothing like it since the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus. However, in the week when we are being urged on every side that to raise any price is a crime against the State, the Minister says, "Abolish all price levels; charge what you like". This is one of the most extraordinary debates which I have heard for a very long time.

If one goes further, this month is the month in which, for example, the fees of solicitors are to be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. It is the month in which we have heard criticism of estate agents' fees. It is the month in which Minister after Minister has said that the price freeze must apply, not only to goods sold in the shops, but to professionals and to anyone who charges a fee on price. Yet along comes the Minister and shoots the whole thing down.

This is a repetition of the blunder made last week. I ventured to put down a Motion of censure on the Government because they raised the salary of one of their Ministers by 50 per cent. for doing the same work. The difficulty is that the Minister concerned is one of their best Ministers. This is nothing personal against her. Will the Government ever understand that they cannot lay down a doctrine, which I believe to be false, that incomes and fees are not to increase, and then, first, make an exception in the case of one of their own Ministers and the following week make a huge exception in the case of a whole profession? There can be no logic or sense in what the Minister seeks to do.

I take the view, and many of us on this side of the House take the view, that Government economic policy is defined as unworkable. Whatever view one takes, it is difficult to see how anyone can argue that that policy will work and then breach it week by week. This is what is happening in selected cases.

Narrowing the question down, it comes back to doctors as such. I would doubt, even in the narrower medical context, whether this is the most useful thing that can be done. This concession, which I say again I welcome, will help mainly senior doctors and senior dentists. The whole weakness, which I thought was generally admitted, was not that senior doctors and dentists were underpaid, but that junior doctors and junior hospital consultants were underpaid.

Whether one looks at the matter from the narrower point of view or from the point of view of national policy, I find this a most extraordinary doctrine to present to the House. I hope that the Minister understands that if the Order becomes law and comes into practice, it is going forth from the House that, in the Government's view, there should be no limit placed on the fees which a profession charges. That is our view. I am glad that the Government have adopted it. I hope that they will implement it in more cases than one.

It was not my intention to intervene in the debate, but I think that it would be for the benefit of the House to realise that there is another viewpoint and that there are some people, particularly on these benches, who view the growth of private medicine in this country with considerable concern. The growth of private medicine, as judged by prescriptions, has risen dramatically over the last few years. At a time of intense shortage in the National Health Service this represents a menace to the provision of an equal and fair Health Service to those people who are eligible to benefit from it.

Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to private medicine in principle, but I believe that the place for private medicine is outside the National Health Service hospital, and that if private medicine wishes to continue it should do so in private nursing homes separate and distinct from the National Health Service.

We should analyse the decision to increase fees because of its relevance to the policy of the National Health Service and the way it is going. There is considerable evidence that private beds in the National Health Service are a source of inequality and waste. The Ministry of Health has said that their average occu- pancy of 51 per cent. is considerably less than the approximate occupancy of 85 per cent. of public beds. We are discussing whether this should be allowed to continue. The decision of the Minister to allow no restriction on fees is right if private medicine is to continue, because in many cases fees have been ridiculously low.

I ask the Minister whether he is worried about the increase in private medicine and whether he believes that it is good for the Health Service to have a private sector within it. This is what I am criticising. I am not criticising private medicine outside. I am criticising the situation in hospitals in which private beds are vacant while there is a large waiting list for public beds. The tendency is for a consultant to say either to the patient or, often, to the general practitioner, "You can come into hospital tomorrow if you pay, but if you do not, I am afraid that you will have to take your place on the waiting list." I do not believe that anybody thinks that doctors engaged on serious life-saving surgery will make that distinction. They will always find a bed for somebody who is seriously ill. I would not wish it to go out that that is my view, but there are delays, because of the shortage of beds, for some who are suffering from quite serious complaints.

It is reasonable to accept that some people want privacy in hospital and I have never been against them having it. Privacy of that kind, if it is not required medically, must be paid for, however, and in this respect there is something to be said for amenity beds. I am pleased to note that the Minister is on record as having said that the knowledge of the facilities and availability of amenity beds will be made more widespread.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one cannot obtain an amenity bed purely on the grounds of privacy.

One can, even if there is no medical reason to use an amenity bed. The whole purpose of amenity beds is to provide privacy, but a proviso is always made in that if somebody is seriously ill and if no privacy is available, one does not have the right to such a bed and, in such cases, people must return to the general ward. It is a fair principle. After all, one is not paying the full price for the amenity bed but the price of the privacy. That is the purpose of the amenity bed and it is obvious that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) is not aware of the facts.

I wish to see an extension of the amenity bed principle, with this facility being provided, where possible, throughout the National Health Service. I accept that there are business people who want privacy while they are in hospital and who, perhaps, want their secretaries with them for part of the time. However, if a hospital is short of beds and there is a sudden demand—perhaps a bad road accident—the people in those amenity beds must return to the general ward.

I am not suggesting that, because there are 6,500 private beds compared with 466,000 general beds, all hospital waiting lists for beds would be drastically reduced if those private beds were brought into general use. It would make only a fractional difference if that were done. I am attacking the whole principle of private medicine in this respect, because it is obviously a bastion of privilege. It is a constant sore and irritation to people to know that, while they must wait for months or even years to get a bed under the National Health Service, those who can afford to pay can get a bed tomorrow. It is particularly irritating when National Health Service patients know that those private patients will be looked after by National Health Service nurses, have their operations probably in exactly the same theatres, be using precisely the same X-ray facilities and that the same anaesthetic machinery will be used on them.

The sole criterion operating in the National Health Service should be that a patient goes into hospital because of his or her illness or disease. The growth of private medicine is a menace to the whole concept of the National Health Service, and every regulation or provision introduced by my right hon. Friend which is likely to bolster up private medicine must he watched carefully.

I am dubious about whether or not we should go on with the principle of part-time consultants. I appreciate that the system cannot be abolished overnight. However, I should like to see more full-time appointments being made in the National Health Service, with full-time consultants being appointed particularly at the teaching hospitals, with them being given merit awards at the appropriate times, perhaps earlier than at present. There should not be this competition for the time of consultants between private and National Health Service patients.

I look upon private medicine not in the way in which it is viewed by hon. Gentlemen opposite—as a great sign of freedom—but as something which is a privilege, which is challenging the National Health Service and which is taking us back 30 or 40 years. I confess that the growth of private medicine in recent years is, in many respects, due to the National Health Service falling short in providing a full and adequate service. The answer is not to increase private medicine but for the Government to provide the money and facilities to ensure that an adequate service is provided.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument about the National Health Service requiring more money to enable it to provide more amenity beds, better services, and so on. Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that the reintroduction of prescription charges would help the Service to obtain the money it requires to make these improvements?

That is hardly relevant to the subject under discussion. We are discussing private medicine. My answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is "no", because I supported the abolition of prescription charges, as did the B.M.A. for about nine years. Hon. Gentlemen opposite need to be reminded that the medical profession was strongly in favour of the charges being abolished. We are discussing whether to encourage the growth of private medicine. I accept that certain measures must be introduced and that these matters cannot be dealt with overnight, but if any Labour Minister of Health introduced measures to bolster and encourage private medicine within the National Health Service, he would not have my support and, I suspect, many of my hon. Friends would take the same view. We are dedicated to the National Health Service and we strongly hold to the view that it must provide an adequate service for everybody.

The Government can encourage amenity beds, by all means. The fees which we are discussing will, I believe, adjust themselves to the circumstances. In this connection, one must also consider the question whether there should be a limitation on the charge for beds. If we are to have private medicine inside National Health Service hospitals—and I hope that this is on the wane—the charges for these beds must be adequate to take account of all the services provided, including nursing facilities and so on. Many people who support the Labour Party, including doctors, view with grave concern the growth of private medicine in the National Health Service. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to put some of our worries to rest.

I wish, first, to reassure the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King, that I was not suggesting, in my intervention on a point of order, that it was not within the right of the Opposition to raise the subject of pay beds on the Adjournment. If it were not within the right of hon. Gentlemen opposite to do this, Mr. Speaker would not have permitted them to do it. I was merely saying that it seemed somewhat unusual that a lightly disguised Prayer against this Instrument should have been moved without due notice having been given, the 40 days for the tabling of a Prayer having expired. I thought that it was a matter to which Mr. Speaker might give his attention.

While accepting this procedural point which the right hon. Gentleman is making, would not he agree that he is speaking with a little pique when referring to this Adjournment debate? After all, the right hon. Gentleman must realise that if he believes that these Regulations are important—and my hon. Friends and I believe that they are—then this debate, whether on the Adjournment or by any other means, is perfectly justified and the House is perfectly right to be discussing this topic.

I wish to make it perfectly clear that I sincerely welcome this opportunity to explain the purposes of the Regulations. However, I should have thought that the Opposition were sufficiently interested in the matter to have arranged affairs so that they had a proper Prayer within the prescribed time.

It was something of an understatement for the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) to have said that I had come here at "fairly short notice". In fact I left for the House in the middle of a meeting in my Department. I had been told earlier that a Motion would be tabled. When I saw that no Motion was on the Order Paper, I not unnaturally assumed that the Opposition had once again changed their mind.

I do not want to argue about this. I assure the Minister that no discourtesy was intended. My information is that he was told earlier in the day that this particular procedure might well be adopted. It has, perhaps, taken place a little earlier than expected because there were so few hon. Members on the Government side to speak in the earlier debates.

I had the information about two minutes before the hon. Member started to speak. However, I repeat that I welcome the opportunity to explain these Regulations.

The hon. Member prefaced what he had to say by one or two general remarks about private practice within the National Health Service. He expressed satisfaction that I had reiterated the pledge that Mr. Aneurin Bevan gave in the earlier days of the Service about private practice and pay beds. Perhaps I should inform him of the terms in which I gave that undertaking, because they were quoted in a letter to all consultants from the Chairman of the Joint Consultants Committee, Sir Thomas Holmes Sellors.

That letter finishes:

"It is happy in this connection to record that the present Minister has reiterated the assurances of his predecessors that he has 'no wish to withdraw facilities for admitting private patients to N.H.S. hospitals.'"

That is true. At the same time, ever since I became Minister I have always made it clear to the medical profession that I would take no steps actively to encourage the growth of private practice within the National Health Service, because I broadly take the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) that any substantial expansion of the private sector in medicine could be achieved only at the expense of the public sector. This clearly will be true at any rate so long as there is a serious shortage of doctors in Britain.

The Regulations did two things; they removed the limits prescribed by previous Regulations on the fees that hospital doctors and dentists could charge their private patients treated in N.H.S. hospitals; and they empowered hospital authorities to reduce hospital charges to paying patients in amenity beds or in private beds when those patients were temporarily away from hospital and when their accommodation was reserved for them.

The Regulations are, as I think the hon. Gentleman appreciated, one of a series of measures I decided to take following my review of pay bed policy and after discussions with the Joint Consultants Committee. They were among the measures I referred to in a statement which I made to the House on 31st January, 1966, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). Whilst I am quite ready, and fully intend, to defend these Regulations on their own, I must emphasise that they should be looked at as part of a related series of measures concerning paying patients and private practice in N.H.S. hospitals.

The object of the series of measures I announced is not to withdraw facilities for private practice but to rationalise them and to provide for the more effective use of consultant manpower and hospital beds. They included a review of the existing number of pay beds. This review is now well advanced, and I am considering the recommendations of the hospital boards following their review, and shall be reaching decisions on them very shortly. Some of the other measures will have to await a suitable opportunity for amendment of the National Health Service Act. Meanwhile, these Regulations that we are now discussing have been made, and they fit in with the general pattern.

Incidentally, when I announced my proposals just over a year ago the only step taken at the time by hon. Members opposite was to ask why Socialist Members always seem to think it a crime that anyone able to pay for health services should do so if they wish. At least the Regulations do not inhibit this.

Section 5 of the National Health Service Act gives the Minister power to prescribe by regulation the maximum fees that hospital doctors may charge their patients treated privately in N.H.S. hospitals. Maxima were first prescribed in the 1948 Pay-Bed Regulations and some revision was made by the 1953 Regulations, but until the maxima were removed last month the fees had remained substantially unaltered since 1948. There was therefore a case for revision. There were also a number of features which in my view made this control of fees highly unsatisfactory.

In the first place—and this is partly the answer to the hon. Member for Dorset, South—the limits applied only to treatment in N.H.S. hospitals; they did not apply to treatment in private hospitals or in nursing homes, or to consultations in private consulting rooms which often precede or follow treatment in N.H.S. hospitals. Secondly, they did not necessarily apply even to all private treatment in N.H.S. hospitals. Hospital authorities could agree to their being increased on certain grounds, and could also agree to their being removed altogether if they were satisfied that the patient had agreed to pay more; although they could not be removed in respect of more than 15 per cent. of designated pay beds—such beds, where the limits had been removed, being colloquially known as "no ceiling" beds—at any one time in any one hospital. Moreover, it was not the function of the hospital authority to see that in any particular case the fees being charged were within the prescribed limits.

It has always been the position that the amount of fees to be charged was a matter to be settled between the doctor and his private patient—subject, of course, to the prescribed limits where applicable. In view of the unsatisfactory position as I found it, and of the inadequacy of any effective control, I came to the conclusion that the proper course was to remove the limits altogether and leave the question of fees to be settled entirely between patient and doctor, as it is in private practice outside N.H.S. hospitals. The profession welcomed this decision, and I should have thought that it would have been supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House.

I do not wish to interrupt the Minister, but I hope that he understands quite clearly from what I said that I am in no way opposing the general principle which he is now putting forward. The main point I made was on the timing.

Yes, I rather gathered that this decision did not meet with opposition from the benches opposite, but that it was merely a question of the timing, with which I shall deal in a moment.

Before deciding to proceed with Regulations to abolish the statutory limits on fees, I gave very careful consideration, with my colleagues in the Government, to the implications of the Prices and Incomes Policy, under which professional fees are expected to continue under restraint.

In the first place, as I have said, the prescription of maximum fees was limited in its application; it did not cover private practice outside the National Health Service, and the limits were not necessarily applied even to all private treatment in N.H.S. hospitals. Moreover, the removal of the limits was one of the measures I had discussed with the profession as part of a series of related measures concerning private practice which I had announced in January, 1966. One of these measures has already been implemented; hospital boards have been reminded that, where necessary, they can advertise full-time consultant appointments without offering the alternative of a maximum part-time appointment. Another, the review of the number of pay beds, is well advanced.

In view of these two factors, I saw no cause to hold up beyond 1st January the implementation of the decision to remove the statutory limits on fees. It could have been done during the standstill—we have the right to do it—but I thought it desirable to leave it until 1st January, and I decided to proceed accordingly.

rose—

No. I have already given way twice to the hon. Member.

Even before the issue in July of Command Paper 3073, Prices and Incomes Standstill, I had sought and had received assurances that the profession appreciated the importance of ensuring that the removal of the statutory limits would not lead to the charging of excessive fees. Since then I have received an assurance that the profession recognises the need for special restraint in this matter and will exercise it. I understand that the Chairman of the Joint Consultants Committee is writing to all consultants on this point. In their own interest they should exercise restraint lest the numbers willing to pay for private treatment diminish. In all the circumstances removal of these prescribed limits can hardly be regarded as a breach of the prices and incomes policy.

The new Regulation 8A inserted by Regulation 2(1) empowers hospital authorities to reduce hospital charges to paying patients when they are temporarily away from hospital and accommodation is reserved for them. This mainly affects long-stay patients in amenity and pay beds in psychiatric and some other hospitals who may go away for weekends and holidays. When they do so there is some saving in hospital costs, but I was advised that under the previous Regulations there was no power to make reductions. The new Regulation remedies this. Reductions will not be made for absences of less than 24 hours and the first and last days of absence count as one day as they do under the 1953 Regulations for the purpose of calculating the charges. Subject to that, a reduction of 12½ per cent. is to be made for each day's absence. This is based on savings that can be expected in respect of such things as food, drugs, laundry and so on when a patient is not occupying the accommodation. Salaries and wages and other standing charges continue during his absence and these account for the balance of 87½ per cent.

In the case of patients in the Section 4 amenity beds, there is a straight 12½ per cent. reduction on the prescribed charge. Because of the somewhat complicated way of determining charges for Section 5 accommodation, according to whether medical treatment is given privately and paid for separately, the reduction for Section 5 beds is on the standard daily charge as defined in the earlier Regulations.

The hon. Member for Somerset, North asked about those amenity bed patients who pay less than the current standard rate for amenity beds, in other words, those who were admitted before 1st March, 1961. Perhaps I may explain how this arises. In 1948 amenity bed charges were fixed at 6s. a day or 2 guineas a week for single rooms and 3s. a day or 1 guinea a week for accommodation in small wards. In 1952 the single rate was increased to 4 guineas and in 1961 to 8 guineas a week. Each time they were increased, there was a saving for existing patients so that some are still paying the pre-1961 charges. In the case of Section 5 patients, of course, the Regulations provide for charges to be revised annually. Therefore, clearly, a number of amenity bed patients are paying only half the rate already.

Another point which the hon. Member raised was in connection with outpatients. It is true that in my statement in January, 1966, I said that I would introduce Regulations to revise and bring up to date the schedule of hospital charges for private out-patients prescribed by the 1953 Regulations. My intention was to bring up to date the charges for procedures and treatments included in the schedule, and also to make it more comprehensive by including other treatment and procedures not at present included and to prescribe charges for them. I decided, in view of the incomes policy, that it would not be appropriate at this time. The present Regulations, therefore, do not include a revised schedule.

Hon. Members have asked why we found it possible to postpone an increase in out-patient charges if we could not postpone the increase in in-patient charges, since both are governed by the provisions of Section 5 of the National Health Act, 1946. The answer is twofold. In the first place, the 1953 Regulations deal with the two sets of charges differently. They prescribe the method by which hospital authorities determine pay bed charges, including their annual revision on the basis of the costs of the previous financial year; whereas they specify definite out-patient charges for particular procedures and these cannot be altered except by Regulations.

Secondly, while in-patient costs are precisely ascertainable and the charges are capable of annual revision, charges to out-patients cannot be calculated with such precision and, therefore, are not susceptible to frequent revision. It is not, therefore, inconsistent with the requirement of the National Health Service Act to postpone a revision of the out-patient charges in order to comply with the Government's policy of prices and incomes, and I propose to deal with them at a future date.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must deprecate the Minister seeking to catch your eye when he did although I was on my feet seeking to do so also, as I had given him notice of a specific point which I sought to raise. I appreciate that the Minister wrote a hastily scribbled note from his place on the Front Bench saying that he considered the matter which I sought to raise to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, but I submit that that is not so. The health of the nation is the responsibility of the Minister of Health. The fact that health in factories may be the responsibility of the Minister of Labour is another matter. The point which I would have raised had I been able to catch your eye was that blue asbestos is undoubtedly a cancer-forming agent. I think the Minister of Labour is doing research in factories, but some of my constituents far removed from a factory have been writing to me on this point.

Order. I understand the hon. Member's difficulty. He was good enough to give me notice that he wanted to raise this matter. At that time we were under the impression that it was the responsibility of the Minister of Health. I now understand that that Minister does not accept the responsibility. The practice of the Chair is always to pay regard to the responsibility which a Minister himself accepts for his own Department, so in this case the practice of the Chair would be to proceed to the next debate and to protect the interests of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) who has the Adjournment debate today.

Before you proceed to the next debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I rise on a point of order. My right hon. Friend has raised a number of contentious points and, in all fairness, this discussion should be allowed to go on. It is only right that he should give some clarification on two points. I am not accusing him of deliberately misleading the House—

Order. This is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Member must accept that the only person who can decide who should catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair is the occupant of the Chair. We cannot have a debate on anything that the right hon. Member has said, however contentious it may be, and I must protect the interests of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) who has the Adjournment debate.

We are in an extraordinary situation because, when the Minister rose, two of us rose from our places to participate in the debate on pay beds. In the normal course of events, we would have had one and a half hours' debate, but we have not had anything like that amount of time. The Minister rose precipitately, and cut us out of the debate. This he did, probably not knowing—

Order. This is not a point of order for the Chair. If I might give some guidance to the House, I have responsibility to protect the position of the hon. Member for Norwood. Once that Adjournment debate is over, it is open to other hon. Members to endeavour to catch my eye, and I believe that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) has already given notice of his intention to try to raise another subject. The sooner we can get on to the Adjournment debate, the sooner that can be done.

May I put another point to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker? As you will be aware, only the fact that we have had this debate has saved the bacon of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). But for that he would have lost his chance entirely. I wonder if you can consider the possibility of calling some of my hon. Friends who have sat here throughout this debate?

I understand the difficulties of the hon. Member. I accept that what he says about the continuation of the debate is perfectly correct, but I think that in all the circumstances I must adhere to my decision and call the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser).

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we be assured, therefore, that the Minister of Health will stay to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), who wishes to speak later?

I understand that the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells), if he catches my eye, wishes to raise a matter which is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and I believe that he has given notice. Mr. Fraser.

rose—

rose—

Order, I can take only one hon. Member at a time. Mr. Atkinson.

rose—

Is this a point of order?

Relative—

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not raise the same point of order again.

All I am doing is asking for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to whether the Minister will be here for the debate which you suggest will take place after the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser).

Order. I have not pronounced on whether a debate will take place. I have indicated only that it is open for the hon. Member to catch my eye, if the time allows. Mr. Speaker and successive Speakers have said that, if hon. Members wish to raise issues on the Adjournment, they should give notice to the Minister. It that has been done, all the requirements of the Chair will have been fulfilled.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do hope that, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye later, and if a Minister from the Ministry of Labour is in his place to answer me, he will be in a position to say why the Minister of Health will not accept responsibility—

Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but this is a matter he must raise if he catches my eye at the appropriate time. Mr. Fraser.

I should like to take this opportunity to raise the question of the provision of underground train facilities in the Borough of Lambeth and other passenger facilities in that area. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and I share the distinction of being, or having been, Governors of Tulse Hill Comprehensive School, which is in my constituency. Therefore, my hon. Friend will be able to listen to me, I hope with sympathy, and I know with experience, as I speak of the travelling facilities which exist throughout Lambeth going out to Norwood and to Crystal Palace.

What we need in Lambeth is not merely a comprehensive system of education, but also a much more comprehensive public transport system. Historically the underground system of London was developed and provided north of the River Thames. One needs only to look at a railway map to see that there is a proliferation of underground transport facilities north of the River Thames and very little to the south. The only lines serving the south are an extension of the District Line to New Cross, the Bakerloo Line, terminating unfortunately at the Elephant and Castle, and the Northern Line going out to Morden. It is a very great pity for the transport facilities of South London in general that the Bakerloo Line was not extended down to Camberwell Green through Peckham and out perhaps to Lewisham. If this had been done some years ago, the congestion in bus transport and other public transport in the south of London could have been avoided.

However, I want to speak, not of the Bakerloo Line, but of the Victoria Line. Once again, the construction of the Victoria Line from Victoria northwards illustrates the advantage that North London seems to have over the area south of the river. However, I hope that on this occasion the opportunity will be taken to roll the Victoria Line forward and to strike south to relieve the congestion and improve the poor facilities which exist in my borough and in other areas south of the river.

There has been no dispute as to the usefulness of bringing the Victoria Line to Brixton and perhaps beyond. A cost-benefit analysis has been carried out which has shown it to be a worthy project. Parliamentary powers exist for constructing the line as far as Brixton. Therefore, I want to deal, not with the need for the line, which I think is generally accepted, but with the reasons why an urgent decision should be taken now.

First, public transport facilities toward the Brixton area at least are congested and subject to delay and inconvenience. This is evidenced by paragraphs 46 and 47 of a Report of the Central Advisory Council on Transport, which speak of the highly increased difficulty in bus transport facilities because of congestion on the roads, because of delay, and because of the shortage of staff.

The second urgent reason for wanting a decision is that the Covent Garden Market is due to be moved from its present position to Nine Elms near Vauxhall. Already, there has been a great deal of congestion between Norwood, Brixton and Victoria, because the traffic must pass over Vauxhall Bridge. Therefore, if Covent Garden Market is situated at Nine Elms the congestion will be made even greater, and it would be logical to bring the Victoria Line to Brixton, and even beyond, and to provide a station at Vauxhall. After all, Covent Garden has a station of its own at the moment. There is no reason why the new Nine Elms Market should not have its own station.

Thirdly, Brixton and the areas around it badly need increased transport facilities. It is the sixth largest suburban centre in London. It is the third largest shopping centre south of the river. There are at peak hours 14,000 passenger car units on the roads per hour. At peak times in Brixton Road there are 5,000 pedestrians crossing the road per hour. A bus passes every 15 seconds. I mention these figures to illustrate the conflict between pedestrian, motor car and bus, and to illustrate the delay which is consequent upon that congestion and upon that conflict arising at the centre.

The fourth reason is that Brixton centre cries out for redevelopment. If there is to be a comprehensive development area order for that place, then I think it would be right to be able to phase underground transport facilities into that redevelopment.

The fifth reason why a decision is urgently wanted now is that the organisation exists with the construction of the Victoria Line, and it would be a great pity to disband the team of engineers, tunnellers, machinery and equipment. All these facilities exist at the moment. It would be wasteful and inefficient to allow the present Victoria Line to be completed and then to make a start at some future date on the extension to Brixton because it would be necessary to bring the machinery, the men and the labour teams together again. I understand that this would be a somewhat difficult process. It would be very wasteful if the people now assembled on the construction of the Victoria Line were to be disbanded. What is needed from the Minister is no more than what is needed from a blushing young girl—to say "Yes" and name the day. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to do that today.

Apart from extending the Victoria Line to Brixton I hope that the Minister will be able to give very earnest consideration to extending it beyond Brixton to Crystal Palace through West Norwood. The reason why I ask for this is that Crystal Palace is to be redeveloped as an international industrial exhibition centre. As well as already being a large sporting centre, with the recreation facili- ties which have been provided there by the Greater London Council, Crystal Palace is to become Britain's shop window to the world.

It would be very short-sighted if that shop window for the world was to be provided at Crystal Palace without adequate transport facilities. I therefore hope that Crystal Palace will be provided with a life-line to Central London. The architect of the Crystal Palace over 100 years ago designed a covered way to lead from Crystal Palace to the centre of London. I hope that this Government will be the architect of a new covered way, the extension of the Victoria Line as far as Crystal Palace.

Finally, apart from underground facilities in Lambeth, I hope that it will be possible to provide passenger interchange facilities at places like Waterloo, Brixton and Crystal Palace. It is no good having public transport facilities if ease of change cannot be arranged. Sometimes catching a bus in Brixton, Crystal Palace or Waterloo is about as messy and difficult as trying to catch a rabbit.

At Brixton there is the ideal opportunity to provide a passenger interchange facility—a sort of department store of public transport, where under the same roof a person would be able to get a train, or a motorway express bus, or a London Transport bus, or to get an underground train. It should be possible, with initiative and with imagination and guidance from the Ministry, to design a passenger interchange terminal—for instance, with the same booking hall for British Railways and for the underground, and where it would be highly convenient to change from one system of transport to another.

If public transport is to succeed, it must be convenient and it must even be glamorous. One certainly must be able to site the same facilities on the same spot. I hope that the Minister will exercise initiative in providing passenger interchange facilities at Brixton, where the new centre is being built—it would be possible to design it now—and, for instance, at Waterloo as well, where we could have a transport centre which was dedicated to the convenience of the travelling public. At Waterloo at present, one comes out of the station, and it is necessary to go out into the rain or the cold, perhaps, and start searching for a bus at the appropriate bus stop. At a place like that it should be possible to have the buses running into the station under cover so that the attractions of public transport are made as great as the attractions of the private car.

I hope that these facilities will be provided in Lambeth, and, if we could have passenger interchange facilities at Waterloo and Brixton as well, we should provide a blueprint for better interchange facilities for the travelling public throughout the rest of Britain.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has done a public service in bringing to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and the House the traffic needs of one of the most congested areas of London. It is unfortunate—it may have been a historical accident—that the Northern Line, to all intents and purposes, bypasses Brixton. South of the river, the Northern Line goes through the Oval down to Stockwell and then on to Clapham, by and large following the main Clapham Road. The Brixton Road, on the other hand, which also goes south, has no rail facilities comparable with the rail facilities enjoyed by people living along the line of the Clapham Road, which forms one of the boundaries of my constituency.

My hon. Friend has spoken of the difficulties encountered by travellers wanting to come to Brixton from the north side of the river. Many of them very wisely travel by underground, but if they want to get to Brixton or points immediately south they have to disembark at the Oval station. I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to see what happens at the Oval station during the rush hour in the evening. People come out of the Oval station in droves. In order to travel on to Brixton, they have to cross two main roads, the Clapham Road and the Brixton Road. Having negotiated that hazard as best they can, they find themselves at the bus station at the northern end of the Brixton Road, and this happens to be the point at which London Transport changes its bus crews.

It not infrequently happens, when large numbers of people emerge from the Oval station in the hope of catching a bus to Brixton, Streatham or Croydon, as the case may be, that, by some misfortune, the crew which is supposed to take the arriving bus over is not there on time. Passengers may sit in the bus for minutes, or sometimes longer, before the bus crew which is supposed to be there turns up. It is unfortunate that this place, so close to the Oval station where so many people come out, is the nearest bus stop for the purpose of going on to Brixton and points south and is also the point at which bus crews change.

It is true that there are rail facilities on the Southern Region from Brixton to Victoria and vice versa, but the station in Brixton from which one can travel by overhead line to Victoria, though very centrally situated right in the heart of the Brixton market area, is a very old and antiquated structure. One has to go up flights of stairs, which are not easy for old people or youngsters to negotiate. This is one point where interchange facilities could well be provided. If the new underground station at Brixton on the Victoria-Brixton extension were so contrived as to be built underneath the present overhead station on the Brixton-Victoria line, there could be a simple and easy interchange of passengers wanting to go further south to places not conveniently served by bus routes.

My hon. Friend has referred to the enormous congestion in the Brixton Road particularly on Saturdays. In order to allow the traffic to get through, pedestrian guard rails have been erected along a considerable stretch of the Brixton Road. Otherwise, the pedestrians would overflow on to the road and traffic would not get through at all. I am sure that one of the busiest pedestrian crossings in London is the pedestrian crossing in the Brixton Road near the heart of Brixton running between Marks and Spencer's on one side of the road and Montague Burton's and the Brixton Market on the other. It is pretty clear to anyone who stands there on a Saturday that the estimate of 5,000 pedestrians crossing the road per hour must be an underestimate.

Although the red lights at that pedestrian crossing only hold good for a short time, the crowd of people crossing puts one in mind of the enormous numbers coming out of Wembley Stadium after a Cup Final match. A fantastic state of affairs is created. With this vast mass of pedestrians trying to cross the road, the result is that, even if the vehicular traffic is held up for only a few moments, a long trail of buses, cars, lorries and goodness knows what at once develops, stretching for a considerable distance both north and south of the pedestrian crossing.

It so happens that this pedestrian crossing, one of the busiest in London, as I say, is situated within a short distance, perhaps 200 yards or so, from two very congested traffic intersection points on either side. The one to the north is just outside Brixton Police Station where Stockwell Road, Brixton Road, Gresham Road and Canterbury Crescent all converge. There is a very great deal of right-turning, and the consequence of all the congestion on a Friday between five and six in the evening is that the traffic signal system is incapable of coping with the load. Traffic has to be manually controlled by two, three or even four policemen standing at the four intersection points.

South of the pedestrian crossing, 100 or 200 yards away, there is another very congested intersection at the corner of Brixton Hill, Acre Lane, Brixton Road, Coldharbour Lane and the little side street in front of the Tate Library. This is another equally congested area.

All this reinforces the argument that the only way to deal with the congestion in Brixton is to carry people underground and enable them to go through the area without having to congest the road with private cars, buses, pedestrian traffic and all the rest.

My hon. Friend made an important point when he stressed that the impending completion of the Victoria Line to the north-east of London will release a pool of highly-skilled labour and valuable machinery. It would be a thousand pities if all that concentration of men and machinery were allowed to disperse before it could be put on the job of constructing the Victoria-Brixton extension. If ever there were a form of hard labour which it is not always easy to obtain, it is the men who excavate in the underground tunnels. Whatever money they earn—and they earn good money of £40 and £50 a week-they are still underpaid, in my opinion, working in terribly hot conditions in most laborious circumstances. It is not a job I would recommend anyone to undertake, unless he was fighting fit and able to cope with the most adverse physical circumstances. I would like to see that same bunch of splendid fellows doing a bit of digging between Victoria and Brixton.

My hon. Friend also referred to the need for rapid and simple communications between the centre of London and the Crystal Palace. I hope that that more long-term plan will not frighten my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary from making a start with Brixton. But it would be a pity if the Crystal Palace development which is under consideration, and which has now started, should be hamstrung at the start by lack of easy approach from London.

One of the main reasons why Earls Court and Olympia are attractive as exhibition centres is the ease with which it is possible to arrive at them by underground. The police are able, very wisely, to close many of the streets in those areas when the Motor Show or some other big show is being held, without imposing hardship on motorists. Motorists can easily leave their cars well out of the areas and get to the exhibitions by underground, and therefore the police are amply justified in closing to all motor traffic 10, 15 or 20 streets, as the case may be, while the exhibitions which attract a large concourse take place.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will recall that not very long ago I put down one or two Questions to him about the date of a decision on the extension. I pointed out to him that I had been advocating the extension for about 20 years, and he consoled me with the thought that I would not have to wait another 20 years, that the file was getting near to the top of the pile on the desk of my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. Perhaps the file is now right at the top, because the last time I raised the matter in the House my hon Friend said it would be only a few weeks before a decision was announced.

Perhaps it is too much to hope that he will be able to make a definitive announcement today. But if he can, he will transform a somewhat local, parochial debate into an epoch-making national pronouncement. I therefore hope that if he cannot make a specific announcement today of the date on which the new extension will be commenced, he will at least be able to give the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood, myself and the people of Brixton encouraging news of the date in the near future when the announcement for which we have waited so many years will be made.

I wish to raise two brief points, the first of which concerns the new Covent Garden site, which I understand will be situated at Nine Elms. I also understand that there will not be waterside facilities for lighterage or for passenger transport on the water. That point has a bearing on the transport problems of the Brixton area, because if transport can go on the river and not on the roads, where it would affect the buses and pressure on the roads, so much the better. Could my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary consider the lack of facilities for water exit from the new Covent Garden site, as it is clear that there will be increased pressure on the roads if there are no waterside facilities?

Secondly, educational facilities in the Brixton area are expanding greatly. The present Brixton School of Building will be expanded into a regional college, and it is going into a new building. There are already great problems for students getting to the present site at Brixton, and a difficult situation is developing, as I understand that it is impossible to start classes on time at the school because of the bad transport facilities from central London into Brixton, which have been emphasised by both my hon. Friends.

My most serious question concerns the lack of waterside facilities for lighterage and transport at Nine Elms, and I hope that my hon. Friend can look into that matter as I believe it to be most important in relation to the problems expressed by my two hon. Friends.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) was good enough to mention that I am acquainted with the transport facilities and traffic problems in the Borough of Lambeth. I was very pleased to serve for a short period up to October, 1964, on the governing board of the excellent and outstanding comprehensive school at Tulse Hill. Generally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) knows, I travelled to and from Tulse Hill by public transport and therefore I can claim, at any rate up to that time, a close acquaintanceship with the problems. I therefore well understand the reasons that impelled my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood to raise this subject this morning.

I hope to be able to show something of what is being done now to improve public transport in the Borough of Lambeth, which is an illustration of our approach to London as a whole. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton implied that we were dealing with parochial problems, but they are also illustrative of the immense problem we have all over London of making a special effort to improve public transport and reduce congestion. No doubt, in the course of this week we shall hear a good deal more on the general subject of London's problems as a whole.

I want to make two points immediately. First, like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood, I propose to deal with British Rail services as well as with London Transport underground services. There is nothing magical about underground services as such although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton said, they offer the opportunity of getting some people away from the congestion on the surface. What people want are good rail services, whether they are underground or on the surface.

Secondly, the provision of transport services is a matter for the operators. Several of the points raised by my hon. Friends are matters of managerial responsibility for those responsible for operations, whether in the headquarters of the British Railways Board or London Transport. I shall make a special point of drawing the attention of those concerned to the particular and detailed matters which my hon. Friends raised.

My right hon. Friend has a close interest both because of the general responsibility for the nation's transport and the important function she has to exercise over such matters as major investment. But, in the last resort, much of the initiative must come in flexible arrangements made by London Transport and British Railways.

On behalf of the two nationalised boards concerned, I claim at once that Lambeth is already unusually well endowed with rail facilities. It has London Transport's Northern and Bakerloo lines. It has the great terminus and interchange point of Waterloo. It has the special underground link to the City from Waterloo, and it has a large number of other British Rail stations enjoying excellent services, giving passengers a choice of terminal station in Central London. I mention Herne Hill, Tulse Hill, Streatham Common and West Norwood purely as examples. Even so, the responsible authorities plan to improve still further public transport in this area: and I now turn from the present situation to the future.

First, the underground. My hon. Friend pressed for an early and favourable decision on London Transport's proposal to extend the Victoria Line to Brixton. My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton claims to have been pressing for this for a couple of decades. I do not think that I shall altogether surprise him by saying that I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the decision today. But perhaps I can elevate my hon. Friends' hearts a little by assuring them that an announcement on this subject will be made by my right hon. Friend very soon indeed.

I admit at once that we have been mulling over this proposal of London Transport's for a considerable time. I make no apology for that. It raised many and difficult problems. At the present time, all proposals for major investments like this must, of course, be scrutinised with unusual care and this is a question of £16 million. But I can tell my hon. Friends that, in reaching her decision, my right hon. Friend will have regard not only to the financial results of the project in the accounts of London Transport, but also—which is most important—to the wider question of social benefits such as time saving, reductions in road casualties, the need to attack the problem of congestion, etc. All these factors would flow from the building of this new line.

Of course, my right hon. Friend will have very much in mind the question of the relationship between the provision of transport facilities and new developments. Both my hon. Friends have raised questions on which I am not in a position to give a detailed answer at the moment. But I can tell them that all these matters are being studied very closely because we know that one of the greatest mistakes made in the past lay in the failure to plan at one and the same time the developments which occurred and the travel facilities that ought to go with them. These are mistakes that we do not intend to repeat.

Other possible extensions of the underground system could bring benefits to the Lambeth area. These lie a bit further ahead. One possibility mentioned is the extension of the Bakerloo Line southwards from the Elephant, but I cannot say at present that this has a high priority with London Transport. There may, of course, be developments which will alter that but, in any case, a major extension here could not be contemplated in present circumstances because it would lead to intolerable overloading of the Central London section of the Bakerloo Line.

I now turn to the services provided by British Rail. My hon. Friends will remember the major survey of passenger requirements which Southern Region carried out in 1964. Last year, my right hon. Friend approved the investment by the Region of almost £500,000 in physical works so as to enable the service to be improved and reshaped in the light of that survey. In July this year, a new timetable made possible by these improvements in the system will be introduced. It will provide for an increase of almost 20 per cent. in the number of seats on trains arriving at the Region's London termini in the morning peak hour. This very substantial improvement will certainly be felt in Lambeth—for example, on the line from Herne Hill to Victoria.

In addition, the Southern Region is currently engaged on detailed planning of further major improvements in its capacity which such developments as the new town at Thamesmead will make necessary. This planning is still at an early stage but it is already clear that really major investments—of the order of £10 million or more—may be called for, and therefore my hon. Friends will realise that further announcements will shortly be made concerning this. The effect of improvements on this scale would, of course, be felt in Lambeth.

My hon. Friend called for improved facilities in Lambeth for interchange between one form of transport and another. I agree that better interchange facilities are needed and I will try to tell him what is being done. My right hon. Friend set up about a year ago the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London. The Council operates through five working groups. One of these is the Interchanges Group, whose terms of reference are:

"to examine and keep under review facilities for interchange between elements of the transport system and to recommend a programme of improvement in relation to present and future transport demands".

On this group are representatives of the major interests with executive responsibilities for transport in London—The Greater London Council, London Transport, British Rail and the Ministry. The Group has immediately turned its attention to the practical question of actually improving on the ground physical interchange arrangements between different forms of transport. For example, one of its working parties is studying the situation at Waterloo, with special reference to the need for more convenient interchange between rail and bus services. I may say at this point that London Transport hope that the next Red Arrow services to be introduced will operate to and from Waterloo.

So my hon. Friends will see that we have a special study going on into interchange problems. The Interchanges Group has also been considering how interchange might be improved at Brixton itself and will quite certainly take into account what my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton has said.

The interchange at the Oval is one of the most difficult aspects of the problem at Brixton. People have to walk quite a distance from the station to get on buses for Brixton. Could not, as a temporary measure, some buses be diverted so that one could come out of the Oval station and get on a bus for Brixton without having to cross two main roads, which is particularly unpleasant on a wet night?

That is exactly the kind of thing that the Interchanges Group is studying and I assure my hon. Friend that I will draw its attention to this point. I know that it is studying the problems of Brixton and it may well be, as we have found in other places, that a new scheme regarding the siting of particular kinds of facilities can be made and negotiated between those concerned.

Much depends on whether the Victoria line extension goes ahead. If it does, major improvements to interchange facilities will be possible. The G.L.C.'s motorway box is planned to pass through Brixton, and Lambeth Borough Council has plans which could provide excellent facilities for interchange between car and tube, car and rail and bus and rail if the underground were extended. There could also be interchange arrangements at Stockwell and Vauxhall.

I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to make it clear to my hon. Friends not only that the Government and other responsible authorities are determined to improve public transport in this part of London, but also that significant and worthwhile improvements are receiving serious consideration and will be the subject of announcements in the very near future.

I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour for coming at under an hour's notice to answer this short debate. The reason I have not given the hon. Gentleman longer notice was that I had hoped that the matter would be answered by the Minister of Health. Although I am well aware that the chief medical officers of the hon. Gentleman's Department are looking into the problem of cancer caused by blue asbestos, this matter was raised with me first by constituents of mine who had no connection whatever with the factory in question. They live near the factory, I admit, but I had had no complaint whatever from those actually working within the factory. This is a matter concerning the general health of the nation and for this reason I had presumed that the Ministry of Health would deal with it.

To put the matter simply and straightforwardly, I should like to read one or two extracts from letters from my constituents which express their fears. Appropriately enough, the first letter which I received on the subject was from a Mr. Ian Gunter, who wrote to me on 23rd January this year on the subject of asbestos dust and lung cancer. He states:

"My house is 1¼ miles in a direct line from"—

a certain factory—

"and I and my neighbours are increasingly alarmed over the potentially grave risk to the health not only of our families and ourselves but also of all those living in the area as a result of the escape into the atmosphere of asbestos dust, particularly of the variety known as blue asbestos which, to my knowledge, is used in large quantities at the … factory.

You will no doubt be aware of the considerable publicity given in recent months in the Sunday Times by their medical correspondent warning of the risk of incurable and invariably fatal lung tumours being caused through inhalation of asbestos dust."

He then deals with a certain B.B.C. programme and asks me to look into the matter urgently.

I had a further letter from a neighbour of Mr. Gunter who said:

"You will be aware of the considerable correspondence in the national Press on this subject over several months. I can send copies of various articles should you so wish. As Mr. Gunter says"—

that is, Mr. Ian Gunter—

"we live directly down the prevailing southwesterly wind from the … factory, and while I have already made extensive inquiries from the Hollingbourne Rural District Council in their capacity as public health authority, and have had correspondence and a personal interview with the medical officer of health, we have in the nature of things not progressed very far or very fast.

The M.O.H. is writing to the … company about the use of blue asbestos, requesting them to cease their use of this material, but I am very much afraid that this will not have the desired effect.

I myself have four young children residing at home, and they are. I am sure, entitled to be able to be free from this now known hazard. The M.O.H. feels the risk in my own locality to be slight, but admits that he does not know for sure, and goes on to say that 'the chief danger is from broken bags of this material', which means that from time to time we must be at risk: in any case, friends and"

other people

"live very much closer to the factory and are almost certainly at risk. There is reason to believe that the filtration plant of the factory is in good order, but there is the danger of handling the material on arrival, and the loading and disposal of the waste, which I believe is causing the M.O.H. special concern, and I am extremely worried by the whole situation."

He goes on to say:

"I understand that the importation of this particular sort of asbestos only represents 5 per cent. of the national importation of asbestos, and I can see no justifiable reason why its importation and use should not be totally suspended pending full inquiries and research."

Those two letters from which I have read substantial extracts set out the fears of my constituents, not only for themselves and their families, but for neighbours who live downwind from the factory.

I repeat that I have had no complaint from anybody working inside the factory. None of the workpeople has expressed anxiety to me. At the same time, however, I hope that the Minister will explain to the House what his Department is doing to safeguard people in factories. As the Minister of Health has clearly shirked his responsibility in this matter concerning national health, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will do his best to allay the fears of people outside.

If the medical officer of health is right in thinking that the risk is slight, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give categorical support to what the medical officer of health says so that people need have no more fear. If, on the other hand, the slight doubt expressed by the medical officer of health has any justification, I hope that the Minister will take the strongest steps to forbid immediately and completely the use of this material until research has been concluded.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) on raising this matter. There is, I think it is true to say, increasing disquiet among the medical profession at some strange and rather inexplicable facts relating to exposure to asbestos, both from the industrial viewpoint and from the point of view of the health of the community as a whole. Asbestos certainly seems to produce in some cases certain types of tumours. Perhaps we are right not to regard them as malignant tumours, but they cause progressive and, possibly, killing lung diseases.

I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to do all he can, not only in his own Department, but in conjunction with his colleagues at the Ministry of Health, who, I feel sure, appreciate the problem, to initiate research so that we will not be as much in the dark as we are at present.

The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) was good enough to thank me for coming at what he described as an hour's notice to answer this debate. The hon. Member's thanks to me are quite unnecessary, but congratulations to him for his diligence in this matter are entirely appropriate. The hon. Member asked a Question last Monday and he has another down for today. In between, he has taken advantage of the opportunity given to him this morning to raise the matter again. He is to be congratulated on his enthusiasm for getting it straightened out.

I am sorry that I must disappoint the hon. Member in terms of answering his question about the general health aspects of asbestos. He will understand that the responsibilities of my Department are confined to the industrial hazards and the industrial safety aspect. Therefore, I am able neither to confirm nor deny the advice given to the hon. Member's constituents by the local medical officer of health and I must simply confine what I say to the other aspects which fall directly within the purview of the Ministry of Labour.

By raising the matter this morning, the hon. Member has been successful in anticipating by 2 hours 40 minutes an Answer, which will be given him this afternoon by my colleague the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). In anticipation of that Answer, perhaps I may fill in a little of the background as it is seen in the Ministry of Labour.

The hon. Member will already know that an announcement has been made that a panel of experts, under the chairmanship of Her Majesty's Senior Medical Inspector of Factories, has been appointed to review the medical aspects of this case. It is possible to say with prejudicing any of its conclusions that three things are already known. The first is that there is an increase in asbestosis throughout the industry. Secondly, there is an increase in lung cancer among the people who initially suffer from that disease. Thirdly, there is a connection between exposure to asbestos and various rare but almost invariably fatal forms of cancer. One can say that without prejudicing the results of the inquiry, because it is those three facts which make the inquiry necessary and have resulted in its being brought about.

It is also possible to put the use of asbestos into industrial perspective, for example, the simple fact that it is being used more often and in greater quantities today than at any time in our industrial history and that over 20,000 people are engaged in working on it or with it. That does not mean that they are working on blue asbestos, which is the particularly virulent sort. The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that only about 5 per cent. of the asbestos used in this country is of that type. Nevertheless, there are 20,000 people exposed to the risk which comes from working with asbestos in general.

One of the hon. Gentleman's constituents wrote to him or to the medical officer asking why some Ministry—perhaps my own would not be the most appropriate —did not ban the use of this asbestos until the final medical evidence was more clear than it is today.

The simple answer is that, in an economy which is expanding and more and more dependent upon special products and special operations, asbestos is increasingly important and in many ways cannot be replaced by other materials. Certainly the factory inspectors urge industry to use alternatives whenever possible. But it is far from always being a practical proposition. This is particularly true about blue asbestos, which is used in many instances to produce commodities which could not be produced in the same way, at the same quality and at the same speed were other materials used. It is particularly important in producing goods and materials where strength is a vital factor.

Blue asbestos has a greater tensile quality than any posible alternatives. It would not be possible for many of the important industries which are involved in the production of materials into which this commodity goes to be told overnight that some alternative had to be found. We have no reason to believe that a viable alternative exists. Therefore, although only about 5 per cent. of the asbestos industry uses this specific commodity, it would not be possible to outlaw its use even during the short time before new asbestos regulations are brought into force.

As the House will be told in answer to the hon. Gentleman's Question later today, new asbestos regulations are to be considered. In the light of that, I should make it clear why the new regulations are being considered and why they are so necessary.

They are in part necessary because of the expansion in the use of asbestos, not only in quantitative terms but in terms of new processes which have been discovered and are being applied since the Asbestos Regulations were prepared 30 years ago before many of these new processes were invented. Some are like those which go on in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where there is a substantial factory producing floor-covering with an asbestos base. Brake linings, heating and ventilating components in general are produced under conditions for which the pre- sent Asbestos Regulations are not sufficiently comprehensive. Therefore, the Minister is announcing today that new regulations are being considered which will have a wider application, will cover increasing numbers of asbestos products and will have special reference to those industrial processes which produce large quantities of asbestos dust.

In conclusion, I can say that the Ministry is aware of the problems which working with asbestos in general and this form in particular pose to British industry. We are anxious that the regulations should be re-formed in such a way as to provide security and safety for those members of the industry who work on this form of asbestos and on asbestos in general.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with us while those regulations are being revised in the knowledge that, in some of the things which he has raised his persistence has been a contribution to making sure that the regulations are revised. It is the intention of the Ministry of Labour to bring about the revision as quickly as possible.

With the leave of the House, may I ask the hon. Gentleman three questions? First, when may we expect the regulations to come into force? Can we have an approximate date? Second, will the panel of medical experts be prepared to take evidence and hear views from my constituents living in the neighbourhood? Can the hon. Gentleman make arrangements for them to express their views to the panel? Third, as he is unwilling, quite rightly, to accept the nationwide health responsibility for people outside factories, can he advise me how I can make the Minister of Health face up to his responsibility in this matter?

Perhaps the way to make the Minister of Health face up to his responsibility, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, is to raise the matter on the Adjournment. That is a technique which the hon. Gentleman does not seem slow to apply—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary for interrupting him, but that is exactly what I sought to do this morning with the Minister of Health, who has run off, shirking his duty— admittedly in a most courteous way. He has told you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Clerk at the Table, that he has no responsibility for this matter. But he has responsibility for the health of the nation. May I seek your guidance as to how an hon. Member can pin the Minister down?

That is not a matter for the Chair. The responsibility which the Chair accepts is the responsibility which the Minister himself believes that he accepts. The hon. Gentleman must seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and the Chair will rule whether the matter is out of order at the time.

I have tried not to take issue with the hon. Gentleman on three occasions when he has chosen to say something which I regard as inaccurate about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, in case he or other hon. Members might think that my criticisms were the result more of the fact that I first heard of the hon. Gentleman's intention to raise this matter 50 minutes ago, than of my resentment and disagreement with his criticisms of my right hon. Friend. I am sure that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will feel that such criticisms are more appropriately aired when my right hon. Friend is here.

He asked when the new regulations would be brought into operation. I am sure that he understands that as it is not yet possible to say when the new regulations will be formulated it is equally impossible to say when they will be put into operation.

In answer to his second point, anyone who has appropriate and relevant evidence to give to the inquiry will be given that opportunity, and I will see that instructions are issued to cater for any of the hon. Gentlemen's constituents who are in that category and may want to give evidence to the inquiry which has been set up.