Commons Sitting of 4 November 1946

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS
Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

"respecting application of Standing Order No. 26 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1945–46, (I) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:

1

2

3

4

5

6

Date when Closure moved, and by whom

Question before House or Committee when moved

Whether in House or Committee

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman

Assent withheld because in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

and (2) in the Standing Committees under the following heads:

1

2

3

4

5

Date when Closure moved and by whom

Question before Committee when moved

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Chairman

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for against"

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS
Return ordered:
"of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1945–46:
Of all the Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1945–6 have been reported on by Committees on Opposed Private Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member has served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; the Bills the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 8
Return ordered:
"of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 8, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing, the definite matter of urgent public importance, and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1945–46."—[Sir Robert Young.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER NO. 26)
Return ordered:
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1945–46 have been referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member was summoned and on which each Member attended;
And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which have been referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee."—[Sir Robert Young.]

PUBLIC BILLS
Return ordered:
"of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1945–46; showing the number which received the Royal Assent; the number which were passed by this House, but not by the House of Lords; the number passed

1021
by the House of Lords, but not by this House; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills as did not receive the Royal Assent were dropped or postponed and rejected in either House of Parliament."—[Sir Robert Young.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS
Return ordered:
"of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1945–46, with the total number of signatures in that Session."—[Sir Robert Young.]

SELECT COMMITTEES
Return ordered:
"of the number of Select Committees appointed in Session 1945–46, the Chairman's Panel and the Court of Referees; the subjects of inquiry; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each Committee met, and the number of days each Member attended; the total expense of the attendance of witnesses at each Select Committee, and the name of the Member who moved for such Select Committee; also the total number of Members who served on Select Committees." —[Sir Robert Young.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Return ordered:
"of (I) the days on which the House sat in Session 1945–46, stating for each day the date of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of Business; and the number of entries in each day's Votes and Proceedings; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered."—[Sir Robert Young.]

STANDING COMMITTEES
Return ordered:
"for Session 1945–46 of (I) the total number and the names of all members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of days on which each Committee sat, and the names of all Bills considered by a Standing Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and
1022
showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Standing Committee by whom it was considered, the number of days on which it was considered by the Committee, and the number of Members present on each of those days.—[Sir Robert Young.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Footwear
    Mr. Thomas Macphersonasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the prospects of increased supplies of footwear during the winter months; and how does the production programme compare with the corresponding period in 1945–46.
    Mr. Marquand (Secretary for Overseas Trade): In spite of the serious shortage of leather, footwear production is now 12½ per cent. over the corresponding period of last year. This increase should be maintained for the rest of this year, and may be improved upon early in 1947, if the leather position eases as we hope. The rubber footwear industry, which is better off for raw materials, is likely between October, 1946, and March, 1947, to treble its output as compared with the same period in the previous year. In addition, imports of children's Wellingtons from Canada will continue during the winter.
    Mr. Macpherson: While I thank my hon. Friend, may I ask whether there is any prospect of a reduction in the coupon value for these shoes?
    Mr. Marquand: No, Sir, I am not aware of any prospect of that kind. I must say that I am at some disadvantage in answering some of these Questions, which relate to home affairs, as, unfortunately, my right hon. and learned Friend is indisposed, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is in the country.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: While I welcome the fact that more rubber soled shoes are to be made available, may I point out that it is practically impossible to buy any rubber soled shoes now? Will the Minister say if it is possible to make some more available for distribution?
    Mr. Marquand: The output of rubber soled shoes is, as I said in the answer, increasing fairly rapidly, and the Board

    1023
    of Trade have a most careful system for watching the distribution. The area distribution officers continue to watch the position.
    Mr. Attewell: Is my hon. Friend aware that boot and shoe operatives are working less than full capacity, and that many of them are on short time? When may they expect to be working a full week?
    Mr. Marquand: That, of course, is true, and is due, unfortunately, to a shortage of leather the world over.

    Clothing Coupons
    Mr. Houseasked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to extend the coupon allowance to provide a civilian with a reasonable opportunity to purchase a suit of clothes or a costume as well as other clothing necessities.
    Mr. Marquand: We cannot increase the coupon allowance as suggested since there is not sufficient cloth and other goods available to meet such an increase.
    Mr. Tolley: Will my hon. Friend give any indication when he will be able to make a statement, as we cannot go on living on war rations?
    Mr. Marquand: If it depended entirely on the Board of Trade, it would be easy. The difficulty, of course, is the output of textiles, which is lagging behind requirements.
    Mr. Jannerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many persons arriving in this country from tropical regions are not aware of the facilities available to them for obtaining coupons, enabling them to purchase clothes suitable for the British climate; and if he will make a statement setting out what facilities exist and give an assurance that all persons are given equally sympathetic treatment in this respect whatever their means, standing and nationality.
    Mr. Marquand: Information about arrangements for getting coupons for special needs is given in a pamphlet issued by the Board of Trade entitled, "Where to get Information about Clothes Rationing." The number of applications received from people arriving here from tropical regions suggests that the facilities are well-known already,
    1024
    but we are considering whether, in addition to the present arrangements, information and forms of application can be distributed through the shipping companies. I can assure my hon. Friend that equal consideration is given to all applications but, whilst shortages of supplies continue, travellers are advised to bring with them as much warm clothing as possible since the issues granted are necessarily limited

    Building Timber (Soviet Supplies)
    Mr. Bossomasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that the building timber now being supplied by the U.S.S.R. is actually cut in the U.S.S.R., or being cut in, and taken from, the Soviet zone of Germany.
    Mr. Marquand: So far as I am aware, the timber now being supplied by the U.S.S.R. is produced in North Russia, from trees felled there.
    Mr. Bossom: Does not the Minister know that the Russians are cutting timber in their own zone of Germany? Why cannot we do the same in order to save the high prices which we are paying?
    Mr. Marquand: That is precisely what we are doing.
    Mr. Bossom: I am afraid we are not doing it on the same scale at all—
    Hon. Members: Order, order.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member started by saying, "I am afraid." That is not a supplementary question.

    Glue
    Mr. Bossomasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the present shortage of glue will lead, at an early date, to a curtailment in the manufacture of water paints; that certain manufacturers may be compelled to cease the manufacture of such paints due to this shortage; and what steps he is taking to remedy this shortage.
    Mr. Marquand: I am aware that supplies of glue, which is required for a wide range of products including paints and distempers, are not sufficient to meet the increasing demand. It was for this reason that the control over distribution was recently strengthened. We are discussing with manufacturers the possibili-

    1025
    ties of increasing production and am encouraging imports; but, as the position may remain difficult, I would urge using industries to explore vigorously the use of substitutes.
    Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister mind indicating the substitutes that are available? They are very difficult to find.
    Mr. Marquand: I agree that it is very difficult. I understand that "Dxtrine" is a possible substitute.

    Hotels and Boarding Houses (Charges)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that excessive prices are being charged by hotels and boarding-house keepers for food and accommodation, and that this tends, especially in holiday resorts, to diminish the value of holidays with pay; and if he will immediately introduce legislation fixing maximum prices to be charged by such establishments, so that holidays with pay may have full beneficial effect.
    Mr. Marquand: The Catering Wages Commission are at present conducting an inquiry into charges for holiday board and lodging. With regard to the second part of the Question, I shall await the results of the Commission's inquiry.
    Mr. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that in certain holiday resorts there is a voluntary control; and all hotel keepers are not extortionate, and that those who are, racketeer at the public expense and at the expense of their fellows; and that this should be evened out by Government controls, so that holidays with pay may be a reality? Will my hon. Friend take steps to effect that?
    Mr. Marquand: As I said, we are awaiting the report of the Commission.

    Artists' Materials
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the concern expressed by the Council of the Royal Scottish Academy at the present shortage of artists' materials, in particular, canvas and flake white; and whether he will now, in the interests of Scottish art, take immediate steps to increase supplies of the necessary paints and materials.
    Mr. Marquand: I am aware of the shortage of artists' materials, which is not confined to Scotland, and I am doing my best to arrange for increased supplies. More finished canvas and flake white should be available by the New Year.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Can the Minister give a more comprehensive reply?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I understand that steps to increase production of both these scarce materials were taken about two months ago. I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend would welcome a Question at a later stage.

    Cotton Industry (Organisation)
    Mr. Scott-Elliotasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of the recommendations contained in the Working Party Report on Cotton.
    Mr. Marquand: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given last Monday to the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott).
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great importance of getting employers to take action, and does he not recognise that it will be very difficult to get them to do so until the Government make their mind known on this question?
    Mr. Marquand: My right hon. and learned Friend said that he would announce the decisions at as early a date as possible. I am sure that he intends to do so.
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the report of Dr. F. C. Toy, a director of the British Cotton Industry Research Association, pointing out that the industry is in danger of losing its position unless great progress in technical training is made during the next few years; and what proposals he has in mind to meet this situation.
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with Dr. Toy's remarks on the importance of technical training. The Government and other authorities already provide many facilities for training, and improvements are constantly being intro-

    1027
    duced. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour is actively extending the scope of the Training Within Industry scheme, and in the field of management we have recently announced the Government's intention of setting up an Institute of Management. It is for firms and individuals in the industry to take full advantage of the facilities offered, and I am glad to see that the number of people taking technical training courses is increasing considerably. I hope that Dr. Toy's remarks will stimulate further progress.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that financial assistance from the Government will also be necessary?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir.

    British-Soviet Trade Agreement
    Mr. Gammansasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the House any information of the British-Soviet trade pact.
    Mr. Marquand: The agreement reached at the beginning of September with the Soviet Trade Delegation provided for the settlement of certain outstanding problems relating to the supply to the U.S.S.R. of civilian goods manufactured in this country under the Civil Supplies Agreement of 1941; for assistance by His Majesty's Government to the Soviet Government in concluding contracts for the purchase of natural rubber; and for the supply by Russia to this country during the remainder of the 1946 shipping season of 25,000 standards of softwood at a price of £34 per standard. It was part of the understanding reached with the Soviet Trade Delegation that the settlement of the difficulties outstanding under the 1941 Agreement would open the way to full discussions about the expansion of trade between Russia and this country. Talks on this wider subject have already begun.
    Mr. Gammans: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is standing in the way of the conclusion of a comprehensive trade agreement between this country and Russia, and not merely one relating to the small range of articles to which he has referred?
    Mr. Marquand: We are now actively engaged in discussions with the Soviet
    1028
    Government on the possibility of a comprehensive agreement.
    Mr. Edelman: In view of the shortage of timber, would my hon. Friend make as much shipping as possible available, in order that we may receive this timber before the Baltic ports are closed by ice?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. We have undertaken, and indeed, it was a part of the negotiations which I remember very well, to remove as much of this timber as possible before the winter.

    Shirts and Collars (Material)
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will undertake that no shirt and collar-making material shall be exported until the export requirements of shirt and collar factories in the United Kingdom have been fully provided for.
    Mr. Marquand: I cannot give the general undertaking sought by the hon. Member. Shirtings and cotton cloths exported from this country are essential to the economy of Empire and other countries from which we, in our turn, draw supplies vital to us. We shall, however, take all possible opportunities of increasing supplies to United Kingdom shirt makers.
    Sir R. Ross: Are the hon. Gentleman and the President of the Board of Trade satisfied with a policy which tends to build up foreign competitors against our home manufacturers?
    Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. We are, unfortunately, in a position where we have not merely to restrict the exports from this country very severely, but to allocate those exports to those particular countries to which we have obligations. I am certain we are doing our best.
    Major Haughton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that so far as cloth supplies are concerned, the light clothing trade is in a worse position today than ever before; and if the figures of the making up trade are submitted, will he give them consideration?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. We will always consider figures, but we know, of course, that not sufficient cloth is reaching the makers up of all kinds of clothing. The reason is shortage of yarn. The bottleneck is at the spinning end.

    Women Inspectors (Magistrate's Remarks)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the criticisms by Mr. Rowland Thomas, K.C., the Old Street magistrate, on 25th October, on the action of two women inspectors; what disciplinary action does he propose to take: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marquand: I am aware of the remarks of the learned magistrate. The task which these two officers had to perform and on which they gave evidence is always a difficult one, and I see no occasion for disciplinary action.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that this case is typical of many instances of Gestapo—?
    Mr. Speaker: Insinuations and imputations are not in Order in asking supplementary questions.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: If I require the hon. Member to withdraw, I will say so.
    Sir W. Smithers: How much longer does the hon. Gentleman think the people of Britain will put up with these methods?

    Salvage Wood
    Sir W. Smithersasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. William Nisbet, who required 25s. worth of salvage wood; and, in view of the fact that the Timber Control sent him five sets of forth 3 /8 /C.P.L., each consisting of three sheets and each measuring 17 inches by eight inches and that, when Mr. Nisbet had filled them up in triplicate and returned them, a note was received saying that a licence was not necessary, particulars of which have been sent to him, if he will take disciplinary action against the official concerned.
    Mr. Marquand: My right hon. and learned Friend has written to the hon. Member about this case. A mistake was made, due to a misunderstanding in the Department, to which the attention of the official concerned has been drawn. I regret that Mr. William Nisbet suffered this most unusual trouble.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that that letter was one of the lamest
    1030
    excuses ever written, and will he make an example in this case and dismiss this inexperienced official, so that in future we do not have a repetition of this frustration and delay?

    Tailoring Trade (Material)
    Mr. Farthingasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the shortage of production in the tailoring trade; and whether he is now in a position to issue more materials for clothing in the home market for the purpose of enabling clothing departments, large or small, to keep their employees fully employed and not on short time as at present.
    Mr. Marquand: I am aware that the supply of cloth for the tailoring industry falls short in some cases of the demand. This is due to the general shortage of labour in the textile industries, and, despite every effort to attract more workers into these industries, the rate of increase at present is very slow. Nevertheless, with the end of the holiday season and the general upward tendency of textile output there should be some improvement in the coming months.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is necessary to export cloth of this sort to Belgium, a country to which, on figures given to me by his Department, we have exported £11 million more goods than we have imported in the first six months of this year?
    Mr. Marquand: In response to repeated appeals from the trade, a certain amount is allowed free of allocation to particular markets. If there has been an increase to Belgium in that way it must have been due to the independent judgment of exporters.

    Japanese Industries (Future)
    Dr. Barnett Strossasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on the present position of the Japanese ceramics industry.
    Mr. Marquand: I have no definite information about the present position of the Japanese ceramics industry.
    Dr. B. Strossasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the volume and value of Japanese pottery imported into Britain in 1938.
    Mr. Marquand: The value of the pottery imported from Japan in 1938 was £84,346. The weight was approximately 1,000 tons.
    Dr. Stross: Is the Minister aware that the pottery industry in Britain have had to face some very unfair forms of competition inasmuch as we have had an imitation of our patterns, designs, and the names of our manufacturers, and will he take steps in future to see that we have further protection in this respect?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. The whole question of the possibility of unfair competition is now receiving very careful attention.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend inform his right hon. and learned Friend that his statement on the future of Japanese industry has created consternation and indignation throughout industry?
    Mr. Marquand: The hon. Member, and others concerned, will have an opportunity to tell us that tomorrow, I understand.

    Motor Tyres (Exports)
    Commander Maitlandasked the President of the Board of Trade how many motor car tyres, 34 x 7, were exported from this country during the second and third quarters of 1946; and how many tyres of this type were available to the home market during these periods.
    Mr. Marquand: According to the information furnished by the Tyre Manufacturers' Conference, the average weekly export of tyres of the size named was 489 in June and 777 in July, the corresponding figures for home replacement being 4,712 and 5,469. The remaining 4,602 in June and 4,976 in July were supplied for new vehicles for the home and foreign market.
    Commander Maitland: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient tyres—especially lorry tyres—are being allowed to reach the market to enable us adequately to carry on our industry?
    Mr. Marquand: No, Sir, but the supply is rapidly increasing.

    Brazil
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the President of the Board of Trade if the
    1032
    special Brazilian Government Purchasing Mission has yet arrived in this country; and what plans have been made to establish contact with British trade organisations and firms during the visit of this mission.
    Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. The Brazilian Purchasing Mission has not yet arrived, nor do we know its composition or its exact requirements. Arrangements for the Mission to make appropriate contacts in this country will be put in hand as soon as we receive the necessary information from the Brazilian Government.
    Sir P. Hannon: Will the Board of Trade afford every facility possible to this Mission to make contact with manufacturers in this country when they come here?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, we shall be delighted to do that.
    Sir P. Hannonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the demand in Brazil for imported farm implements and machinery and that these imports are exempted from import duty in Brazil with reduced freight rates on federal-owned railways; and if steps are being taken to accelerate production in this country to meet the needs of the Brazilian market.
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. Every effort is being made by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Supply to encourage increased production of agricultural machinery and implements, both for home and export trade, but essential home requirements must have preference.
    Sir P. Hannon: Are the requirements of Brazil in this respect communicated to manufacturers in this country?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, certainly.

    Hospital Equipment, Chile (Tenders)
    Sir P. Hannonasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the decision of the Government of Chile to construct 17 new hospitals; and if British manufacturers of hospital equipment have been informed of the opportunities which now offer to secure as large a share as possible of this market.
    Mr. Marquand: I understand that the Chilean Public Health Department has been authorised to build 60 new hospitals at a cost of 500,000,000 Chilean pesos, and that work on 17 of these has commenced. Equipment for these will be purchased by public tender. So far these tenders have not yet been issued, and no details of them have been published, but as soon as they are available we will communicate them to United Kingdom industry.
    Sir P. Hannon: Will the Minister take care that as far as possible the equipment of these hospitals is in the hands of British manufacturers?
    Mr. Marquand: We will certainly do our best to tell them of all the orders available.
    Sir W. Smithers: Can the Minister say how many Chilean pesos are equal to one pound at the present exchange rate?

    Furniture Manufacture (Timber)
    Mr. George Porterasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to maintain the supply of timber available for the manufacture of furniture, so that unemployment in that industry will be avoided.
    Mr. Marquand: My hon. Friend is, I am sure, aware that there is a world shortage of timber and that this is likely to continue for some time. We are doing everything possible to ensure sufficient supplies for furniture and other essential requirements.
    Mr. Porter: While I thank the Minister for that reply, is his right hon. and learned Friend taking cognizance of the fact that at this particular time of the year, in the alternative industry to which the men might be transferred, there will be considerable unemployment; and could not the cut in timber be held up until some more appropriate time?
    Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. I am afraid we cannot hold it up. That would be too risky an undertaking altogether in view of our knowledge of the general world shortage. We make the cut with the greatest possible regret and reluctance.
    Mr. Porter: Can the Minister inform us to what alternative purposes the timber usually used for furniture can be put?

    Utility Furniture
    Mr. G. Porterasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to help the makers of utility furniture to dispose of the large supplies of tables and sideboards, etc., which are at present stored in their factories.
    Mr. Marquand: We have recently arranged that manufacturers may accept orders from any part of the country where there is an unsatisfied demand, instead of, as previously, only in a limited zone. The Scottish, Northern and North Midland regions are those most in need of supplies of dining room furniture at present.
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take the control off the sale of kitchen cabinets and easy chairs in category 2A, in view of the heavy stocks being carried in shops and warehouses.
    Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. The total quantities of furniture available in relation to the actual and potential demand are not yet sufficient to permit unrestricted supply of these articles of utility furniture.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Would the hon. Gentleman consider trying, for a period of, say, six months, reducing the numbers of units necessary for each of these articles, in order to enable the stocks to be cleared?
    Mr. Marquand: I will undertake that that suggestion shall be looked into.

    London Rubber Market (Reopening)
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made towards reopening the rubber futures market in London.
    Mr. Marquand: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions.
    Mr. Gallacher: Can we take it for the purposes of this Question that "rubber" and "robber" will be interchangeable terms?
    Later—
    Mr. Marquand: The Government have given careful consideration to the future purchasing arrangements for rubber, in accordance with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Lord President on 28th

    1035
    March, in the course of the Debate on the closing of the Liverpool Cotton Market, that the case of each primary product would be examined on its merits. The main world market for rubber was, before the war, in London. The rubber in which it dealt was largely from sterling sources, but the greater part of its transactions related to rubber for consumption elsewhere than in this country; at the same time the sales in this country were distributed over many different industries. After considering all the circumstances the Government have decided to restore a private trade in rubber and to permit the re-establishment of the London Rubber Market. The market will be free to resume its normal activities from 18th November next; this will enable the importation of rubber on private account into the United Kingdom as from 1st January, 1947, by which date the Board of Trade will have ceased to purchase rubber.
    These decisions follow on the rapid improvement in the natural rubber supply position during the past few months. The supplies in the Far East have exceeded all expectations, and in particular it is encouraging to observe the rapid recovery of Malayan production despite several years of Japanese occupation. Consequently, the period of continuing shortage of natural rubber has not been as prolonged as was generally expected, and at their meeting in Washington in October the Combined Rubber Committee agreed that international allocation should cease as from the end of this year. There have been discussions between the appropriate Departments and the Rubber Trade Association of London so as to allow the effective functioning of the market under conditions of exchange control, and so as to limit, as far as possible, undesirable speculative financial transactions under cover of the market. The rules of the Association are being strengthened to secure regular returns by its members to the Bank of England, and to enable the market to deal effectively with any undesirable position to which their attention may be drawn by the bank, while the market will require a substantial contract deposit in the case of transactions with non-members other than bona fide consumers.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this scheme, which has
    1036
    been worked out carefully and objectively by the Government Departments and the rubber trade, may well serve as a pattern in due course for other commodities; and that the Rubber Trade Association, who will be the partners of the Government in drawing up this scheme, will, as they have always done in the past, when they have been a credit—during the importation of rubber during the war and after-wards—carry this scheme out most loyally?
    Mr. Marquand: We shall watch the development of the scheme with great interest, and I hope the forecast of the hon. Gentleman will be correct.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: If the only difference between an open market for rubber and an open market for cotton is that rubber is no longer in short supply, are we to understand that the position of the cotton market will be reconsidered as soon as raw cotton is not in short supply?
    Mr. Speaker: We are only dealing with rubber, and not cotton.
    Sir Hugh O'Neill: Does the statement mean that it will now be possible to buy rubber forward without restrictions?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, it will. There will be a necessity for reporting to the Bank of England what is being done, but that is all.
    Mr. Gammans: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House figures of the losses which have been incurred by the British taxpayer, because up to now the Government have been buying rubber?
    Mr. Marquand: I do not think that arises on this Question. That refers to the past, and this Question to the present. I did, as it happens, take charge of the negotiations when we fixed the price of 1s. 2d., and all the advice that we had from the representatives of the industry was in favour of a price of 1s. 6d.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: What is really of interest to the British public, arising out of that satisfactory reply, is whether the people as a whole will now be able to buy rubber tyres, golf balls and other things without this interminable filling up of forms, paying excessive duties and wasting an excessive amount of time.
    Mr. Marquand: No, Sir. The shortage of tyres at present is not due to a shortage of rubber but to an inability to increase production sufficiently fast to turn over from the giant tyre moulds used during the war to the smaller moulds necessary to produce the smaller sizes.

    Timber Imports
    Mr. Frank Byersasked the President of the Board of Trade what efforts are being made to increase the imports of timber into this country, especially softwoods; and what general increase in such imports he anticipates being able to achieve over the next six months.
    Mr. Marquand: We are in close and continuous contact with all overseas sources of timber supplies, and are taking every step possible to increase imports. Our imports of softwood are, however, always low during the first six months of the year, as many of the ports of shipment are closed by ice and the scope for expansion during that period is, therefore, correspondingly limited.
    Mr. Byers: Does that mean that there will be a general increase, even if it is only a small one, in the imports of timber during the next six months?
    Mr. Marquand: We hope so. We never refuse offers of timber abroad, and we go out in search for timber wherever we can. It is one of the imports which we most urgently need and for which we look most zealously.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the Minister aware that there is a great shortage of timber in Germany, both for export and for home consumption, because such large quantities have been used to pack machinery for reparations to Allied countries, and could he make representations about that matter?

    Research Associations (Levies)
    Mr. Jannerasked the President of the Board of Trade what industries have, so far, taken advantage of the defence regulation permitting the imposition of a levy to finance research associations; whether any other industries have plans in this connection; and what arrangements he proposes to make for permanent legislation to take the place of this defence regulation when it expires.
    Mr. Marquand: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "None, Sir." As regards the second part, preliminary inquiries about the use of these regulations have been made by three industries, namely wool, building and iron foundries, and the working parties on the pottery, hosiery, boot and shoe and furniture industries have suggested compulsory levies for research to be raised either under these regulations or in some other way. As regards the third part of the Question, I am not yet in a position to make any statement.
    Mr. Blackburn: Has my hon. Friend been given any reason for this extraordinary backwardness on the part of British industry in not being prepared to take advantage of this Defence Regulation?
    Mr. Marquand: I suspect that in part it was due to the knowledge by British industry that the working parties had made these recommendations, and that some more comprehensive legislation might be necessary.

    Film Industry (Inquiry)
    Mr. Jannerasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet in a position to state whether he is setting up any preliminary committee of inquiry before introducing new legislation to deal with the cinematograph film industry in this country.
    Mr. Marquand: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him on 5th June, 1946.

    Cereals (Exports to Europe)
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the figures of the quantity of wheat and other cereals exported from this country to other countries in Europe, including Germany, during the last six months and 12 months, respectively, together with details of the amount to each specific country.
    Mr. Marquand: The quantity of grain and grain products from the United Kingdom to all European countries was 116,400 tons in the six months ended September, 1946, and 186,900 tons in the twelve months ended September, 1946. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving details of the amounts exported to each country.
    Following is the table:

    6 months April-September,1946.

    12 months October, 1945-September,1946.

    Thousand Tons.

    Thousand Tons.

    Germany

    70·2

    95·0

    Netherlands

    25·8

    30·8

    Eire

    6·4

    30·8

    Channel Islands

    5·1

    12·5

    Italy

    3·5

    5·6

    Belgium

    1·0

    4·5

    Denmark

    1·7

    2·9

    Faroe Islands

    1·2

    1·9

    Malta and Gozo

    0·8

    1·7

    Other European countries.

    0·7

    1·2

    116.4

    186.9

    Locomotives (Exports)
    Mr. R. A. Butlerasked the President of the Board of Trade how many locomotives have been exported this year; and of what types.
    Mr. Marquand: From January to September of this year, the numbers of locomotives exported were—Main Line, Steam, 303; Diesel, 27; Electric, 3; Contractors' and Light, 377; making a total of 710 for all types.
    Mr. Butler: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the grave holdups and delays on the main lines out of London leading to Essex—the two main lines—are attributed to locomotive shortages, and will he convey these figures to the Minister of Transport and consult with him whether more locomotives could not be made available for the services of this country?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir; I will convey the information to my right hon. Friend, if he needs it, but I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind how essential these exports are for the obtaining of foodstuffs.
    Mr. David Jones: Will the Minister ask the railway companies to use the locomotives they have already got?
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that it is a shortage of carriages and wagons on three of the railways, and not a shortage of locomotives at all?

    China Clay
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the shortage of china clay for the manufacture of china and earthenware; and what steps he is taking to secure improved supplies and more expeditious delivery.
    Mr. Marquand: I am not aware of any general shortage in supplies of china clay for the pottery industry, but, if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Beechman: Will the hon. Gentleman have special inquiries made in Cornwall to make sure that the supplies there are as large as possible, because there are resources in Cornwall which are not being worked?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. John Lewis: Is the Minister aware that there is not only a shortage of china clay in this industry, but also in the rubber industry, and will he look into the matter?
    Mr. Marquand: I find that the production of china clay has risen from 87,598 tons during the first quarter of 1946 to 137,259 tons in the third quarter, and that employment has increased from 2,219 in January to 2,964 in September. Among the steps taken to increase supplies of china clay is the allocation of 350 German prisoners of war, of whom about 200 are already working, and priority for machinery needs to china clay pits, while the workers in the industry have recently had their wages and their food rations increased.

    Agricultural Tractors (Exports)
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of agricultural and market garden tractors exported in the first nine months of 1946.
    Mr. Marquand: Eight thousand seven hundred and ninty-nine agricultural and market garden tractors were exported in the first nine months of this year.
    Mr. Baker White: In view of the very considerable number disclosed in the answer, will the Minister consider revising the figures given to export and the home market, in view of the acute shortage on our own farms?
    Mr. Marquand: The percentage is very carefully calculated in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, and all hon. Members, surely, are aware that the sending abroad of this kind of agricultural machinery usually results in an increased production, thus relieving the world shortage of food.

    Fire and Accident Insurance (Costs)
    Mr. Collinsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the expenses and commission paid by insurance companies in the transaction of fire and accident insurance amount to 40 per cent. of premium income; and if he will institute an inquiry into the present system with a view to reducing the cost and improving the service to the insuring public.
    Mr. Marquand: The general position is as represented by my hon. Friend, but the percentage mentioned is an average figure based on the business both at home and overseas, the overseas business comprising by far the greater part. The companies are fully alive to the importance of keeping costs as low as possible, while providing an adequate service to the insuring public. I do not think that an inquiry would serve any useful purpose.
    Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that, in the case of some insurances, such as third party motor car insurance, there is a statutory obligation to insure, and does not he think, therefore, that it is the duty of his Department to make certain that the public are getting insurance at the lowest possible cost?
    Mr. Marquand: The practice of insurance companies is under continual observation by the Board of Trade.

    Factory, Daybrook (Release)
    Mr. Cocksasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Apollo Table Water Factory, Daybrook, Nottingham, has not yet been derequisitioned although the premises of all its local competitors have been restored; that the promise to release the factory by June, 1946, has not been fulfilled and that valuable goodwill is being lost by the delay; and whether he will take immediate steps to get this factory released.
    Mr. Marquand: The release of these premises could not be arranged earlier, as they are occupied by the Army Postal Services, whose activities must be maintained. Alternative accommodation will, however, be ready early in the New Year, when the Services will be transferred and the premises derequisitioned.
    Mr. Cocks: Is the Minister aware that the Soft Drinks Association has been pressing for the release of this important factory for the last 12 months, that unemployment has been caused and valuable goodwill lost, and will he expedite the removal of this factory from the hands of these War Office limpets?
    Mr. Marquand: The Board of Tradehave been pressing, too.

    Rubber Stocks
    Sir. T. Mooreasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the present stocks in this country of natural and synthetic rubber, respectively; and when he proposes to release control of the sale of both.
    Mr. Marquand: On the 27th September, the Government stocks consisted of 138,958 tons of natural rubber (including latex) and 2,485 tons of synthetic rubber. The rubber manufacturers, also held on that date 17,058 tons of natural and 2,668 tons of synthetic rubber. Any imports of synthetic rubber which may be necessary will be allowed on private account. As regards the release of control on the sale of natural rubber, I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions.

    Cotton Goods (Controls)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the sharp fall in prices of raw cotton, he will immediately remove all controls from manufactured cotton goods and allow the law of supply and demand freely to operate both in cash and futures dealings.
    Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is not this the fourth Question asked by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?
    Mr. Speaker: I think it is the third. I was watching that, too.
    Mr. Marquand: The answer to Question No. 41 is "No, Sir."
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that bulk purchase, the closing of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange and the refusal to deal in futures, are the main causes of these violent fluctuations, and are driving these very valuable invisible exports to foreign centres?
    Mr. Marquand: I think I answered that sort of question very fully on Thursday night.

    Cloth Production
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the cloth produced in this country is made available to the home public; and what percentage of that allowed in 1938 and 1945 this represents.
    Mr. Marquand: The proportions of the output of woven wool cloth consumed in the home market is approximately 82 per cent.; the corresponding figure for cotton and for rayon is in each case about 65 per cent. A good deal of this cloth is, however, use for industrial and other non-domestic purposes. Supplies of woven wool cloth for home civilian clothing purposes were nearly 50 per cent. higher in the period from May to August, 1946, than in the corresponding period of 1945—
    Captain Crookshank: When there was a war on?
    Mr. Marquand: Of course—the increase for woven non-wool cloth over the same period was 45 per cent. Comparable figures are not available for prewar years, but it is estimated that new supplies of clothing (other than footwear) were in 1945 approximately one-half of the prewar rate; in May and June, 1946, supplies had risen to nearly two-thirds of prewar.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in some cases, tailors are not getting enough cloth even to honour their quota allowances from wholesalers, and will he look into this to see that the home market does get its quota?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. This is not the first Question of this kind, and I suggest to hon. Members that we do not have to look into this, because we are looking at it all the time. This is one of the main production problems of this country
    1044
    —the shortage of labour in the wool and cotton spinning industries—which is almost as great as in the mining industry.
    Sir R. Ross: Can the Minister say what percentage of the cotton cloth exported to foreign countries is un-made-up?
    Mr. Marquand: Not without notice.

    Non-Utility Clothing (Retailers' Margins)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the President of the Board of Trade on what basis was the last profits cut on non-utility clothing based; and what types of accounts were used for assessing these cuts.
    Mr. Marquand: I assume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to retailers' margins. These were reduced on 1st August by providing that the Purchase Tax should no longer be included in the amount on which the percentage margin is calculated. The reductions were made after considering the latest detailed information about expenses then available collected from retailers of all types. Account was taken of the changes which had taken place since the margins were fixed in 1942, particularly the very considerable increase in the volume and value of goods sold.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the impression among a great many of the small men that these cuts were worked out on the accounts of great multiple stores whose running expenses are obviously less per capita than the small tailors'? Would he look into this matter again, and can he give a definite assurance that all types of businesses were considered?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, all types of businesses were considered in consultation with the Central Price Regulation Committee, as provided by Statute.

    ACQUISITION OF LAND (SERVICE DEPARTMENTS)
    Mr. Hollisasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the policy of His Majesty's Government concerning the acquisition of land by Service Departments and whether he will institute a public inquiry into the principles of that policy.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is the policy of His Majesty's Government that Service Departments should have available to them such land as is necessary for defence purposes; and that the determination of the land required should be settled on a considered balance of defence requirements, on the one hand, and of civilian needs on the other. Adequate machinery exists to give effect to these principles, and I see no need for an inquiry.
    Mr. Hollis: Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that when land is acquired, it will be acquired under the Act of 1945, which provides for the possibility of a public inquiry, rather than under other powers?
    The Prime Minister: I would like to have notice of that detailed question.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a considerable body of opinion on this side of the House which is most interested in this question, and will he give an assurance to the House that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning will, at least, never be an "also ran" compared with other Departments when deciding these questions?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that all Ministers come to the post together on this matter; I give my personal consideration to this, but I cannot say how they will finish.
    Mr. Beechman: Will the Prime Minister see that decisions in regard to the taking of land for Service purposes are quickly made, are definite and are taken with reference to national park considerations?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Those considerations are taken into account as well.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Prime Minister aware that, with regard to Ministers all running together, he has only recently placed the Minister of Town and Country Planning in the lead, and will he look into the machinery recently set up to see whether the Minister is able to announce a decision in this House at a very early date?
    The Prime Minister: The noble Lord is mistaken.

    HOUSES AND LAND (PRIVATE OWNERSHIP)
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that private citizens should be encouraged to buy and own their houses and land.
    The Prime Minister: In present circumstances, when prices are inflated by shortage, the Government's own housing efforts are mainly directed to providing sufficient houses to be let at moderate rentals to those in greatest need. When the shortage is overcome and prices fall, the Government will give greater facilities for house ownership and they have already raised the ceiling for local authority loans for this purpose. On the question of land, in cases where the necessary land is acquired by the competent authority, as for instance for the replanning of areas of blitz or blight, or in the planning of new towns, it is the policy of the Government that the freehold of such land should, in general, remain in public hands. Apart from these cases, it is not the policy of the Government either to encourage or to discourage the buying of land by private persons.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is the Prime Minister aware that considerable confusion has arisen since the Financial Secretary has said that private possessions should be encouraged and the Minister of Health has said that they should not, and is it not high time that the Government made up their mind on this subject?
    The Prime Minister. I have just given the hon. and gallant Member the reply.
    Mr. Walkden: If the Government do change their policy, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that the large numbers of ordinary, humble people will be protected against the speculators, racketeers and moneylenders who exploited us after the last war?
    The Prime Minister: That is rather a hypothetical question.
    Mr. Keeling: Would the Prime Minister add a word about the Government's policy in regard to building societies?

  GERMANY

    Detained Young Persons (Trial)
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, why two persons under the age of 21 years have been detained in prison in the British sector of Berlin without trial for if months, two for eight months and two for six months; and what steps are being taken to see that similar long periods of detention without trial are avoided in the future.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): In general, these delays can be ascribed to the shortage of trained German personnel in the courts, and to prolonged investigations by police, psychiatrists or defendant's own lawyers. Instructions have recently been issued that all juvenile cases are to be dealt with urgently, and authority has been given for the temporary transfer of Judges and prosecutors to this work. All cases outstanding for more than fourteen days are now reviewed daily to prevent avoidable delay.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Minister say under what law or regulation these detentions took place? What kind of justice is it that allows this sort of thing to occur?
    Mr. Hynd: They took place under the procedure of the German courts which is a much longer procedure than in this country. The real facts are, of course, that it was due to the bad conditions which have existed in Germany for so long and which we are now trying to overcome.

    Control Commission (Employees)
    Major Bramallasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many British civilian drivers and mess stewards are employed by the Control Commission for Germany; what rates they are paid; what is the total cost per year of employing them; and why it is considered necessary to have British personnel to perform these duties.
    Mr. J. Hynd: There are 1,636 drivers, all men, and 530 mess stewards, 265 of whom are women. The men are paid about the same rate for both jobs, namely, £6 l0s. a week, plus allowances amounting to £ 7s. a week for married men or £1l0s. a week for single men; the
    1048
    women get £5l0s. a week plus £10s. in allowances. The total cost is about £980,000 a year. German drivers are employed where practicable, but for security reasons a reliable nucleus of British drivers is necessary for the conveyance of senior officers, and the transport of food and equipment. The mess stewards are required for the supervision of German mess servants and to look after the mess rations.
    Major Bramall: Is my hon. Friend aware that six months ago all messes were run satisfactorily by German stewards, and that this is an unnecessary extra charge?
    Mr. Hynd: I am not aware of the position referred to in the first part of the question, but all messes have to be supervised by British personnel while the present food shortage exists.
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that the efficiency of a large number of the Control Commission is impaired by the fact that these drivers neither speak the language nor know the way?
    Mr. Scollan: If we are to have all these people employed there in the fashion that has been explained and are to pay all this money to keep them there, is it not useless for the Government repeatedly to tell us about the shortage of labour here?
    Major Bramall: In view of the fact that my hon. Friend said that he was not aware of the facts stated in the first part of my supplementary question, will he look at the facts again when, I think, he will discover that, in regional headquarters, at any rate, all messes were run by Germans six months ago?
    Mr. Hynd: Now the supplementary question confines itself to certain quarters. I am aware that six months ago British supervisory staffs were employed in messes, and in present conditions it is highly desirable, in view of the cost, that British personnel should still be in a supervisory capacity where food and other things are concerned.
    Mr. Nigel Birchasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many persons of British nationality are employed in the political division of the Control Commission for Germany.
    Mr. J. Hynd: There are 95 persons employed in the division.

    Transferred Technicians
    Major Bramallasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many German technicians have been transferred to Britain since the occupation of Germany; and how many have been transferred compulsorily.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Since the occupation, 63 German scientists and technicians have been brought here for employment, none of them compulsorily. Another 60 or so are expected to arrive here shortly under the same freely contracted arrangements.

    Foreign Business Representatives
    Mr. Birchasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether representatives of business concerns in Belgium, Holland and Scandinavia are allowed to enter the British zone in Germany.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Yes, Sir, though the numbers are at present limited.
    Mr. Birch: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, if German business men are not allowed to go abroad, it is essential that other business men should be allowed to go in?
    Mr. Hynd: We are very conscious of that fact and we are, under arrangement with the American zone, examining the possibility of further extensions to the facilities already provided.

  AGRICULTURE

    Forestry Holdings (Tenancy Agreements)
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is his intention to give up all short term agreements with the tenants of forestry holdings and give the occupiers the full advantages of the Agricultural Holdings Acts.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): No, Sir. All these tenancies are subject to one month's notice to quit if the holder ceases to be employed.
    Mr. Dye: Will the Minister, under his new arrangement, consider transferring these smallholdings to the county councils so that the tenants may have exactly the same advantages as the rest of the tenants in the country?
    Mr. Williams: It would be quite inappropriate for county councils to control
    1050
    forestry smallholdings which they are under obligation to work for the Forestry Commission.

    Forestry Workers (Cottages)
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture in which country districts he is proposing to build cottages for the Forestry Commission; which of the district councils were approached with a view to supplying the needs of the forestry workers; and what were the reasons for their refusal.
    Mr. T. Williams: There are 143 forests in England and Wales, and it is proposed to build houses in practically all of them. The corresponding number of local authorities is not known, but is certainly large. Several local authorities have been approached, but it appears that they have no powers to set aside part of their quota of houses for the exclusive use and occupation of forestry workers.
    Mr. Dye: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the duty of the local housing authorities to provide houses for all the workers in their neighbourhoods? Why is it necessary for the Forestry Commission to have extra powers to build houses for their workers?
    Mr. Williams: The explanation is that local authorities have not built the houses that the Forestry Commission require.
    Mr. Dye: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of them are willing to do so?

    Tractors (Wheel Centres)
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the continuing delay experienced by farmers in obtaining wheel centres for tractors; and what steps are being taken to improve the position.
    Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. Difficulty in obtaining tractor wheel centres has been due to a shortage of manufacturing capacity and of foundry labour, but manufacturers are doing their utmost to increase their output. Accurate forecasts are not possible, but every effort is being made to secure an appreciable increase in production by early 1947.

    Thetford Forest (Damage)
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent has a portion of the Thetford Forest, under the Forestry Commissioners, been damaged or deteriorated

    1051
    by neglect since its inclusion in the battle training area; and whether an effective arrangement has been made to prevent this continuing.
    Mr. T. Williams: Seven hundred and eighty-six acres of plantations have been destroyed, and 935 acres, which are still capable of reconstitution, have been damaged and have deteriorated at Thet-ford Forest since the inclusion of part of the Forest in the battle training area. The question of repossession of the plantations is under active consideration.

    Afforestation Dedication Scheme
    Major Wiseasked the Minister of Agriculture what approximate area of the 244,000 acres already involved in the Afforestation Dedication scheme will be newly-planted land not previously scheduled as woodland.
    Mr. T. Williams: It is expected that the greater part, if not the whole, of the area of 244,000 acres will be land previously scheduled as woodland.

    Tree Planting
    Major Wiseasked the Minister of Agriculture how the estimated target of 30,000 acres to be planted with trees in 1946–47 is divided between the Forestry Commission and private landowners.
    Mr. T. Williams: The estimated target of 30,000 acres is for the State planting programme. It is not known how much planting will be undertaken by private woodland owners during the current season.

    Non-Millable Wheat
    Major Wiseasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that large quantities of wheat are coming on to the market and being classified as non-millable; and, as this is the direct result of the exceptionally bad harvesting conditions and is involving producers in uncontrollable heavy losses, if he will consider taking immediate steps to increase the price of non-millable wheat harvested in 1946.
    Mr. T. Williams: It is not yet possible to estimate with any accuracy the proportion of the current year's wheat crop which is likely to prove non-millable. Adjustments in the seasonal scale have made it possible to raise the maximum
    1052
    price of non-millable wheat by 1d. per cwt. from 1st Nocember, but I am not prepared to alter crop prices either way on account of weather conditions.
    Mr. Turton: Can the Minister make a greater proportion of this non-millable wheat available to the poultry keepers?
    Mr. Williams: I imagine that a considerable quantity of non-millable wheat will find its way in that direction.

    Land Drainage (Cultivable Acreage)
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Agriculture the approximate acreage of land brought into cultivation as a result of improved drainage in 1945 and 1946, respectively.
    Mr. T. Williams: I regret that the information asked for is not available. I am writing to my hon. Friend to explain the position.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT (COFFEE)
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the hon. Member for Walthamstow West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he will consider reducing the price of 4d. per cup for coffee served in the House.
    Mr. McEntee: No, Sir. Fourpence per cup has been the price of coffee in the House of Commons for many years past, and it has not been raised during or since the war in spite of increased prices.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Would my hon. Friend say when he intends to improve this alleged coffee, and try to rid it of its nasty, nauseating, bitter flavour?
    Mr. McEntee: The coffee used in the House of Commons is pure coffee.
    Major Poole: Is my hon. Friend aware that the reason he has advanced for continuing the price of 4d. is the worst possible reason, because our party is here to make changes? Further, is he aware that 4d. a cup represents about 300 per cent. profit?
    Mr. McEntee: If my hon. and gallant Friend will take the trouble to cross the road and go either to Lyons' or the A.B.C., he will pay the same price for coffee there.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my hon. Friend distinguish between coffee at 4d. a cup and special coffee at 6d. a cup, which appear on the menu of the House of Commons at the present time?

  INDIA

    War Effort (Popular History)
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether an author has yet been selected to prepare a narrative of India's war record for publication; what are the terms of his remuneration; and the source from which the expenditure will be met.
    The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am informed by the Government of India that arrangements have been made for Mr. Compton Mackenzie to write a short popular history of India's war effort. The terms of his remuneration are a matter between him and his publishers. Any expense to be incurred from the Defence Department Vote will be limited to the payment of part of the author's expenses.
    Sir S. Reed: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this author has been selected because of that distinguished contribution to English letters, "The Windsor Tapestry"?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. If the hon. Member really wants to know why Mr. Compton Mackenzie was selected, perhaps he will put down a Question.
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Would it not be more appropriate to ask an Indian to prepare the narrative?
    Mr. Henderson: This matter is in the hands of the Government of India.

    Civil Disturbances (Casualties)
    Mr. Wyattasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will make a further statement on the riots in Eastern Bengal.
    Mr. R. A. Butlerasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has yet received a full report on the recent disturbances in East Bengal; and, if so, whether he will make it available to the House.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I have received further reports from the Governor of Bengal. The substance of these is given
    1054
    in a statement which, owing to its length, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Butler: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the authorities are taking every step to get both sides together to end these unfortunate disturbances and create a better atmosphere?
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has seen in the Press this weekend that the leaders of both the communities are meeting together with a view to bringing this communal strife to an end.
    Following is the statement:
    The general situation in Eastern Bengal is under control in both Noakhali and Tippera Districts and reports do not indicate that hooligan bands are any longer operating. No serious incident has been reported on the Noakhali mainland since 16th October, nor in Tippera District since 20th October. Some trouble developed on Sandwip Island between 19th October and 23rd October with cases of arson, looting and murder. Some pani developed among the population and troops were sent to the island. The situation there has since improved. There was recently a communal riot in the Mymensingh District further north in which two persons were killed, and three houses were burnt and five looted. The situation was brought under control by police reinforcements, but tension is high. A company of troops and 50 armed police have been sent to this area. The number of troops now operating is 1,800, and there are also 620 armed police in addition to the unarmed police belonging to police stations in the affected area. On 22nd Octobe Golam Sarwar, an ex-member of the Bengal Legislature, whose inflammatory speeches were believed to have been one cause of the outbreak, was arrested. A total of 254 hooligans have been arrested; 31 have been killed in action by police and military and 39 injured.
    The area affected by the disturbances is approximately 160 square miles in Tippera District, the total area of which is 2,500 square miles, and not mole than 300 square miles in Noakhali District, the total area of which is 1,650 square miles. Full information as to what occurred in this area is not yet available. The collection of accurate information has been

    1055
    rendered most difficult by the fact that thousands of persons have left their homes and others are as yet too nervous to come forward with information. Precise details of the occurrences or of the exact position in particular areas will not be forthcoming until the presence of the police and the military have completely restored confidence. Two senior judicial officers of the Indian Civil Service have been deputed to visit the areas affected and to report on what has occurred. The Governor reports, however, that the information received since the reply which I gave to the House on 2Ist October has all tended to confirm the estimate of the position which I then gave. The following more detailed information is now available. Forty villages in the two districts are at present known to have been attacked. This figure will probably be increased by later information. It does not, however, mean that entire villages have been wiped out. In the majority of cases the hooligans directed their attention to the Hindu portion of the village, to isolated Hindu homesteads, and to Hindu shops. In Noakhali District it is estimated that between 250 and 300 homesteads have been burnt. The exact details of the extent of the destruction in Tippera District are as yet lacking, but the present estimate is that 350 homesteads have been looted and burnt in addition to an unknown number of Hindu shops in at least three big bazaars. Looting and arson have been greatly facilitated by the panic-stricken flight of householders.
    A precise estimate of casualties will not be available for some time but the available information supports the previously expressed view that the casualties will be low in the three figures category. Up to 22nd October verified cases of murder in Noakhali District were fewer than 100. The figure in Tippera District will be very low. Detailed investigations are now being made into the alleged mass killings at the houses of leading citizens. The first reports confirm that the published reports were greatly exaggerated. The allegation that 400 persons were killed in the house of one leading Hindu in Noakhali District has been investigated and the facts have been found to be that 21 persons were killed. Another statement that 50 persons were killed at Sonaimura in Noakhali District has been found on investigation also to be exaggerated, the actual figure
    1056
    being 12. Cases of abduction may have occurred, but as yet no authentic and verified official reports of abductions have been received. In both Tippera and Noakhali Districts there have undoubtedly been large numbers of forcible conversions. But reliable statistics will not be available for a considerable time. It is difficult to obtain information because individuals are unwilling to admit conversion and are still afraid of the consequences if they give information. The two senior judicial officers who are visiting the area have special instructions to ascertain the facts in regard to conversions.
    The latest return of persons in relief camps shows a total of 50,000. Refugees are beginning to return to their villages, having been reassured by energetic military measures which have been taken to afford protection and to establish pickets in villages. Additional food supplies are being flown into the affected area by II planes made available by the R.A.F. and considerable supplies of foodstuffs are being despatched by rail. Medical supplies for relief work are adequate and the Bengal Branch of the Red Cross and several other voluntary relief and ambulance organisations are working in the locality. Provision has been made for the rehabilitation of villagers who return to their homes by grants of gratuitous relief, clothes, blankets and cooking utensils, and steps are being taken to assist in the supply of building materials. Additional District Magistrates in charge of relief work have been posted in Noakhali and Tippera Districts.
    Mr. R. A. Butlerasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he will make a statement as to the number of persons killed and injured in civil disturbances in India since 1st July; and whether he will undertake to keep the House fully informed on these matters at regular intervals.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The total number of persons killed and injured in communal riots between 1st July and 30th October is estimated at 5,018 and 13,320 respectively, exclusive of casualties in the recent disturbances in Eastern Bengal. The major part of both these figures is attributable to the disturbances in Calcutta, including the very serious riots in August last, the figures for which are admittedly only approximate. No estimate is yet available for the riots in Eastern Bengal.

    1057
    but it is thought that the number of killed will be low in three figures. Since 30th October there has been further rioting in Bihar, where the total death roll since the riots began on 25th is estimated at 279. As regards the second part of the Question, I shall always be ready to give the House any available information if a Question is put down.

    Pandit Nehru (N.W. Frontier, Visit)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what British troops or other British personnel were employed in escorting Pandit Nehru on the North-West Frontier; and if instructions will be issued that in no circumstances shall the lives of British troops be imperilled in safeguarding Indian Ministers who insist on travelling in areas hostile to them.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Over the whole period of Pandit Nehru's tour of the N.W Frontier, no British units were used. Excluding British political and police officers, 59 British officers of the Indian Army or Civil Armed Forces were used on escort or protective duties. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir." It would not be proper to issue instructions that would fetter the authorities in India in discharging their responsibility for maintaining security.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that on 29th October, Pandit Nehru himself admitted that the Governor of the North-West Frontier had come down and strongly recommended that he should not go on this trip, and, in that case, would the hon. and learned Gentleman take special steps to see that such an occurrence does not happen again?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. I think we must leave it to the authorities in India to decide on the employment of British troops in India.
    Mr. Wyattasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement on the recent visit of Pandit Nehru to the North-West Frontier tribes.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I understand that Pandit Nehru visited the North-West Frontier Province and certain tribal areas
    1058
    in his capacity as member of the Government of India for External Affairs. I have no other detailed information as to his visit other than what has already appeared in the Press.
    Mr. Wyatt: Has my hon. and learned Friend any comment to make on the allegation made by Ghaffar Khan that disturbances during Pandit Nehru's visit were engineered by the Political Department of the Government of India?
    Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. I think Pandit Nehru himself has made a statement in the Indian Legislature, and perhaps I may be allowed to quote it:
    "It is evident that the references to the Political Department are not accurate."

    SPANISH REFUGEES, GIBRALTAR
    Mr. Sydney Silverman (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make regarding the reported ultimatum by the Governor of Gibraltar to Spanish republican political refugees, many of whom have lived there quietly since 1936, requiring them, in default of refuge elsewhere, to return to Spain within a month?
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I regret that at this point I have insufficient information to give an adequate answer to my hon. Friend. I can assure him, however, that there is no question of compelling the Spaniards in Gibraltar to return to Spain. It must, nevertheless, be remembered that many of these refugees are occupying accommodation which would otherwise be available for Gibraltarian evacuees from Northern Ireland. An announcement was recently made by the Governor to the effect that the Venezuelan Government had signified its readiness to accept as settlers those who belong to certain trades together with their families. In view of the grave accommodation difficulties facing native Gibraltarians it was felt, in spite of the great efforts of the Gibraltan authorities to provide new houses as rapidly as possible, that there are good reasons for advantage being taken of this opportunity. I am, however, in communication with the Governor on the matter.
    Mr. Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these refugees have been in Gibraltar since 1936, and that therefore it is very difficult to see how housing accommodation can come into it; and will he further, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, give a specific assurance that these refugees will be regarded everywhere in democratic countries as honoured guests, and that none of them will be returned against their will to Spanish territory?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I have given the assurance that there is no question of compelling Spaniards in Gibraltar to return to Spain. The housing shortage is very acute in Gibraltar. There are nearly 2,000 evacuees in Northern Ireland waiting to return, and even with the great speeding up of the housing programme it will be impossible for some of those evacuees to return to Gibraltar within the space of even two years.
    Mr. Pritt: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if these refugees have remained in Gibraltar throughout the war, and were not evacuated to this country or elsewhere when, in general, the population was evacuated, they must have been regarded by the Governor of Gibraltar as very useful citizens indeed?
    Mr. Creech Jones: It is quite true that many of them have performed very useful work in Gibraltar during the war period.
    Sir H. O'Neill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 2,000 natives of Gibraltar who are in Northern Ireland have been there now for about three years, that they have been in wooden huts, in camps and in Nissen huts during all that time, that they have suffered very considerable hardships, and that one of the reasons why there is no accommodation for them in Gibraltar has been the presence of the Spanish refugees?
    Mr. Creech Jones: That certainly is a fact, and the accommodation in Northern Ireland has not always been quite as satisfactory as we would have desired, but it is imperative that these people should be got back to Gibraltar as quickly as possible.
    Mr. John Paton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the number of refugees concerned in this order?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am afraid I have not the number.
    Mr. Stokes: May 1 ask my right hon. Friend whether, when he says they will not be forced to go back to Spain, that also includes a statement that there will be no economic or other sanctions imposed upon them, which will make their lives intolerable?
    Mr. Creech Jones: As I said, I am in communication with the Governor of Gibraltar in regard to the nature of the most recent announcement, and until I hear from him I am not able to answer accurately the question for information by my hon. Friend.
    Major Bramall: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what difference there is between not forcing Spanish refugees, who do not wish to go back to their own country, to do so, and not forcing Polish refugees to go back to their own country?
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question altogether.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that none of the considerations to which his attention has been called in this series of supplementary questions justifies in any way interfering, in these cases, with the right of political asylum?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir. Obviously, we are fully alive to the importance of political asylum, but at the same time, there is a very real problem in Gibraltar, and we would hope that this offer which has been made in South America will be accepted by a number of persons who, after all, are not too comfortable where they are.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this decision was come to before or after consultation with him?
    Mr. Creech Jones: There has been continuing discussion with the Colonial Office for the last few years in regard to the problem in Gibraltar, and the Governor has recently been in London, and this problem was discussed. But the final terms in regard to the statement which he made during the weekend, so far as I know, were not agreed.

L.P.T.B. Fares (INCREASES)
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): In accordance with my announcement in this House on 29th May, 1 asked the permanent members of the Railway Rates Tribunal, acting as a Consultative Committee, to advise me as to the best method of adjusting the fares of the London Passenger Transport Board so that, for the year 1947, the balance of the Board's net revenue account would approximate to the fixed annual sum payable to the Board under the Railway Control Agreement. The report of the Committee has been published and copies are available in the Vote Office.
I have decided to adopt the Committee's recommendations, except in one respect to which I shall refer. Since the inquiry, an agreement has been made between the Board and certain sections of their staff which will result in an addition to expenditure of £1,000,000 (including arrears) in 1947 and about £500,000 in subsequent years. The additional revenue required in 1947 must, therefore, be increased from the £4¼ millions estimated by the Committee to £5¼ millions if no burden is to be thrown on the Exchequer. As the Committee's scale involves regrouping of stages, it could not, I am assured, be put into force in less than eight months, and the yield next year would fall short by more than £1½ million. I have, therefore, decided to amend the Committee's scale of ordinary fares in such a way that it can be brought into force quickly, will yield in 1947 the amount required, and will avoid certain practical difficulties inherent in the Committee's scale.
On road and rail services the existing 1½d. fare will be retained and the existing 2d. fares will be raised to 2½d. On the road services all existing fares over 2d. will be increased by 1d., none of these fares having been increased during the war. On the rail services, existing fares of 3d. and 4d. will be increased by 1d. Rail fares over 4d., which have been increased during the war, will remain at present amounts. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement comparing the standard single ordinary fares now in force, those recommended by the Committee, and those which I am authorising. The revised fares will be brought into operation as early in
1062
January, 1947, as possible, and I will announce the date later.
Captain Crookshank: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the raising of the twopenny fare to 2½d. will be extremely inconvenient both to passengers and to conductors on the omnibuses? Would he not look again at that difficulty? Can he also assure us that the sum total of these changes will not make an appreciable difference in the cost of living of the workers in London?
Mr. Barnes: The problem of the 2½d. fare has been very carefully examined, and the alternative would have meant, possibly, rebooking to avoid the four-penny fare. The result would have been five stages, and would have been too onerous a task for the staff to have performed.
Mr. Ernest Davies: In reaching this very regrettable decision, has my right hon. Friend borne in mind the very heavy capital charges which the Board has to meet? Has he considered the possibility of a financial reconstruction of the Board, because if that takes place, would it not eliminate the necessity for an increase in the fares?
Mr. Barnes: I am afraid I cannot contemplate the capital reconstruction of the London Passenger Transport Board on a matter of adjusting fares. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] My hon. Friend should bear in mind that the Government have other proposals to deal with this problem, and possibly he will wait until these are before the House.
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is not the Minister aware that if this monopoly were subjected to some competition these things would not happen?
Mr. Barnes: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that a Conservative Government created this for the purpose of avoiding and replacing competition.
Mr. Braddock: In view of the short time given to the examination of the Consultative Committee's report, and to the doubts that have been expressed as to the accuracy of the estimates of expenditure and income, would the right hon. Gentleman consider postponing the implementation of this decision until such examination can be made?
Mr. Barnes: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I invoked the machinery of the Consultative Committee purposely in order to have this matter thoroughly examined. Their inquiry was exhaustive. Important bodies like the London County Council and others had full opportunity to put their evidence. I have myself thoroughly examined the matter, and I see no purpose in delaying the decision.
Mr. Chamberlain: The Minister referred to additional charges of about £1,000,000.

STANDARD SINGLE ORDINARY FARES.

Distance.

Present Scale.

Scale recommended by Committee.

Scale which will be authorised.

Road Stages.

Rail Miles.

Road and Rail. d.

Road and Rail. d.

Road and Rail. d.

1

½

1½

1½

1½

2

1

1½

1½

1½

3

1½

2

2

2½

4

2

2

3

2½

5

2½

3

4

4

6

3

3

4

4

7

3½

4

5

5

8

4

4

5

5

Road.

Rail.

9

4½

5

6

6

6

10

5

5

6

6

6

11

5½

6

7

7

7

12

6

6

7

7

7

13

6½

7

8

8

8

14

7

7

8

8

8

etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

etc.

STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT (MESSAGE FROM THE KING)
Message from His Majesty, brought up, and read by Mr. SPEAKER (all the Members of the House being uncovered), as followeth:
The present Parliament Chamber not being convenient for the purpose of opening Parliament, His Majesty intends to open the next session of Parliament in the Chamber now assigned to the House of Commons as their place of sitting and not in the present Parliament Chamber; and it is His Majesty's pleasure that on the day to which Parliament shall stand prorogued
Could he say, briefly, what is the nature of this expenditure?
Mr. Barnes: This covers negotiations between the London Passenger Transport Board and numerous shop grades. It has been pending for a long time, and a settlement has now been reached. There is a bonus appeal, also, for production services. The time in negotiating, of course, has built up the arrears.
Following is the statement:
the Lords Spiritual and Temporal shall meet in the Chamber now assigned to the House of Commons as their place of sitting and that the House of Commons shall then meet in St. Stephen's Hall. And it is His Majesty's further pleasure, that, as soon as conveniently may be after he has delivered his Speech to both Houses of Parliament, the Chamber at present assigned to the House of Commons as their place of sitting shall be again made ready for their occupation.
GEORGE R.I.
Message to be considered Tomorrow.—[The Prime Minister.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 101.

Division No. 292.]

AYES

[3.55 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Durbin, E. F. M

Levy, B. W.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Dye, S.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Allighan, Garry

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Alpass, J. H.

Edelman, M.

Lipson, D. L.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Longden, F.

Attewell, H. C.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Lyne, A. W.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

McAllister, G.

Austin, H. L.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

McEntee, V. La T.

Awbery, S. S

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

McGhee, H. G.

Ayles, W. H.

Ewart, R.

Mack, J. D.

Bacon, Miss A.

Fairhurst, F.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Baird, J.

Farthing, W. J.

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

Balfour, A.

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Follick, M.

McLeavy, F.

Barton, C.

Forman, J. C.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Battley, J. R.

Gaitskell, H. T. N.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Bechervaise, A. E

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Benson, G.

Gibbins, J.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Berry, H.

Gilzean, A.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Bing, G. H. C.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Marquand, H. A.

Blackburn, A. R.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Medland, H. M.

Blenkinsop, A.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Blyton, W. R.

Grey, C. F.

Mikardo, Ian

Boardman, H.

Grierson, E.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Bowden, Fig.-Offr. H. W.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mitchison, Maj. G. R

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Monslow, W.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Gunter, Capt. R. J.

Montague, F.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Guy, W. H.

Moody, A. S

Bramall, Major E. A.

Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

Morley, R.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hale, Leslie

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hall, W. G. (Coln Valley)

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Brown, George (Belper)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Moyle, A.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Murray, J. D.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Hardman, D. R.

Nally, W.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Hardy, E. A.

Naylor, T. E.

Burden, T. W.

Harris, H. Wilson

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Burke, W. A.

Harrison, J.

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Callaghan, James

Haworth, J.

Noel-Buxton, Lady.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Orbach, M.

Chamberlain, R. A

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Champion, A. J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Pargiter, G. A.

Chafer, D.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Parker, J.

Chetwynd, Capt. G. R

Hicks, G.

Parkin, B. T.

Clitherow, Dr. R.

Hobson, C. R.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Cluse, W. S.

Holman, P.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Cobb, F. A.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Pearson, A.

Cocks, F. S.

Horabin, T. L.

Pearl, Capt. T. F.

Coldrick, W.

House, G.

Perrins, W.

Collick, P.

Hey, J.

Piratin, P.

Collins, V. J.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Platts-Mills, J. F. F

Colman, Miss G. M

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

Comyns, Dr. L.

Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Cook, T. F.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Pritt, D. N.

Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

Hynd, J. D. (Attercliife)

Proctor, W. T.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Irving, W. J.

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Cove, W. G.

Janner, B.

Randall, H. E.

Daggar, G.

Jay, D. P. T.

Ranger, J.

Daines, P.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Rankin, J.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

Reeves, J.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Keenan, W.

Robens, A.

Deer, G.

Kenyon, C.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Delargy, Captain H. J.

Key, C. W.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Diamond, J.

Kinley, J.

Royle, C

Debbie, W.

Kirby, B. V.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

Dodds, N. N.

Lang, G.

Sargood, R.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Lavers, S.

Scollan, T.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Scott-Elliot, W

Dumpleton, C. W.

Leonard, W.

Segal, Dr. S.

Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

West, D. G.

Sharp, Lt'Col. G. M.

Swingler S.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Symonds, A. L.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

Simmons, C. J.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Wilkins, W. A.

Skeffington, A. M.

Thurtle, E.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

Tiffany, S.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Skinnard, F. W.

Titterington, M. F.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Tolley, L.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Willis, E.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Wise, Major F. J

Sorensen, R. W.

Walkden, E.

Woods G. S.

Sparks, J. A.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Wyatt, W.

Stamford, W

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E)

Yates, V. F.

Stokes, R. R.

Warbey, W. N.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Watkins, T. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Stress, Dr. B.

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Captain Michael Stewart and Mr. Popplewell.

Stubbs, A. E.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

NOES.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Astor, Hon. M.

Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V

Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

Barlow, Sir J

Haughton, S. G.

Polo, Brig, C. H. M.

Beechman, N. A.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Pickthorn, K.

Birch, Nigel

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Poole O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Prescott, Stanley

Bower, N.

Hope, Lord J.

Raikes, H. V.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Howard, Hon. A.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Keeling, E. H.

Renton, D.

Carson, E.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Ross, Sir R.

Challen, C.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Smithers, Sir W

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Snadden, W. M.

De la Bère, R.

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Digby, S. W.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Dodds-Parker A. D.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

Sutcliffe, H.

Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Drayson, G. B.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd'l'n. S.)

Drewe, C.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Tooling, William

Eccles, D. M.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Touche, G. C.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Marples, A. E.

Turton, R. H.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Vane, W. M. F.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Maude, J. C.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Gage, C.

Mellor, Sir J.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gammons, L. D.

Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A G

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Gridley, Sir A.

Nicholson, G.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grimston, R. V.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Commander Agnew and Major Ramsey.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Nutting, Anthony

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
  Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Ordered: "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Aneurin Eevan].
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
  CLAUSE 4.—(Accommodation available on part payment.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 34, leave out "prescribed" and insert "determined in the prescribed manner."
  4.3 P.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Our intention was not to prescribe the actual fees which will vary from one institution to another, but to prescribe the method of arriving at the fees.
  CLAUSE 5.—(Accommodation for private patients.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 4, at end, insert: "whether in an honorary or paid capacity."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  It was our intention that this point should be covered. We thought that it was covered, but this makes it clear that service in an honorary capacity qualifies.
  CLAUSE 6 .—(Transfer of hospitals to the Minister.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 4, leave out lines 40 and 41, and insert:
  "the purposes of those hospitals or any of them or for the purpose of securing accommodation for persons in the area at any hospital not vested in the authority."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment safeguards the position of local authorities who may have acquired land for the purposes of development for hospitals. It preserves the land for the local authorities instead of transferring it to the Minister.
  CLAUSE 7.—(Endowments of voluntary hospitals.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 6, leave out lines 28 to 30.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment and two following Amendments are for the purpose of securing that the endowments of the hospitals should, as far as possible, be definitely transferred for the purposes for which they were given. A later Amendment in page 7, line 37, deals with the question so far as the boards of governors of teaching and hospital management committees are concerned, and the Amendment in page 6, line 46, has reference to the observance of the conditions when the gifts take the form of memorials and things of that sort. Broadly, the purpose of the Amendments is to put on all the bodies or persons to whom endowments are transferred the onus of ensuring that the objects are fulfilled. That applies to memorials and things of that sort. If the ultimate cost of the provision of the services is to be borne by the Exchequer, the object of the endowment will still be
  1070
  preserved as the result of these Amendments.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I am not clear to which group of Amendments the Parliamentary Secretary is referring. I desire to make some observations on the next Amendment, but I do not think it comes within this group.
  Mr. Key: The other Amendments concerned are the Amendment in line 46, and the Amendment in page 7, line 37.
  Mr. Reid: In that case, I think I may at this stage offer my remarks on the next Amendment—in page 6, line 46, at end, insert:
  'Provided that, where an endowment is given after the passing of this Act and before the appointed day whether to the governing body of the hospital or to trustees, upon trusts which provide either—
  (a) for the administration of the property as a capital fund separate from the general funds of the hospital; or
  (b) for the application of the property for some specific object distinct from the general purposes of the hospital and involving expenditure of a capital nature;
  the endowment, instead of being transferred to the Minister and the Hospital Endowments Fund as aforesaid, shall on the appointed day, by virtue of this Act, be transferred to and vest in the Hospital Management Committee constituted under the following provisions of this Part of this Act for the hospital or for the group of hospitals in which it is comprised, and shall vest in that Committee free of any trust existing immediately before the appointed day, and shall be held by the Committee on trust for such purposes relating to the hospital services or to the functions of the Committee under this Part of this Act with respect to research as the Committee think fit, and the Committee may dispose of any property comprised in any such endowment and hold the proceeds thereof on trust for any of the said purposes."
  I think it requires a little bit of examination. It is extremely narrow in its terms. Let us see what it does. It permits an endowment, in other words, a sum of money given to a hospital between now and April, 1948, to be retained in that hospital or group of hospitals, only subject to rather strict conditions, otherwise the money will not be retained, but will be scooped into the general pool. I think it is important that the public should understand how stringent are the conditions which they must observe, if the money which they give to a hospital between now and April, 1948, is to remain in the locality. It will be observed that the money is allowed to

  1071
  remain in the hospital or group of hospitals only if it is given upon trust—
  "for the administration of the property as a capital fund separate from the general funds of the hospital; or for the application of the property for some specific object distinct from the general purposes of the hospital and involving expenditure of a capital nature;"
  Those who give large sums of money normally take competent advice before they do so, and they will of course be advised, if they desire to benefit a particular locality, that they should make quite certain that one or other of these purposes is expressly mentioned in the deed of trust or in the deed of covenant. Therefore, provided generous donors, on advice, have their attention drawn to these matters, these large sums will probably be saved for the purposes intended. The position of the small donor is very different. I shall be glad if the Minister will correct me on this if I am wrong. The small donor, giving a few pounds, cannot give the money upon a trust
  "for the administration of the property as a capital fund separate from the general funds of the hospital."
  That is quite inappropriate for a gift of a comparatively small amount. Secondly, he can hardly give the small amount of money
  "for some specific object distinct from the general purposes of the hospital and involving expenditure of a capital nature."
  Therefore, as I say, this Amendment, in effect, says that big donors who are wide awake will be able to see that the money is ultimately devoted to the purpose they intend, but donors who are not wide awake or small donors, whether they are wide awake or not, will see their money taken away from the purpose they intend, and put into the general pool, whether they like it or not. We criticised the terms of the Bill on the ground that it would make hospital finances, during the next year or two, a very difficult proposition. This Clause goes a little way towards meeting that criticism, and, as such, we welcome it, but I think that the House should realise what a small improvement it is, and what a small number of charitable gifts it will cover. The greater part of the small gifts, and a certain number of the big ones, will not be covered by this Amendment, but will be taken away in the manner to
  1072
  which we have objected so often. I rather hope that we have interpreted it wrongly, but I hope the Minister will explain what is behind the strict limitations of this Amendment.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) has. I think, put the correct interpretation on the Amendment, but I think he was less generous in assessing the value of its language. It is true that these words were intended to exclude from endowment funds subscriptions which ordinarily would be paid for the general administration of the hospital. Members must have regard to what I, and also public funds, must guard against. It will be realised that after April, 1948, all bequests of this nature will go to the fund of the hospital itself. We are really dealing with the interim period. It was suggested to me, in the earlier stages of the Bill, that we ought to allow hospitals to receive money in the meantime. There are very considerable objections to that, because in 1948 we take over not only the assets of hospitals, but their liabilities as well. Unless I carefully guarded myself, and also the Exchequer, it would be possible for a hospital to accumulate an artificial deficit on its general hospital fund, and a very considerable increase in its endowment fund. I wish to secure that where a capital sum is given for a special purpose it must be regarded as part of the endowment of the hospital. Other income must be considered as part of the general income.
  Sir Hugh Lucas - Tooth: The Minister talks about capital being given for a special purpose, but there is no reference to that in paragraph (a).
  Mr. Bevan: But there is in paragraph (b). It must be a capital sum, or a sum prescribed for a specific purpose. The destination of the money must appear, on the face of it, to be the endowment fund, and not the general expenditure fund, otherwise, unless we have safeguards of this sort, ordinary weekly subscriptions paid for the maintenance of the hospital could easily be transformed, by a very simple form of words, into a contribution to the endowment of the hospital. At the end of 15 months, in that event, I would find myself faced with an enormous

  1073
  deficit. We have gone a substantial way to meet the points which have been raised while, at the same time, safeguarding the Exchequer and the public purse against what might otherwise be attempts to enrich the funds of a hospital at the expense of the Exchequer.
  Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 46, at end, insert:
  "Provided that, where an endowment is given after the passing of this Act and before the appointed day, whether to the governing body of the hospital or to trustees, upon trusts which provide either—
  (a) for the administration of the property as a capital fund separate from the general funds of the hospital; or
  (b) for the application of the property for some specific object distinct from the general purposes of the hospital and involving expenditure of a capital nature;
  the endowment, instead of being transferred to the Minister and the Hospital Endowments Fund as aforesaid, shall on the appointed day, by virtue of this Act, be transferred to and vest in the Hospital Management Committee constituted under the following provisions of this Part of this Act for the hospital or for the group of hospitals in which it is comprised, and shall vest in that Committee free of any trust existing immediately before the appointed day, and shall be held by the Committee on trust for such purposes relating to the hospital services or to the functions of the Committee under this Part of this Act with respect to research as the Committee think fit, and the Committee may dispose of any property comprised in any such endowment and hold the proceeds thereof on trust for any of the said purposes."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is one of those to which I referred earlier.
  Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 3, after "Minister," insert:
  "or any person authorised to act on his behalf, and for defraying out of the Fund such expenses incurred for the purpose of the control and management of the Fund as may be prescribed."
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment, and the next two Amendments, go together, and are necessary to make it possible to do what we have always intended, namely, to enable the National Debt Commissioners to act
  1074
  on behalf of the Minister as agents in the holding and managing of any investment that forms part of a hospital's endowment fund. Without this Amendment, it is doubtful whether that could be done without complicated transfer arrangements. The second part of the Amendment clears up another doubtful point by ensuring that expenses of management of these funds, for instance, in connection with any property involved, should be chargeable to the funds themselves.
  Lords Amendment: In page 7, line II, leave out "from the governing body," and insert "in connection with the transfer."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is largely a drafting Amendment. As the Bill left this House, the Minister was empowered to meet, from the hospital endowment fund, only those liabilities which had been transferred to him by the governing body. Others that might have been transferred, belonging to trustees and so forth, were left out, and that error is put right by this Amendment.
  Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 37, at end, insert:
  '(7) Every Board of Governors and Hospital Management Committee shall, in the case of any endowment transferred to them under this section, and the Minister shall in the case of any endowment transferred to him and the Hospital Endowments Fund under this section, secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the objects of the endowment and the observance of any condition attaching thereto, including in particular conditions intended to preserve the memory of any person or class of persons, are not prejudiced by the provisions of this section."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I gather that this Amend, ment is to cover the case of the local war memorial which is embodied in the local hospital and, that being so, I should be ungracious if I did not give thanks although, perhaps, only lukewarm thanks, to the Minister for meeting the point which I raised in Committee. In successive stages of the Bill we are getting nearer to the points which I raised earlier, and I

  1075
  wish there were a few more stages so that some of us could achieve, or partially achieve, what we desire. I appreciate the difficulty in which the Minister found himself. Having accepted the principle that endowments should go into the general fund—which we did not accept—it is always dangerous to start making exceptions. Having said that, in special cases, money will be used for the object intended, it is difficult for a war memorial hospital to differentiate between money originally given for the war memorial, and money which has been subsequently given for the general upkeep of the hospital. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has tried to meet that point fairly. I thank him for doing so, and I hope that the general direction which has been given to the Boards of Governors and the Hospital Management Committees will be carried out.
  Mr. Bevan: I would like to make it clear in respect of this Amendment—and the same observations will apply to a number of others—that what the Amendment does is merely to write into the Bill what I have explained throughout was the intention of the Government. It is put in general terms because, eventually, if we put it in specific terms we should have to have a long catalogue of instances to which it would apply. It is merely putting language in the Bill to give expression to the intention which we have had in our minds throughout.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: This new Subsection (7) is, in our view, undoubtedly a considerable improvement. It is, so far as the voluntary hospitals are concerned, very similar to what I and other hon. Members asked for at an earlier stage. So far as it applies to hospitals other than the teaching hospitals, I welcome it. In so far as the teaching hospitals are concerned, the words which we are now putting in take the place of lines 28 to 30 on page 6, which we have just left out. It seems to me that, in the case of the teaching hospitals, we are making the proviso a little less strict than before, because the words in the proviso which we are leaving out are:
  "So far as practicable,"
  the board shall secure that the objects of the endowments are not prejudiced. We are now putting in
  1076
  "So far as is reasonably practicable."
  I cannot say that I have looked into all the implications, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether, on the advice given to him, we are not making the proviso, so far as the teaching hospitals are concerned, less strict than before.
  Mr. Bevan: I think that I can give that assurance. "Reasonably practicable," I think, is rather a better form of words. It would be "practicable" to do a large number of things, but it would not be "reasonable" to do them. I think that the form of words does not make it easier for the teaching hospitals. In any case, their funds are not being touched at all.
  Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 2, at end, insert:
  '(b) if the endowment is transferred to and vested in a Hospital Management Committee by virtue of this Act, be transferred to and vest in that Committee on that day by virtue of this Act."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is to make provision for the transfer to the management hospital committees of any rights or liabilities attaching to endowments transferred to them.
  Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 14, after "hospital," insert:
  "or (in the case of an endowment which would be transferred to a Hospital Management Committee) that Committee."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is consequential and deals with the apportionment of the endowment.
  Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 18, at end, insert:
  "and for the apportionment of any rights and liabilities acquired or incurred for the purposes of managing the property and of any liabilities charged thereon"
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This makes good an accidental omission in the Bill as it left this House, in the Sub-

  1077
  section which deals with the apportionment of property between the hospital endowment fund and for other purposes, the Amendment secures that not only the funds are apportioned but the rights and liabilities are similarly apportioned.
  CLAUSE 12.—(Functions of Boards and Management Committees.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 19, leave out Subsection (2), and insert:
  "(2) It shall be the duty of the Hospital Management Committee of any hospital or group of hospitals, subject to and in accordance with regulations and such directions as may be given by the Minister or the Regional Hospital Board, to control and manage that hospital or group of hospitals on behalf of the Board and for that purpose to exercise on behalf of the Board such of the functions of the Board relating to that hospital or group of hospitals as may be prescribed."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment makes clear on the face of the Bill what has always been our intention, namely, that the hospital management committee shall be responsible for the running of the hospital or group of hospitals under their control. This Amendment merely inserts words to say that it is their duty to control and manage these hospitals on behalf of the board, according to the prescriptions, etc., which are made.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This Amendment, in carrying out the purposes which the Parliamentary Secretary has stated, has one very good feature. It requires these matters to be done by regulation, which means, if I understand the matter aright, that this House will have a chance of seeing and criticising a scheme for delegation of authority. That is all to the good. In line 3 of the Amendment are the words:
  "and such directions as may be given by the Minister."
  I trust that the Minister can assure us that, so far as the general scheme is concerned, it will be done by regulation, so that we can see and criticise, as we should in this House, the general scheme, and that the directions will be limited to matters of minor or local importance, which would not be appropriate for regulation. I hope that the Minister can assure us that all topics which would be appropriate for regulation will be done by regulation and not by direction.
  Mr. Bevan: The language of the Bill refers to "direction," as well as "regulations," because it may be necessary, from time to time, to give directions to hospitals in respect of specific services. For example, supposing it were decided that a particular hospital should engage in research into a particular matter—it may be cancer, or rheumatism or asthma —it would not be necessary to have a special regulation for that purpose, but it would be necessary to give directions to the hospital to provide facilities in order that that might be carried out. It is not the intention of the Government—and I hope that no sensible Government would do it—to try itself to discharge the responsibility of the management committee. I have always emphasised—and 1 take this opportunity of doing so once more—that I regard the management committees as extremely important bodies, which will have complete control over the internal administration of the hospitals in their charge. All that this Amendment does is to write on the face of the Bill what we have always declared to be the intention. It is not intended that the management committees should be merely passive instruments of the Board, but administrative organs in their own right, discharging their responsibilities from day to day, and, so far as can be done, developing in the hospitals under their control an esprit de corps which will give very much more enthusiastic and zealous service to the hospitals concerned.
  Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 31, at end, insert:
  "(a) to provide for the university with which the hospital is associated such facilities as appear to the Minister to be required for clinical teaching and research."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This, again, makes plain on the face of the Bill what quite obviously has to be done normally—that the teaching hospitals shall provide the universities with which they are connected, with opportunities for teaching and research.
  CLAUSE 13.—(Legal status of Boards and Management Committees.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 41, after "Minister," insert:

  1079
  "and a Hospital Management Committee shall notwithstanding that they may be exercising functions on behalf of the Regional Hospital Board."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This makes the management committee liable to be sued in the same way as the regional board.
  CLAUSE 14.—(Conditions of service and appointment of officers.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 4, leave out Subsection (2), and insert:
  "(2) A Regional Hospital Board, Board of Governors or Hospital Management Committee shall not be entitled to claim in any proceedings any privilege of the Crown in respect of the discovery or production of documents, but this subsection shall be without prejudice to any right of the Crown to withhold or procure the withholding from production of any document on the ground that its disclosure would be contrary to the public interest."
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The omission of the present Subsection (2) is consequential, but the new Subsection introduces a matter which was not in the Bill before, namely, a power to compel the production of documents by the authorities concerned.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: The first part of the new Subsection makes clear what might have been thought to be implicit in the Bill before. The second part is in line with other parts of the law. I think it is desirable that we should have from the Minister a specific assurance, which I am sure he will give, that he will use this power to withhold the production of documents on the ground of public interest very sparingly and only with great care, because there can be very different views outside and inside an office as to what the public interest means. Accordingly, I think this is a matter which ought always to come within the personal knowledge of the Minister before a certificate of this kind is given. If that is done, I am sure the Minister will take the view that he should exercise this power only in the most clear cases. If he can give that assurance. I think this power will be all right.
  Mr. Bevan: I can give that assurance without the slightest hesitation. It ought always to be possible to have the relevant documents produced in any action whatever, and they ought to be withheld only in very exceptional circumstances.
  CLAUSE 16.—(Research.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 39, after "1919," insert:
  "and the duties imposed on the Committee of the Privy Council for Medical Research under the said Act."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to make clear that the conferring of research powers upon the Minister does not in any way prejudice the position of the Medical Research Council. It was pointed out that the specific mention of the functions of the Minister under the Ministry of Health Act, 1919, which also confers powers on the Medical Research Council, might lead to the inference that their powers have been interfered with. This Amendment makes certain that is not the case.
  CLAUSE 19.—(Local health authorities.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 44, at end, insert:
  "(4) The application of this Section within the Administrative County of London shall be subject to the following provisions:—
  (a) The Council of the Administrative County of London (in this subsection referred to as the county council) shall delegate to the Common Council of the City of London as respects the City of London, and the councils of the metropolitan boroughs as respects the respective areas of those boroughs, their functions under this Part of this Act in relation to the services hereinafter mentioned, and the Common Council and the councils of the metropolitan boroughs shall discharge the functions so delegated.
  (b) The following services shall be the services to which this Subsection refers:—
  (i) arrangements for the care of expectant and nursing mothers and of children who have not attained the age of five years and are not attending primary schools maintained by a local education authority;
  (ii) provision for the visiting in their homes of such mothers and children as are mentioned in the foregoing paragraph for the purposes mentioned in Section twenty-four of this Act;

  1081
  (iii) the arrangements for vaccination and immunisation mentioned in Section twenty-six of this Act;
  (iv) such arrangements for providing home nursing and domestic help for households as are mentioned in Sections twenty-five and twenty-nine of this Act;
  (v) the services relating to notification of births and child-life protection to which Subsection (3) of Section twenty-two of this Act applies; and
  (vi) the provision, equipment and maintenance of premises for the foregoing purposes.
  (c) Before submitting proposals to the Minister in pursuance of section twenty of this Act the county council shall, in respect of the services to which this subsection applies, consult with the Common Council as respects the provision of such services in the City of London and with the council of each metropolitan borough as respects the provision of such services within the area of the borough, and the provisions of Subsections (2) and (5) of Section twenty of this Act shall apply as if the Common Council and the council of the metropolitan borough were a voluntary organisation for the purposes of those Subsections.
  (d) The county council shall pay to the Common Council and the councils of the metropolitan boroughs one-half of the cost incurred by them in discharging the functions delegated in pursuance of this Section."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  One of the major weaknesses in the provision of personal health services in this country in the past, apart from the fact that mainly they were of an optional character, has been a lack of real coordination, because of divided responsibility among the different types of authorities, in their provision. One of the major reforms proposed in this Bill is the concentration of responsibility for these personal services in one authority in each area concerned, either the council of the county or the council of the county borough. That concentration is as desirable in the London area as it is in any of the county areas; but what this Amendment does is to destroy that coordination and concentration in London, while leaving it operative in the remainder of the country. Londoner as I am, I claim that that would be a great disservice to the people of London, and therefore, it is unacceptable to us.
  I know it will be said that in the past, many of the metropolitan borough councils have managed and controlled quite a good maternity and child welfare ser-
  1082
  vices, and that because they have done that, it is a reason for leaving them with the power in future; but I would point out that there are non-county boroughs and urban district authorities in the rest of the country which have done equally well as any metropolitan borough council, and in quite a number of cases have maintained services superior at any rate to those of some of the metropolitan borough councils to which I could draw attention. But it is not proposed that those very successful authorities should go on maintaining their maternity and child welfare services, and it seems to me that there can be no really sound reason for making this distinction. Concentration is as important in the metropolitan area as it is in the rest of the country.
  I want to draw attention to one or two of the specific proposals in the Amendment. Subsection (4, b) deals with arrangements for the care of expectant and nursing mothers and children under the age of five. That involves not merely that the care of the under-fives would remain with the borough councils and the care of the over-fives go with the London County Council, but it means further that the under-fives who would be taking advantage of the services of nursery schools which the London County Council will develop would be under the control of the London County Council, but the under-fives taking advantage of the day nurseries provided by the borough councils would be under the control of the borough councils. I want to know what justification there can be for maintaining a dual service for children requiring the same sort of care and the same sort of treatment.
  The Amendment would also continue; in London alone, a serious break in child welfare work caused by their passing from the care of one authority to that of another at a very critical stage in the child's development, the period when it is first beginning to attend school. As a London schoolteacher with 40 years' experience, I can testify that that break in care and welfare work at that age has been a real evil from the children's point of view. While it is possible, in transferring from one organisation to another, to pass on case papers with regard to each child that changes over, one cannot pass on personal knowledge and experience if there are two separate organisations, be-

  1083
  cause there is a real break in the people who are maintaining the control.
  I would point out also that, under the same provision in the Amendment, while it would be the duty of the metropolitan borough councils to maintain prenatal and postnatal services, it would be the responsibility of the London County Council, if the Amendment were accepted, not only to provide the midwives' services that are necessary in between the prenatal and postnatal period, but it would be the duty of the London County Council, under Clause 23 of the Bill, to secure that the service of maternity nurses during childbirth and from time to time thereafter during a period not less than the lying-in period, is adequate for the needs of the area. I want to know what justification there can be for the break in the continuity of these maternity services, and why it is that it is expected that some benefit can come from divided responsibility, apart altogether from the fact that there would be overlapping in the administration of the services. In Subsection (4, b), paragraph (iv), of the Amendment there is placed upon borough councils the duty of providing home nursing and power to provide domestic help in times of illness, but under another part of the same Clause, that still leaves services of a preventive character, and the aftercare services in cases of illness, to be dealt with by the London County Council. Again, I should like to know how it can be a wise administration of a health service that says that one authority is to provide the nurse during the period of sickness, and another authority to be responsible for providing the after care in the very place where the original nurse has been attending.
  Paragraph (vi) says:
  "the provision, equipment and maintenance of premises for the foregoing purposes."
  In other words, the borough council are to be given power under this Amendment to maintain maternity and child welfare centres for their functions as well as for the purpose of the organisation of home nursing and home helps. But this leaves with the London County Council the development of the necessary health centres from which are to operate the medical, dental, pharmaceutical, and midwifery services. Surely this is a wrong method by which to approach the problem—provid-
  1084
  ing two separate centres dealing with parts of what is really one health service. What we have to aim at is the development of health centres in the areas where there can be common knowledge among the people serving in them with regard to the particular cases which are being dealt with, in order that they may give better service to the individuals concerned. By the development of the common health centre for this purpose we shall avoid duplication and, at the same time, effect an economy which will lead to a fuller and richer development of the service.
  The set-up that is envisaged in this Amendment is bound to lead to greater possibilities of administrative friction in the carrying out of the services, while it will inevitably mean a loss of efficiency through lack of real coordination. There is, however, another aspect of this same problem which really distresses me as a representative of one of the poorest areas of this great metropolitan district. It is the problem of finance. The unified service envisaged in the Bill would mean that a service of common standards would he provided for all areas in London, irrespective of the poverty or wealth of the particular area in which the service was to he given. The Amendment says the exact opposite—that 50 per cent. of the cost of the services is to be provided by the borough council concerned. This means, in areas such as that which I represent, either an overwhelming and unbearable burden will be placed upon the local ratepayers of those already overburdened authorities, or, as the result of their poverty, the people in those areas will have to put up with a service which is less efficient than would otherwise be the case.
  In the interests of the general body of the people of London we must see that unification is brought about. That does not mean to say that there cannot be real cooperation between the borough council and the London County Council in the management of these services. Nor does it mean that we have excluded the possibility that the particular value of the local information of the borough councillor shall be brought into these services. We have secured, under Part II of the Fourth Schedule of the Bill, that there shall be an opportunity for that knowledge to be brought into use so far as these services are concerned, because while we have laid it down that any subcommittees necessary for the purposes of

  1085
  carrying out these services which are set up by the local health authority must have a majority of public representatives, we have said that the majority need not consist entirely of representatives of the local health authority itself but may include representatives of any other local authority in the area that is covered by the local health authority. In other words, we have given to the London County Council and the borough councils power to cooperate through the sub-committees that will be necessary for carrying out these services in the various areas, and to enable the representatives of the borough council to share with the County Council in their management and control.
  4.45 p.m.
  I should like also to point out that Section 166, Subsection (1, b) of the London Government Act of 1939 is still in existence and will not be repealed by this Bill. It enables the borough councils and the London County Council to get together and to put forward schemes to the Minister for the purpose of dealing with services in which they want to share or to delegate powers one to the other. I say, therefore, that we have made provision in the Bill for these authorities to cooperate in carrying out the services, but from the point of view of the efficiency of the services, their proper coordination, and the convenience and welfare of the inhabitants, as well as from the point of view of financial ability to provide the service for the poorest as well as the wealthiest, we maintain that this Amendment takes entirely the wrong line. As a Londoner, I am very proud to have the privilege of asking the House, in the interests of London, to disagree with the Lords in their Amendment.
  Mr. Richard Law: We on this side of the House have listened with great disappointment to the speech which has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary, and I think it would probably not be an exaggeration to say that, while we disliked hearing the hon. Gentleman making that speech, he, for reasons with which he and the House are perfectly familiar, must have disliked having to make it even more. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to know what I mean, but I think that if he reflects he will probably find the meaning of my remarks. I may possibly enlighten him later on. We are familiar
  1086
  in this House with the Amendment and its background, and I can therefore see no necessity for going into any detailed record of the various transactions of which it is the result. Nevertheless, it is important that we should just refresh our minds on the general background of the picture which we are considering.
  The House is aware that in 1944, after the Coalition White Paper was published, the Metropolitan Boroughs Joint Standing Committee, under the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, came to an agreement with the London County Council. It was clear when the Coalition White Paper was published that there would have to be some division of responsibilities as between the L.C.C. and the metropolitan boroughs and without any pressure from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink), who was then Minister for Health, but with his good will, these two bodies got together to see whether they could reach an agreement, and in fact they did. The tenor of that agreement was that the maternity and child welfare work at present undertaken by the borough councils should be delegated by the L.C.C. to the borough councils. That, broadly and generally speaking, is what is done by the Amendment which we are considering.
  It is all very well to say that that was in the days of the Coalition Government, and that nothing that was valid then is valid now in new conditions when we have a Labour majority in the House. In fact, this agreement, which was come to in 1944, in the days of the Coalition, was reaffirmed by the L.C.C. after the defeat of the Conservative Government and after the present Government assumed office.
  Mr. Bevan: Was the agreement ever confirmed by the Coalition Government?
  Mr. Law: I did not say it was. The agreement did not have to be confirmed by the Coalition Government. I said that the agreement was come to without any pressure from my right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Health but with his good will. I am certain that if the Coalition Government, or if we, had continued in office we would, in fact, have embodied in the National Health Service Bill the agreement which was come to.
  Mr. Key: Were not the proposals which were then being dealt with vitally different from the proposals made in the Bill?
  Mr. Law: That is a very difficult question to answer, for the reason that hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed that question to me, were continually saying that the Conservative Government, which succeeded the Coalition Government, had deserted the principles of the White Paper, and that the present Government were going back to the principles of the White Paper. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
  That is a side issue. As the House knows, the Parliamentary Secretary was chairman of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee. As its chairman, he exerted, I have always understood, great influence and used great persuasion in order to bring about such a division of powers as is embodied in the Lords Amendment, and as he is rejecting this afternoon. I do not want now to go into the reasons for the Parliamentary Secretary's complete volte face. I will say only in passing that I think they were extraordinary and that I think they were discreditable.
  Mr. Key: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to understand this, that a person can serve his team even although the second team that he gets into has a different attitude to that of the first; that whilst he uses his powers of persuading the metropolitan borough councils to do this, that and the other, when he goes to speak as their chairman he is bound to voice their opinion, irrespective of whether it is his own or not; and that the essence of Democracy, which quite obviously the right hon. Gentleman will never understand, is that the person who goes to speak on behalf of a body gives expression to their wishes and not to his own?
  An Hon. Member: The hon. Member has changed his mind.
  Mr. Law: The interjection of the Parliamentary Secretary has shown at least one thing quite clearly, that he did understand something I said at the beginning of my speech, although he professed not to. It has shown that, but I must say that I did not altogether follow him in his new definition of the team spirit—[An HON. MEMBER: "You would not"]—and
  1088
  of democracy. I would rather, for my own part, say that anyone who changes his mind, as my hon. Friend said in an interruption just now, because he changes his job, is, in fact, doing a great disservice to democracy.
  Mr. Goodrich: I would not intervene were it not that I feel that an injustice has been done to the Parliamentary Secretary. It so happens—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Young): The hon. Member can rise only to a point of Order or to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House. Unless the hon. Member has either a point of Order or a question, he is not in Order in speaking.
  Mr. Goodrich: I wanted to make this point to the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must make his point of Order to me, and not to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Law: I assure the hon. Gentleman opposite that I have no wish to do injustice to the Parliamentary Secretary. As I have said, I do not propose to go into the reasons which underlay the volte face. It was the hon. Gentleman's interjection which brought all this to the surface. It was not my speech. I certainly do not wane to delve into the workings of the Parliamentary Secretary's mind on this point. What I want to do is to put before the House the kind of argument that must have weighed with the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, with the L.C.C. and with the hon. Gentleman himself, at the time the agreement was come to. They must have had solid arguments. Although I was not a member of either body I can imagine very well what those arguments were.
  In the first place, both bodies must have agreed that the services which the Amendment proposes to delegate were essentially personal services, that they demanded the closest possible contact between the individual citizen and the authority concerned and that therefore they were much better handled by a relatively small metropolitan borough council than by the L.C.C., which has the care of between 3 million and 4 million citizens of London. That must

  1089
  have been the first argument that weighed. The second argument no doubt was that those services had, in fact, been discharged for many years by the metropolitan boroughs, and had been discharged very well indeed. Another argument, which I dare say weighed with them, was that the L.C.C. from its very size was not fitted to handle those essentially personal services.
  The final argument which I can imagine weighed very heavily, especially with the Parliamentary Secretary, who has such clear principles of democracy, was that if those services which we are discussing now were removed from the purview of the metropolitan boroughs, it would result in a very great weakening of local government in London. We should not get the same class of people to go into local government and offer themselves for election to their local councils if the main part of the job of the local authority, a job which they are doing extremely well, was removed from the purview of the metropolitan boroughs. It would be very difficult also to get medical officers of the calibre that many of the metropolitan boroughs have, of the calibre that my own borough, for example, has, to serve, if the powers of the authority were to be truncated in this kind of way.
  I suggest to the House and to the Minister that those arguments, if they were arguments which weighed with the people concerned at that time—they are certainly arguments which weigh very much with us on this side of the House—are extremely weighty and weightily supported. If those arguments are swept aside, they can only be so swept aside by arguments even more weighty and solid. Anybody who listened to the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon, or who listened to or read the Debates in another place, or that we had in this House and in the Committee upstairs, must in his heart know that the arguments which have been used by the Government on this matter are not really solid and weighty at all. I would like the House to consider for a moment what those arguments are.
  5.o p.m.
  A few moments ago the Parliamentary Secretary said that this Amendment introduced into the Bill a degree of lack of uniformity and lack of coordination and so on which struck across the whole principles of the Bill. I could understand
  1090
  that argument if in fact the Bill was based on these principles of absolute uniformity all through, but we know that it is not. We know, for example, that a woman who is going to have a baby will come under her own doctor, responsible to the executive committee; will go to a prenatal clinic under the local authority and come under a doctor responsible to the local authority; and then will go to hospital to have the baby and will come under yet a third kind of doctor, one responsible to the regional board. This Bill is full of apparent discrepancies of that kind, and it is rather absurd for the Minister to offer to the House as a reason for rejecting this Amendment the fact that it introduces some kind of lack of uniformity into the whole structure of the Bill. It is not only a question of expectant mothers. There is the question of the health centre itself. When the health centre is set up, doctors will be working under the local executive committee; local authorities will be working there under Part III of the Act; and consultants will be working there under the regional board. Again there will be the same kind of division of function and division of responsibility. If there is anything in the Minister's argument on this point, it is simply that the whole Bill is unworkable, not that this Amendment by itself is unworkable.
  The Minister went on to say that if this Amendment were accepted it would perpetuate great inequality as between one borough and another. I must declare my own interest in this matter because I am the representative in Parliament of the Royal Borough of Kensington which, I suppose, has as fine a record in these matters as any borough throughout the length and breadth of the country. What Kensington has done in this field—and I have no hesitation in saying so—is very remarkable indeed. Since 1900 the infantile death rate has been reduced from 150 per thousand to 102 per thousand in 1919 and 49 per thousand last year. The maternal death rate was reduced from 3.5 per thousand in 1925 to under 2 per thousand in 1945. In 1935 the borough council inaugurated a diphtheria im-munisation service. In 1935 367 diphtheria cases were notified in the borough, and 19 deaths. In 1944, after a few years of this immunisation service,

  1091
  29 cases only were notified and there was not one death.
  That is a very remarkable record of which no borough need be ashamed, but the Minister's argument on that, as I understand it, is that because Kensington is a wealthy borough, it is putting other boroughs at a disadvantage and it is, therefore, necessary to bring all the boroughs under the L.C.C. so that there shall be an equal distribution of funds. The Minister referred to that part of the Amendment which deals with the 50 per cent. paid by the local authority and the 50 per cent, paid by the L.C.C. If that argument were valid, I agree that it would be extremely forceful. If it were a fact that under this Amendment Kensington as a wealthy borough would be able to provide services that, say, Shoreditch, would not be able to provide for financial reasons, there would be something in the Minister's argument. But surely that is not the case at all because we could get round that difficulty quite easily by a readjustment of the block grant to the local authorities? It does not seem to me that there is a great deal of force in that argument.
  Again, we have been told that if the Government made a distinction between metropolitan boroughs and non-county boroughs outside London, they would expose themselves to unending and continuous pressure from the non-county boroughs, many of whom, as the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, are excellent, to be treated in the same way, and a hole would be opened in the dam through which the local authorities would flood and the whole structure of the Bill would be wrecked. Surely, there is nothing in that argument because London has always been treated as something separate and distinct from the rest of the country. There is any amount of legislation which treats metropolitan boroughs differently from non-county boroughs and gives the metropolitan boroughs special treatment. There are the London Building Act, the London Public Health Act and the London Government Act, and so on, and to say that we cannot treat London differently from the rest of the country because it creates a precedent is just saying something which is not true. The precedent already exists. and nobody has ever yet objected to it.
  The last argument I have seen directed against this Amendment was not stressed
  1092
  by the Minister just now but it was used in another place. It is that at the time this agreement was made the proposals of the Government differed in one very vital respect from this Bill as it now comes before us for the last time. It differed in that the hospital services are being taken away from the L.C.C., and the argument runs that because the L.C.C. is losing its hospital services, it would therefore be convenient and suitable that the health services at present being discharged by the local authorities should be taken over by the L.C.C. I ask the House to examine that argument for a moment. If it meant that the taking away of the hospitals from the L.C.C. resulted in the L.C.C. being better equipped to deal with these local services, I could follow that argument, but it cannot mean that. Even though the hospital services are taken away, the L.C.C. is still a vast organisation and is still remote from the people of London in the sense that the metropolitan boroughs are not. It is still a body which is not fitted to undertake these essentially personal services.
  At the present time in any of these services, if a citizen wants help he goes to his own town hall. He knows where it is—probably a few hundred yards from his house—and sees his own councillor or the medical officer of health. It is all intimate, on the spot and convenient. But under the Bill, if the House rejects this Amendment, all that will be swept away. The citizen will have nothing to do at the town hall in these matters. He will have to go to the County Hall. He will have to write to his L.C.C. member. That, again, is a matter which really ought to give us serious thought.
  At the present time there are, I think, 120 elected members of the London County Council and they have to deal with the entire needs of the administrative area which comes under the L.C.C. These health services are still part of it. They are a terribly overworked body of men. If the recommendations of the Boundary Commission are made effective, the number of elected members on the L.C.C. will be reduced from 120 to something like 80, and those 80 men are bound to be still more over-burdened. I suggest to the House that we ought to consider very carefully before taking away from the local authorities in London these services which they are performing well, and have performed well for such a long time,

  1093
  and putting them on to the plate of a much vaster body that is already terribly over-burdened. I know that the misgivings with which we on these benches regard the attitude of the Government on this matter are shared by a number of hon. Members opposite. I know there are hon. Members opposite who represent London constituencies, and who feel just as strongly on this matter as we do, and I hope very much that, if the Minister remains unaffected by anything that we say, and any arguments that we put up from this side of the House, his heart may be melted by arguments that will be put up to him from the benches opposite.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: May I first deal with some of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) regarding the London County Council, because I have been a member of that body for some years and know something of what happened previously and what is happening today. First, as to the suggestion that the attitude of the Council has changed completely. It has changed, but it has changed because circumstances have changed. When, under the terms of the White Paper, the London County Council supposed that it would be the sole health authority for London, it considered that it would have a little too much on its plate, and made the suggestion that the maternity and child welfare services, tuberculosis services, and the control of infectious disease might usefully be transferred to the London boroughs. What is happening to-day? Conditions are entirely different. Under the new Bill the control of infectious disease is to be retained by the boroughs, and tuberculosis is no longer in the power of the London County Council to offer to any authority because it is to be dealt with by the regional hospital boards. I suggest, therefore, that conditions have entirely changed and that, therefore, an offer made under certain conditions cannot possibly be expected to hold good under, the terms of a Bill which is as superior to the White Paper as white is to black.
  There are one or two suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman made about the London County Council. First, he said that we were very remote from our constituents. I, for one, deny that. Many of us go to our constituencies once a week
  1094
  or once a fortnight, and see all and sundry who wish to come and see us.
  Mr. Law: May I make this clear to the hon. Gentleman? I certainly did not intend to suggest that he or any of his colleagues were negligent in their duties. The point I was trying to make, but perhaps did not make clearly, was that the L.C.C. as an institution is remote from the ordinary citizen in the same sense as the Ministry of Health is remote from the ordinary citizen. It is not as close to the ordinary citizen as the local authority proper in the metropolitan borough, in its own town hall, is accessible every day to the citizen.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is not correct. We are constantly in touch with our constituents. They come to see us for many reasons and we are very glad to give them all the advice within our power. I am not sure that there is not some danger in people being in too close contact with their representatives. I agree that in case of difficulty or complaint, the individual concerned should be able to get to his representative at once and explain matters to him, but for individuals who are supporters, or supposed friends of representatives, to come to them as sometimes happens, and ask for special favours is not a very desirable thing. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that we who are on the L.C.C. are very much over-worked. I have held most offices in that Council, including the chairmanship of the Council, but nevertheless I have been able all the time to carry on a hospital and consultant practice as a doctor. No, we work hard but we do our work easily because we have an excellent machine, and I do not think any individual who takes office on the London County Council as a member should regard himself as unable to deal with his duties efficiently.
  I object to this Amendment mainly for this reason: that instead of being three health authorities in London, there would be four. Let me take maternity, for example. Under the Bill, maternity, as regards its hospital side, would be dealt with by the Regional Hospital Board; in regard to the care of the mothers in their own homes by the general practitioner, and under the authority in charge of that

  1095
  service. Under the Amendment, however, what would happen would be that the midwife employed by the L.C.C., who would deal with the mother during the birth of her child, would not be under the authority of the Committee that deals with the ante-natal and also the post-natal care of that same woman. I think that would be a very great disadvantage.
  It would not matter so much, or at any rate, one could regard this Amendment as intelligible, if under it all the health functions were to be transferred to the metropolitan borough council. But that is not the case. A great many of them are still to be left with the London County Council. For my sins, or otherwise, for the last 16 years I have been a member of the Hospitals and Medical Services Committee of the London County Council, which deals with some of the health functions of London, whereas some are dealt with by the metropolitan boroughs. Through practical experience, I have learned the difficulties which may arise. In cases where a health function, such as vaccination, is dealt with only by the metropolitan boroughs, all is well, but in other cases where the function is divided, as for instance in the case of tuberculosis, all sorts of difficulties may occur. I quite agree that there is every possible attempt at good will between the two authorities, but all sorts of difficulties arise because there are two authorities dealing with the same subject. For instance, the London County Council has had to pay some of the costs of the dispensaries for tuberculosis, and is, therefore, interested in them. A claim comes from a borough for an X-ray apparatus. There may be an excellent apparatus in a London County Council hospital round the corner, and the question arises as to whether that X-ray apparatus shall be provided, or not. That is bound to give rise to difficulties between the two authorities. Whatever we do, do not let us increase the authorities, which are already quite numerous enough under this Bill.
  Under the Bill, and no one suggests that the Amendment would change it, the London County Council is to be the authority for health centres. It has to provide them. I know it is the Minister's desire that as many doctors as possible should see their patients in the health centres, and I am in entire agreement with that,
  1096
  if the doctors are willing so to do. One of the objects of getting the doctors to work in the health centres is to associate them as closely as possible with preventive services. In the past we have had doctors who were treating declared disease only and had nothing to do with prevention. I am sure it is in the Minister's mind to associate all the doctors in the new health service with the prevention of disease. One way to do that is to get them to work in health centres where preventive services are being carried out, and to get them to work in the closest possible contact with the health visitors, maternity and child welfare clinics, home nursing services, etc. And yet this Amendment wants to put these services under the borough councils which would have nothing to do with the health centres. To make this state of affairs even more difficult than it would be, the Amendment suggests that, so far from these services being closely associated with and worked through health centres, the authorities in charge should have the power to provide and maintain premises for the services. The Amendment therefore would separate much more than should be separated, and much more than is necessary, the preventive and curative sides of the treatment of disease. I was very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the Government do not intend to agree with this Amendment.
  Mr. Howard: I regret that the Government should be asking the House to reject this Amendment. I express this regret not only on my own behalf with some knowledge of the health services of London, but on behalf of the citizens of Westminster as a whole. I have been requested by the authorities to do what can be done to get this position reversed, even at this late hour, and I would be neglecting my duty to my constituents if I failed to do so. I particularly regret that the present Parliamentary Secretary, of all people, should be asking the House to take this line today. I remember, as many others must remember, who have had a long association with London metropolitan government, the noble fights he has put up for the metropolitan boroughs on many occasions. I fully understand the reasons why he is in a different sphere now, and I have congratulated him on that. But it is very regrettable to find

  1097
  that the man who fought battles so nobly on one side, is now trying to find arguments which run entirely counter to those he put forward not very long ago.
  I think it is also unfortunate that in his reference to the services which have been, and are still being, provided—as far as they are permitted7—by the metropolitan boroughs, he should use the phrase that some of them were "quite good." I think that, on reflection, he will admit that that was a little less than just, and that some of these services are at least as good as services in any other part of the country. I think he will agree that it was an understatement to say that some of them were "quite good."
  The Parliamentary Secretary based practically all his arguments in support of the rejection of the Amendment on matters of administrative convenience. It may be that the arguments of administrative convenience lie on his side. But, this Bill is not coming forward for the benefit of administrators. It is coming forward for the benefit of the health of the people as a whole. The real point behind the Amendment is that it was considered that, in particular circumstances, the closest and most intimate administration was desired. In no part of his speech did the Parliamentary Secretary put forward a single argument to show that the individual nursing mother or child would get better service as a result of rejecting this Amendment. He referred to the provision in the Fourth Schedule, Part II. I think he probably advanced these arguments with his tongue in his cheek. It is very well to say that we are providing in a Schedule for powers of joint consultation between different people, but we are also providing in the Bill that under no circumstances shall those people have any power to carry out the work. As the whole point of the Amendment is to secure powers of delegation, it is something of a red herring suggesting that because powers of consultation are obtained it is ridiculous to suggest that there should be any powers of delegation. I do not intend to go over all the ground of the merits of this Amendment, but I maintain that delegation of these particular services is desirable in the interests of those for whom they are designed.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Goodrich: Listening to the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Howard),
  1098
  I came to the conclusion that he objected to the Government's objections to this Amendment because of his fear that the citizens will not get the same service as they have always had under the present system. I have been a member of the L.C.C., and I was vice-chairman of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Committee, serving with the Parliamentary Secretary. In addition to that, as chairman of the largest municipal hospital in London, I knew just what happened, and the amount of midwifery and of welfare work that was and is being done in that hospital. In my 21 years' association with that hospital, I never heard one complaint with regard to the service. There were many suggestions brought to to me, as a member of the L.C.C., which were forwarded to County Hall, and dealt with by the appropriate committee there. In like manner, all other persons in need of treatment, who wanted to contact their representatives, had exactly the same privilege and power as they have even at this day. I do not feel that that fear of non-contact between the patient and the representative, whoever he or she may be, is a justification for asking the Government to withdraw their objection.
  The other point I wish to make is this: It is not easy for one to sit on these benches and hear accusations made against one's colleagues when one knows perfectly well that they are untrue. The answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary was perfectly correct. He did speak for the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee on that particular occasion, and he was voicing the opinions of the majority members of that Committee. But it does not necessarily follow that he was in favour. I leave the House to make its own mind up on this issue, when I say that he did his job exceedingly well, but that it was not his proposition. As vice-chairman on that particular occasion, and as one who had gone on that deputation, I knew precisely what his views were but his views were withheld in favour of the decision of the Standing Joint Committee.
  Mr. Keeling: As the hon. Member was vice-chairman, could he say whether the Parliamentary Secretary, in fact, tried to persuade his colleagues on the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee to adopt the view he had previously held, or not?
  Mr. Goodrich: I hope that I shall not be drawn into answering that question. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) knows quite well what goes on at the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing joint Committee. He knows there is a party system there, and he knows how the party whip operates, and the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary was at that time chairman of the committee meant that he was asked to do something which, as has already been said, he did exceedingly well.
  I am convinced, at this stage, although I was not convinced at first, that it would be better for the maternity and child welfare services to be administered by the London County Council, in order that the services shall be carried out and the financial arrangements, as explained, should be suitable for all purposes.
  Mr. Marlowe: As one who is in no way connected with any metropolitan borough, and has never been connected with the L.C.C., I am perhaps able to take a more detached view of this matter than others who have spoken in this Debate. I feel that the Government's objection must be opposed, because although the Parliamentary Secretary made a formidable speech on the ground of administrative convenience, that is not the only thing with which one is concerned in a national health service. It was an extremely strong case on the ground of administrative convenience, and if that were the only issue, I should support him. But there is a good deal more in this Bill, and particularly in this Amendment, than that. The Parliamentary Secretary made his case in three ways. First, he said that this would create a dichotomy, and would cut across the L.C.C. and the metropolitan boroughs; secondly, that it would be too expensive for the metropolitan boroughs; and thirdly, he asked, more than once, what was the justification for this Amendment? I think that that fairly summarises the case put by the Parliamentary Secretary.
  So far as the first point is concerned, it is really no argument against accepting this Amendment. If one believes in the principle of delegation to local authorities, the answer to that argument is not to create one set of conditions for the bigger authority and another for the lesser, and then say that we cannot have them cutting across each other. The answer is to dele-
  1100
  gate still more to the local authority. Some of us are concerned to see—and this applies not only to the metropolitan boroughs—an alarming tendency to remove more and more powers from the local authority. One becomes increasingly concerned about it. Therefore I cannot see that the argument that the L.C.C. have certain functions to do has any force at all. The answer is to take away those functions from the L.C.C. and delegate them to the local authorities.
  Mr. H. Hynd: Is the hon. and learned Member seriously suggesting that each of the metropolitan boroughs should have one of the first-class hospitals of the L.C.C.?
  Mr. Marlowe: Really, the hon. Member must know that I am not suggesting that at all. There is no reason why the metropolitan boroughs should not exercise certain functions and share hospitals with other boroughs.
  The Parliamentary Secretary's second point was on the ground of expense. He knows the degree of support which this Amendment has among the metropolitan boroughs. It is for them to decide what expense they can undertake and what they cannot. His argument is not a sufficient answer, because if the Parliamentary Secretary is in sympathy with the general sense of the Amendment, he knows perfectly well that that point could be met by providing that a higher percentage of the cost should be paid by the L.C.C. than the 50 per cent. suggested in the Amendment. If the general sense of the Amendment were accepted, there would be no difficulty over that.
  The Parliamentary Secretary's third point—one that be put more than once to those who support this Amendment—was "What was the justification for it?" In circumstances like these it is, of course, not for us to show the justification; it is for him, who is creating the new state of things, to justify his case. But I am perfectly prepared to accept his challenge and to justify it, on one ground, and one ground alone. It is that the whole purpose of this Bill is to do good for the individual. The hon. Gentleman is creating by the Bill, as he would have it, a vast organisation responsible for millions of people in the London County Council area. I cannot help

  1101
  feeling that that area contains too many people to have the necessary contact between the authority and the individual. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the discharge of their functions as members of the London County Council. I entirely accept what they say, but that is not the point. The point is that the individual has to deal not with a member of the London County Council but with an official. It is a far more intimate and personal matter, in the service with which we are concerned, if one is able to go to someone at the local town hall rather than to County Hall. Another justification which I can put forward to the Parliamentary Secretary is that this is a humanitarian Measure and that in a matter of this kind one should avoid, as far as possible, the use of large units and should break down the organisation into units as small and convenient as possible. The Parliamentary Secretary made a perfectly good case on the question of administrative convenience If the matter rested there, I should be on his side, but the humanitarian issue convinces me that he is wrong and that we ought to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. Sparks: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of supporting my right hon. Friend in asking the House to reject this proposition from the other place. I support him largely because he could not advise or ask us logically or practically to take any other course of action. The argument put forward by hon. Members opposite is entirely out of date. They assume that one can argue only on a restricted basis that this Amendment should be confined solely to the County of London area and seem to forget that they are including only a part of London. They leave completely outside the ambit of their argument that part of London which is known as Middlesex. To adopt the idea that London is restricted to the County of London boundaries is fallacious — it stretches far beyond the circumference of the County of London boundaries.
  Mr. Keeling: Was not that equally true when the Parliamentary Secretary accepted the proposal?
  Mr. Sparks: I think things have moved a little bit since those days. I represent a constituency in Middlesex which has very up-to-date services. We regret very much that we shall lose them to the County Council but we believe that by centralising
  1102
  the responsibility for these services with the county councils throughout the country it will result in an improved standard in the rural areas where these services are badly needed. Although we regret the passing of 50 per cent. of our public health functions, we shall not adopt a dog in the manger attitude and try to prevent others. by better administration, from being uplifted and enjoying a higher standard of service. At the same time, I believe my right hon. Friend will have to watch very closely some county councils. I have the utmost confidence in the London County Council and I know they will be as progressive in the administration of this Measure as any of the metropolitan districts. I am concerned that my right hon. Friend should see that the very high standard of service already administered by county district councils shall not deteriorate as a result of the transference of control. If my right hon. Friend replies to this discussion, I ask him to give us a little more information about this. The Measure provides for the local health authority, which is the county, to delegate some of the functions, such as the care of mothers and young children, health visiting, and home nursing, to voluntary organisation. We feel a little sore that some of these services are to be delegated or, at least, placed in the control of voluntary organisations and withdrawn from our control. I suppose my right hon. Friend has a good argument to advance in support of that and I hope he will tell us what is in his mind. I also ask him to explain further in regard to linking up the county district councils with the county council in the administration of these services. I am not clear whether he said it was the intention—
  Mr. Keeling: On a point of Order. Surely the hon. Member is aware that there are no district councils in the metropolitan area to which alone this Amendment refers?
  Mr. Sparks: I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but obviously it will follow under the terms of this Bill that there will be some connection.
  Mr. Keeling: Not under this Amendment.
  5.45 P.m.
  Mr. Sparks: The Parliamentary Secretary, in opening the Debate on this matter, said that there would be some

  1103
  provision for bringing the borough councils into this scheme in conjunction with the county council. I am anxious to find out on what basis it is proposed to operate. I may be wrong, but I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that local authorities and other bodies will have an opportunity of taking part in the work of these county health committees. What I am anxious to know is whether my right hon. Friend proposes to co-opt members to these county health committees or whether he will consider giving to the borough councils an opportunity of electing representatives themselves to serve upon them, thereby preserving that little connection between the borough council and the local health authority in carrying out this function. I believe that the borough council, and even the county district council, can help very considerably the county councils in carrying out this job. If there could be some degree of clarity as to whether the Minister has in mind asking the borough councils to elect a proportionate number of their members to serve upon the committees of the county council, or whether he proposes that there should be co-opted membership from the local organisations to serve on the county council health committees, it would be helpful. I think this is most important. It is important to try to link up in London the borough councils, and in the country the county district councils, in a direct way with the work of these services. I think it will redound to the interests of the locality itself and it will help to make this Bill as perfect, competent and efficient as we all hope that it will be.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I share the regrets which have been expressed from so many quarters that the right hon. Gentleman has decided not to recommend the House to accept the Lords Amendment on this point. We pressed him strongly during earlier stages but the arguments which we advanced were reinforced in another place by some who have great experience of local government in London. I think the case for the Amendment is very strong indeed. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I wish to be brief and, therefore, I call attention to two or three points which strike me as very important. I put in the very forefront the
  1104
  point which I feel most important of all and which has scarcely been mentioned. What do the people of London, living within the area of the L.C.C., desire? That is, of course, a matter on which we can all draw our own conclusions, and I do not suppose that it is susceptible of absolute proof, but, speaking for the district in which I live and from conversations which I have had, I believe that the desire of the people of London who live within the area of the L.C.C. is overwhelmingly in favour of these services remaining where they now are. They would rather, when they have to go to see an official, go to some place in their own borough, and not to County Hall or anywhere else not so familiar to them. I do not say that I very often go either to my own town hall or to County Hall, and I am, I hope, on good terms with those in both places. I am not going to say anything against the London County Council where it is exercising its proper functions, but there is no doubt whatever that the people of London regard their own town hall far more intimately than County Hall, and it is also very much more convenient for them to go there in respect of those services that are rather intimately connected with their daily lives.
  The argument of the convenience of the people is very strong, but what about the wishes of the metropolitan boroughs themselves? Those boroughs which have passed resolutions have passed them in favour of retaining these powers quite irrespective of whether they happen to have a Tory majority or a Labour majority. Their opinion reflects the wishes of their constituents, and it is the same opinion, reflecting the convenience and the wishes of their constituents, whether they are Socialist councils or Tory councils. I say, therefore, that the people of London wish this Amendment to succeed.
  My second point concerns the question of efficiency. Why on earth should it be supposed that the London County Council, which has never exercised these functions, will exercise them more efficiently than the metropolitan boroughs; which have hitherto exercised them, and, by the admission of the Ministers themselves, have, on the whole, exercised them well? On the argument of efficiency, apart from administrative convenience, there has not been a single valid argument

  1105
  advanced to negative the suggestion that the argument Of efficiency is in favour of the Amendment and not in favour of the Government's view.
  The third point that I wish to make is that of the influence of this proposal on local government. It will affect the willingness of good citizens to serve on the metropolitan boroughs if some of their most important functions, which attract some of the best people to serve the boroughs, are taken away without any reason. The right hon. Gentleman, when this matter was last before the House, mentioned the fact that London government was in a state of flux, and that various changes were taking place and would take place in future. In so far as that statement is correct, it seems to me to be an overwhelming argument against the view he is now taking. If the government of London is in such a state of flux, why is there this attempt, on a side issue, to murder the metropolitan boroughs? [Laughter.] I do not know why that should cause amusement. The Parliamentary Secretary, I think, by way of showing that there would be some coordination between the L.C.C. and the boroughs, even if this Amendment were rejected, mentioned Part II of the Fourth Schedule, and I suppose that what he had in mind were the provisions of paragraph (6), which may make it possible for some sub-committee of the L.C.C., if the L.C.C. so wish, to have some representatives of the metropolitan boroughs upon it. I do not think it is seriously suggested that this is an adequate substitute for the powers which they have hitherto exercised and which this Amendment seeks that they should retain.
  On the personal question of the Parliamentary Secretary, I would only say that I have always myself held, and I hold today, a high view of the character and abilities of the Parliamentary Secretary. The only thing that troubles me so much is the statements put forward by people who believe themselves to be his friends which always seem to me to cast so much doubt on his efficiency both now and in the past. I am not clear myself whether the hon. Gentleman, on the former occasion, was acting in a representative capacity or whether, in what he said today, he is acting in a representative capacity.
  Mr. Key: Both.
  Mr. Strauss: On both occasions, but, in neither case, apparently, are we allowed to know which are his true views.
  Mr. Key: The true views of Charlie Key do not count in this; it is the proposal that matters.
  Mr. Strauss: We should be very much interested to know the hon. Gentleman's views. He has had considerable experience both of local government and of national Government, and he has put forward, in the two capacities, opposite views. It would give me great pleasure to know in which of these the hon. Gentleman really believed. My own view of this purely personal question is that an hon. Member may sometimes speak in a representative capacity, but when he does so, he should make that fact clear. To sum up, I say, first, that the scheme embodied in this Amendment is that desired by the overwhelming majority of people living within the area of the L.C.C., whether they are Socialists or Tories or have no party at all. Secondly, I say that, on the argument of efficiency, we know that the metropolitan boroughs have discharged well the functions they have hitherto held and we have no reason to think that the L.C.C., which has no experience of them, will do any better. Thirdly, I say that we have no right, on a side issue, to make so vital a change in the whole future of local government. For these reasons, I hope that, when we come to a division, hon. Members, no matter to what party they belong, will vote upon this question on the merits.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I reply to the three points which have been put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Henry Strauss) in support of the view that the House should agree with this Amendment? Before dealing with those points, may I say that I was very sorry that the hon. and learned Member, at the end of his speech repeated what I regard as an entirely unfair attack on the Parliamentary Secretary? I think that any hon. Members who sits on this side of the House must realise that the conditions which existed in 1944, when the Parliamentary Secretary was chairman of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee and when fie expressed certain views—whether in a representative

  1107
  capacity or not matters not the slightest —were conditions quite different from those of today. In those days, under the scheme propounded in the White Paper, it was contemplated that the London County Council would be the regional health authority for London, owning hospitals and having to provide all other kinds of health services, and, therefore, necessarily having to delegate some of those health services for which it was regionally responsible. What was more natural or more fitting than that it should delegate to the metropolitan borough councils some of the functions which, indeed, they had been performing for a number of years? But today the situation is entirely different. London is part of a region—or, for all I know, it may be a part of several regions which will radiate radially from London. The London County Council is a local health authority. Although it is no longer responsible for the hospital services, it is responsible for a great deal of other matters affecting the health and wellbeing of the people of London. Those services will have to be organised on the basis of local health centres, and the essential matter in considering the merits of this Amendment proposed in another place—the real test that hon. Members ought to apply—is which scheme is best and most likely to produce the best results for the citizens of London.
  6.0 p.m.
  This House has already expressed itself once on that subject after a very full Debate The hon. Member asks what the people of London wish in the matter. He goes on to admit that he has not the slightest means of finding out what they wish. But one thing is certain—I speak as a member of the London County Council, of which body I have had the honour to be a member for several years —they have expressed their view about it. It is not so very long ago—at the L.C.C. elections of March last—that that body was elected. We know what the views of the democratically elected representatives of the people of London are on this subject, and they are entitled to be heard with respect. They are against the proposed Amendment. Everybody has sympathy with the metropolitan borough councils in losing the maternity and child welfare services which they
  1108
  have built up with such success during the last 25 years or more and for which they have just reason to be proud.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) referred to the Borough of Kensington and gave figures showing the improvements that have taken place in child welfare and the reduction in the mortality rate. My own Borough of Islington yields to none in the success it has achieved in this field. I know from my own intimate association with Islington for a great number of years what a loss it is to that council to give up these powers. It is not, unfortunately, the case that every one of the 28 boroughs in London can point to the same efficiency and the same excellent standard which has been attained in Islington, and, I have no doubt, Kensington and elsewhere. One of the troubles about this subject is that there are 28 boroughs in London of very unequal size, both as regards area and population. In the nature of things, it follows that some are not as efficient as others, although the general standard is very high. But the real question that arises on this Amendment is whether these services are now to be organised on a rational basis in London, under a scheme to be prepared by the London County Council, or whether we are going to distribute them among the 28 boroughs. That is the issue which has to be faced, regardless of sentiment and regardless of the justifiable pride which borough councils have had in their maternity and child welfare services.
  Everybody knows that the logical practical method of organising these services in London—'which is not unlike the way education services are organised, again by the London County Council, and the educational services call for just as much intimate association with the people of London as the health service—is through some eight or nine areas. I am confident that, under the scheme which the London County Council will propound in due course, many of those people, who for a long period have been intimately associated with the task of administering the child welfare and maternity centres in London, will have the same opportunity for and the same interest in carrying on the work which they have been doing in the past.
  That brings me to the last point on which the hon. and learned Member

  1109
  criticised this Bill. He asked what influence it would have on local government in London. In my last few remarks, I have dealt with the question of efficiency. I now wish to address a remark to my right hon. Friend who is going to reply. The circumstances in which we are discussing this matter today are different from the circumstances in which we discussed it when it was last before the House because, during the interval, my right hon. Friend, in a recent answer given to the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson), announced that the Reading Committee, which was concerning itself with the problem of London Government, had been relieved of its responsibilities owing, I gather, to the very limited terms of reference under which it was appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health in the Coalition Government. The Reading Committee was doomed to sterility in any event. However, in my opinion, that does not render it less necessary or less urgent that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health should take the earliest possible opportunity of dealing with the problem, not only of London government, but also, as he has already pointed out in another connection, with the problem of Greater London government. In view of the fact that that problem has to be dealt with anyhow, and will, I hope, be dealt with in the near future, the right course in considering how now to deal with these health services is, surely, not to perpetuate a system —however well it has served in the past —to which changes must inevitably come, but to deal with the health services on their merits as a whole, and to entrust them, as this House has already decided, to the local health authority for London, namely the L.C.C., relying upon the provisions which will enable those powers to be administered by areas in cooperation with representatives of the metropolitan borough councils.
  Mr. Bevan: I think the House will agree that we have had a fairly long discussion on this matter and, also, that we have heard nothing new about it. Indeed, we had been going on in very amiable mood until we started this discussion and, therefore, I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) should have introduced a note of acerbity by making references to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. We have heard those
  1110
  before. I thought he was going to think up something new, but evidently the right hon. Gentleman's irascibility has not increased his inventive genius. As I say, we have heard the same speech so often before The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite will pardon me if I am somewhat controversial, but it is they who have started it this evening.
  In the first place, what has the agreement which was reached between the metropolitan boroughs and the County Council got to do with this issue? It has nothing at all to do with it. If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has departed from the agreement, so have hon. Members opposite. If my hon. Friend is to be charged with lack of integrity because he departs from his position, I must point out that hon. Members opposite have departed from theirs. This document which I have in my hand is not the agreement reached between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs. Why is it different? Because the Bill is different. Why does my hon. Friend now take a different attitude? For the same reason—because the Bill is different. Why should hon. Members opposite say that the new text should be regarded as dishonesty on the part of my hon. Friend? Hon. Members are not thinking very clearly about this subject. They are supporting a proposition of an entirely different kind. I do not blame anybody, because it is different. It is different because the scheme now before the House with respect to the health services is radically different from the scheme that my predecessor had to put before the metropolitan boroughs and the London County Council. Therefore, hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friend have shown a reasonable clarity in adapting themselves to the different circumstances. Let us get away from that absurdity.
  Mr. Law: I do not want to add to any exacerbation there may be. Of course, the hon. Gentleman or anybody else is entitled to change his mind in altered circumstances. What I animadverted on this afternoon was not so much the fact that the hon. Gentleman had changed his mind, as the reason he gave for his change of attitude. The reason was not that he had changed his mind, but that he had not changed his mind. Therefore, on a

  1111
  previous occasion he was arguing something in which he did not believe.
  Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman, and, with respect, the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), ought to realise that the House of Commons is not a confessional. What we are expected to do at this Box or in any part of the House is to put forward what we consider to be sound reasons for the proposition that we are supporting. We are not giving testimony; we are not unburdening our souls; we are not alienists.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: We are not saved.
  Mr. Bevan: Not yet, but the hon. Gentleman need not despair. There is hope for him yet. Therefore, this attempt at probing the psychological processes of my hon. Friend has no relevance to this discussion. I would like to point out that the alteration which is proposed by the Amendment gives rise to as many anomalies as it seeks to correct. One of the difficulties facing any Minister in entrusting any task to a particular category of local authority in the present structure of local government is that anomalies are bound to exist. There are in this country some rural councils with very large urban populations. There are some urban councils with very large agricultural areas. There are ancient and proud boroughs which are hardly bigger than hamlets. Therefore, when one picks a particular category of local authority and says, "It is to that category that we shall entrust a particular function," it must inevitably follow that a whole series of anomalies will arise. It is obvious to everyone who has looked at this problem that before very long we shall have to face a further overhaul of local government structure. Let us take, for example, Harrow in the county of Middlesex. It has a population of 211,000. But that does not wring the withers of hon. Members opposite. These functions are to be entrusted to the Middlesex County Council, but nobody says a word for Harrow. Yet hon. Members are speechless with indignation about Holborn with a population of something over 22,000. With regard to the proposition which is before us at the moment, in dealing with the anomaly of having a large aggregation of population in London—
  6.15 p.m.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On a point of Order. May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in going into this? I could have made a speech embodying this point, but I apprehend that had I done so, you would have ruled me out of Order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think the Minister is in Order.
  Mr. Bevan: If hon. Members wish me to be directly pertinent, what about the City of London with a population of 4,490? I do not blame the devisers of this proposed scheme, but, because of the very nature of local government in London, they find themselves faced with exactly the same anomalies as those with which I meet in the country as a whole. By selecting the metropolitan borough as a unit to which to entrust the health services, they have the anomalous position of entrusting them to the City of London with a population of 4,490. In other words, the fault is not in us; it is in our stars. Wherever the anomalies or difficulties arise, they do not arise out of the scheme. They arise out of the fact that in selecting a particular category of local authority we are bound to have anomalies. This scheme which is before us at the moment is as open to objection on that ground alone, apart from the others, as is the general scheme itself. Therefore, I hope hon. Members will not press the point.
  Concerning accessibility of the local authority to the population, I attach the utmost importance to this point. I believe that the local authority ought to be capable of being approached by the citizens, but if, in the future, a citizen has any difficulty about his health he will go to the health centre and not to the town hall. He will get medical treatment not at the town hall, but at the health centre. He will not consult the officials at the municipal buildings. He is going where clinical facilities are available, at the health centre. Hon. Members have forgotten the health centre, which is a very essential part of these proposals. Under this proposed scheme, the metropolitan boroughs would be encouraged to have buildings of their own in which they would give certain health services, and alongside in another building the L.C.C. would provide other services. That would not only be bad administration; it

  1113
  would be bad for the citizens. They ought to be able to get their wants attended to at the same place by the same organisation; they should not have to go to one building to have their teeth photographed or X-rayed, and to another building to have them extracted. This is what hon. Gentlemen opposite call good administration. The fact is, they have not looked at this matter closely at all.
  These schemes have been carefully devised and carefully integrated, and I beg and pray of the House at this stage not to make a radical alteration like this. Frankly, I am not impressed by the concern expressed by certain institutions over the representative character of the metropolitan borough. I would be moved it the House of Commons were concerned about the representative character of the institutions to which we are entrusting these services; but when a non-elected chamber calls attention to it I feel slightly ironical. We have proceeded very far in this matter; we have made certain alterations, and I had hoped that the spirit in which those alterations had been made would have allowed us to have made far more progress than we have done in this matter. In all the circumstances, I am bound to resist it and to ask the House, if they could, to give a unanimous rejection.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hope the House is now willing to come to a decision.
  Mr. J. H. Hare: I am sorry to take up the time of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. A number of statements were made by hon. Members opposite which were all in the same tune—the tune of the necessity of rejecting this Amendment because it would be administratively impossible to accept it. I had hoped the Minister would have realised there was a certain monotony in that argument put forward by his own supporters, and I had hoped that he would have given us some human argument why this Amendment should be rejected. It is on human grounds that we suggest that the taking away of these services from the boroughs and handing them over to the L.C.C., should be opposed. Why is it that every proposal which the Government put forward is proceeded with, as long as it looks good on paper, without reference to the people whose lives will be affected by
  1114
  the proposal? More and more, in all types of legislation, we are beginning to see that from day to day—As long as a thing is tidy on paper let us proceed with it."
  This is the most human of all the matters with which we deal in this House. Take maternity and child welfare alone. To whatever political party we belong, we must agree that the administration of those services should be as personal and as intimate as possible. There is no question but that the people of London would agree with what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) has said. The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) said that in the last L.C.C. election, this issue was raised, and the people of London knew about it. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] That is not true at all.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: The hon. Member must not misquote me. I did not say anything of the kind. What I said was that the London County Council was an elected body, elected by the people of London, and that their elected representatives were at least as likely to know what the people of London wanted as the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss).
  Mr. Hare: The hon. Member definitely led the House to believe that the people of London had so recently given a mandate to their representatives, that they would have approved this action. However that may be, that again is typical of the type of argument to which we have had to listen from the other side of the House. [Laughter] I say to the hon. Members who are laughing: What is wrong with these services as we now have them? Nobody in this House has raised his voice to say that they are administered in any but an excellent way. What are we proposing to do by rejecting this Amendment? We are proposing to try out a new system, a system of which we have no previous knowledge, and we are going to abandon a system which we know works. That is, in fact, what we are going to do. Surely it is a matter of common agreement that the town hall—perhaps more especially as the result of the war—has become in England a centre to which the ordinary individual likes to go with his troubles and cares. That is a submission which I suggest is a true

  1115
  one. People know that at the town hall they will find, not only the borough officials but also their elected representatives; they can put their troubles to them, and those troubles can be dealt with in that way. [Interruption.] Again hon. Members seem to disapprove of that, but I am willing to guarantee that in their constituencies the people will echo every word I say.
  I also agreed with my hon. and learned Fried the Member for the Combined English Universities that refusal to accept the Amendment would be a grave disaster to local government. I am certain he is entirely correct in that view. I am certain that if hon. Members went to borough councils in London they would find that, irrespective of party, in their heart of hearts the councils strongly fear the result of the removal of these services to their status as boroughs, and to the service they can give to their fellow citizens. This is a mortal blow to London borough government, and that is something which cannot be laughed at, or got round. I feel the Government are making a big mistake in yielding, as they are, to the god of administrative efficiency, and failing to consider the human feelings of ordinary people.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: As I represent a London borough I propose to detain the House for a short time, in view of the fact, of which I am convinced, that the great mass of the population in all these boroughs desire to have the maternity and child welfare services carried out by the borough authorities in close association with them, easy of approach, at a place to which they are accustomed to go with their troubles, rather than having the services under the remote control of the London County Council, whose officials are completely out of touch with the people in the borough. Hon. Members opposite say, "Oh well, we are representatives of the London County Council. They come to see us." That has nothing to do with it at all. The people want to go to the borough authorities, to the authorities who administer the maternity and child welfare services. I know they would be delighted to go to the London County Council representative as well, but it is chiefly the people who administer these services whom they want to see. I endorse the very strong
  1116
  argument put forward by my hon. and right hon. Friends. I regret very much that the Government have decided to reject this Amendment. In my view, the case should be decided, not as was said by the Parliamentary Secretary, the gist of whose argument was that because of administrative difficulties—
  Mr. Key indicated dissent.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that was my impression, and I think the impression of most hon. Members. Of course, he has changed his views. I do not deny that at all.
  Mr. Key: What, again?
  6.30 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: In my opinion, that is not the basis on which this Amendment should be decided. It should be decided entirely on what procedure will render the most efficient services to the individual in the borough. There has not been a single argument put forward from the Government benches to show why the London County Council will give greater efficiency in their services than the people get at present under the borough councils. Moreover, not one word has been said to suggest that these services carried out by borough councils have not been extremely proficient. Of course, some are better than others. Can anybody suggest any service in which some people do not do things better than others? But, in general, the services have been extremely well carried out, so far as maternity and child welfare are concerned—
  Mr. Messer: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member a question? He is referring to maternity and child welfare. Does he not know that maternity and child welfare goes to the divisional executives under the Education Act?
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I am extremely sorry, but I really could not hear what the hon. Member said.
  Mr. Messer: I wanted to know, seeing that the hon. and gallant Member was referring to maternity and child welfare, whether he knows that maternity and child welfare will be dealt with by the divisional executives under the Education Act.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: That may or it may not be so, but that is not the point at all. My whole argument is that maternity and child welfare services are essentially personal services and as such should be carried out by the borough council which is in the closest personal touch with the people in the borough. It is on those grounds that I support the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will change their mind, and that the Parliamentary Secretary will change his mind, as regards this Amendment. There is one other point. I take it that it is an acknowledged fact that for really efficient administration one cannot have
  an area of more than a certain size. In this case the London County Council is to have the administration of an enormous area with millions of people in it, and it is quite impossible for the L.C.C. to carry out its administration as efficiently as the borough councils can administer the smaller areas. For these reasons I shall support this Amendment, and I very much regret that the Government should reject it.
  Question put. "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 134.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Rankin, J.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Reeves, J.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Monslow, W.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Thurtle, E.

  Montague, F.

  Robens, A.

  Tiffany, S.

  Moody, A. S.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Titterington, M. F.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Tolley, L.

  Morley, R.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Scollan, T.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Moyle, A.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Murray, J. D.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Nally, W.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Shurmer, P.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady.

  Simmons, C. J.

  West, D. G.

  O'Brien, T.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Orbach, M.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Parker, J.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Solley, L. J.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Pearson, A.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Williamson, T.

  Pearl, Capt. T. F.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Willis, E

  Perrins, W.

  Sparks, J. A

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Stamford, W.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Steele, T.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Popplewell, E.

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Woods, G. S.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Wyatt, W

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Yates, V. F.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Zilliacus, K.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Swingler S.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Symonds, A. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Randall, H. E.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and Mr. Hannan.

  Ranger, J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Maude, J. C.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Medlicott, F.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Birch, Nigel

  Haughton, S. G.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Boothby, R.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

  Bower, N.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Nicholson, G.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Hurd, A.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Carson, E.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Pickthorn, K.

  Challen, C.

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  De la Bère, R.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Digby, S. W.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Dodds-Parker A. D.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Renton, D.

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Drayson, G. B.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Ross, Sir R.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Snadden, W. M.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Gage, C.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Marples, A. E.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Teeling, William

  CLAUSE 20.—(Proposals for provision of services by local health authority.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 25, at end, insert:
  "and shall. not later than the day on which such recommendations are made, serve a copy thereof on the local health authority."
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  It imposes on those people who send comments to the Minister upon the proposals of local health authorities—those bodies will be the regional hospital boards, voluntary organisations and so on—the obligation, when they send their comments to the Minister, to serve a notice also on the local authority, not later than the day on which the recommendations are made.
  CLAUSE 23.—(Midwifery.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 36, after "with", insert:
  "Boards of Governors of teaching hospitals, Hospital Management Committees or"
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This and another Amendment enable the local health authority to make arrangements with hospitals for certified midwives.
  CLAUSE 26.—(Vaccination and immunisation.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 29, after "may", insert:
  "with the approval of the Minister."
  Mr. KeyI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This remedies an accidental omission which it was necessary to correct because ministerial approval should be given to the extension of powers for vaccination
  1122
  and immunisation to other diseases besides smallpox and diphtheria.
  CLAUSE 33.—(Arrangements for general medical services.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 16, at end, insert:
  "() The remuneration to medical practitioners undertaking to provide general medical services in pursuance of the provisions of this Act shall be fixed by the capitation method except in any cases where the Minister on the recommendation of the Medical Practices Committee considers that exceptional circumstances necessitate remuneration on a different basis."
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is a topic which has been given a good deal of publicity and concerning which we have had a number of discussions both on the Floor of the House and when the Bill was in Committee. It gives rise to a lot of misunderstanding as to what is in the mind of the Government. I resist the Amendment because it is undesirable to have in the Bill, when it becomes an Act, the method of remuneration. It was never in the National Health Insurance Acts, it has never been in any other Act, and I believe it is unduly restrictive. Indeed, I think the profession itself is not enthusiastic about having it in, because every alteration of the basis of remuneration would need the passing of an amending Act of Parliament. It would be a departure from our usual procedure to put scales and methods of remuneration into a Statute. I have heard no arguments so far, either here or anywhere else, which justify this provision. There are arguments for and against having an element of basic salary in the remuneration of the general practitioner, but I have not yet heard an argument, and I should have listened eagerly to hear one, as to why we should at this moment put it in the Bill. Perhaps I shall hear one now, but whether it will be a sound one or not is another matter.

  1123
  I suggest at the outset that it is not desirable for future negotiations with the medical profession about their remuneration to start with a statutory inhibition. In this field, as in every other when we are dealing with remuneration, we ought to be free to have as much elbow room as possible in the negotiations. It would be extremely bad, if, in the course of negotiations, a point arose on which there could be mutual agreement, but which we could not implement without an Act of Parliament. Everyone knows that, in these days of congested Parliamentary menus, it would be very difficult to get Parliamentary time. I therefore seriously suggest to hon. Members in all parts of the House that, whatever their views about having a basic element in the remuneration, they ought not to insist upon its going into the Bill, but should leave it open.
  However, I am not seeking to escape a discussion of the main issue. I am only seeking here to prevent us from being put into a statutory strait waistcoat. When we come to discuss the merits of the issue, I want to face them forthrightly. It has always been the contention of hon. Members on this side of the House that the doctor should have a certain degree of security. Remember that a doctor is starting in general practice fairly late, and that he has had a very long and expensive training. Very often, when he starts in general practice, he is already married. We are easing his burdens in one respect, because we are delivering him from the hands of the moneylender. He will no longer have to borrow money or serve long years of assistantship with a principal, before he can establish himself in a practice of his own. We have relieved him of that by abolishing the sale and purchase of practices. At the same time, we have not provided him with a positive means of livelihood. We have relieved him of the burden, but not at that stage enabled him to work.
  Therefore, it was our intention that the young general practitioner should have a certain measure of security, and that he should start off his general practice in the area where the Medical Practices Committee says he may start, and whilst he is building up his practice, building up his lists, and establishing himself in the area, he should have some remuneration by way of a salary. I do not
  1124
  accept the view that a doctor examines his patients any better if his heart is gnawed with financial anxiety. I believe that the doctor's mind should, as far as possible, be serene and unhampered by any worries. I know of no field of activity where, having struggled for a livelihood, that could have a worse effect than for a doctor and his patient. Therefore, it seems to me that the element of a basic salary in the remuneration of a doctor is justified, if only on that ground alone.
  But there are other grounds. It would reduce, to some extent, competition for patients. It has been assumed that competition is always a desirable thing, but competition for patients has been attended by undesirable elements. The build-up of panels has not always been done by methods which commend themselves to the best elements of the profession. I know of some instances, of which I have given one or two illustrations during the Committee stage, where the credulity of people has been preyed upon by the doctors giving huge prescriptions; we are still living, to some extent, in an era where people think that a large number of elements in the medicine bottle makes the medicine much better. This applies to a very small proportion of doctors, and 1 would not have it assumed that I am levelling a general charge, because the doctors as a whole have a very high standard. There are some doctors, however, who we know have built up their panels in this and other ways which are not congenial. Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that competition selects the best doctor, or that the most successful have the largest panel; it often selects, or sometimes selects, a man who has far better advertising methods.
  The third reason—and I attach some importance to it—is that the remuneration of a doctor ought to contain an element to which we can attach special inducements for special training and qualifications, inducements to take refresher courses, and for special qualifications received after the general practitioner has started. The basic salary enables that to be done quite easily, because you can add to it. It has been suggested that we should add to the capitation fee, but that would be very untidy—it would almost be impossible. If we have a basic element in salary, we have something to which we can attach additional remuneration for

  1125
  special attainments. Those are three special reasons.
  Some doctors have expressed fear that this is merely the beginning of establishing a full-time salaried service. I cannot read into the mind of any future Minister, or prophecy what may be done by future Governments, but that is not our intention. Our intention is that the main source of a doctor's remuneration shall be by capitation, and that for a number of very excellent reasons. There is an argument for having a full-time salaried service, and some of my hon. Friends believe in it. There is an argument for having full capitation, but there is no argument for having a very high basic salary and a small capitation, because the higher the basic element becomes, the more it becomes concealed capitation, because after the lists have reached the point where they absorb the basic element, the basic element from that time on is merely another form of capitation payment.
  We are unable to carry out, or we find it difficult to carry out, the recommendations of the Spens Report if we have the basic element too high, because we would not be able to achieve the level of salary which the Spens Committee recommend that some successful general practitioners should achieve. If we have too high a basic salary, obviously the capitation rate would then have to be lower, and the higher salaries could not be achieved without enormous lists, which would be larger than those to which we would agree. And so the fears of some members of the medical profession are unfounded. I repeat that it is not proposed that the basic element should be the main part of the remuneration. The main part of the remuneration will be by capitation and the basic element a smaller part. I hope that with these assurances, and for these reasons, the House will agree with me that this Amendment should be resisted, and that on this occasion I shall have the unanimous support of the House.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: The issue raised by this Amendment is one of the most important in the whole of the Bill. It was discussed in a general way, along with a number of other issues, in the course of the Second and Third Reading Debates, and it was discussed in Committee, but not at inordinate length. It has never been discussed before in the House as a separate issue on which Members could cast their votes, and I trust that Members
  1126
  will bear with me if I take a little time in dealing with the arguments in some details, although I do not propose to elaborate them. I think it is necessary that the arguments should be stated from both sides with some particularity, in view of the great importance of this topic for the whole future of medicine in this country. One of the main objections, and in some people's view the main objection, to the whole Bill is its tendency to undermine the independence of the medical profession. I do not think it will be doubted that if there is any truth in the charge, this Amendment is crucial upon that point.
  At present, a doctor depends entirely on winning and keeping the confidence of his patients. He is their servant, and he is the servant of no one else. The Government can neither harm nor benefit him in any way. But as soon as you introduce the element of salary you inevitably tend to produce Government control. Inevitably, there arises a divided loyalty on the part of the doctor. Indeed, the whole object of the basic salary, according to the Labour Party's policy, has been to get control of the individual doctor. It is with that in mind that one must examine, very particularly, this Amendment.
  7.0 p.m.
  Labour Party policy on this matter has been quite clear. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has been authorised to intimate a departure from it this evening, but, on the Second Reading of the Bill, the Lord Privy Seal stated, quite clearly, that Labour Party policy still persisted in spite of the terms of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that the party had never repealed any of their policy and that they would continue to march on in the light of that policy. Has the Minister of Health the authority of his colleagues to contradict that statement because, if not, let us see what that policy is. There are a number of citations, but let me take one. Having said, on page 12 of their Election pamphlet, that unless a doctor has a salary and a prospect of a pension which frees him from economic dependence, he cannot devote his full energy to the prevention and cure of ill-health, the statement goes on:
  "Unless the community provides that economic security it cannot direct where a doctor's work would best be used in the national interest. Only a salaried medical staff

  1127
  as part of the national health service can meet the need."
  Is that, or is it not, still Labour Party policy? If it is, we must regard this Amendment in the light of that fact. The Minister has given us calming assurances, and no doubt he will do his best so long as he remains Minister, but what he has said will have no value in regard to any other Minister unless we are assured that Labour Party policy has been radically altered in the last three or four months.
  This Bill contains no limitation on the proportion of remuneration which is to be by way of salary. Therefore, if the House passes the Bill in the shape in which it would be if this Amendment were rejected the Government would have a free hand to go ahead and make alterations, as time goes on, to bring things nearer to their official policy. The right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have shown in our Debates that they have realised the unwisdom of their party's policy. Not merely have they stated that the medical profession is not yet ripe for its introduction, but each has stated that their party's policy is inconsistent with the free choice of doctors. This Bill is admittedly a compromise. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that there had been an ingenious compromise on this matter, but the compromise is between him and his followers, he knowing something and they knowing very little. It is clear that they are at variance on this point and that, again, we must bear in mind in considering whether the Bill can be left in the shape in which it was when it left this House.
  Let us look at the arguments for taking out these words. The arguments for a basic salary were only two. The first was that there are a number of scattered areas where men could not make a reasonable livelihood merely off capitation fees. We all agree. Nobody suggests that there should not be a salary in that case. The second argument was that, in the case of young men, a certain degree of security was required. I am much more dubious about that. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that a great number of young men ought to begin as assistants, and proceed to be partners. Therefore, the argument about security does not apply in those cases; at least, its application is very small. We have been told that there are areas in the country which
  1128
  are seriously under-doctored. Now that everybody will be subject of a capitation fee, if there is such an area there will be no difficulty in a young man, who feels he requires immediate financial gain, acquiring a practice there very quickly. If an area is seriously under-doctored any competent person who goes there will get a practice in next to no time. Therefore, there is no argument about the young man. But even supposing that I am wrong in that, young men are a small proportion of the medical profession, and so are doctors in scattered areas. We have heard no argument why the great majority of general practitioners who have established themselves in normal areas should have a salary. There has been no argument at all, except party policy.
  We were told today two further points which I do not think were brought out earlier. First, that special qualifications ought to be specially recognised. I hold no strong view about that. It would be easy to provide that without a general basic salary anyone who has particular degrees or qualifications should be entitled to an extra £50 or £100, or whatever it may be.
  Mr. Bevan: That would be at once a fixed amount.
  Mr. Reid: We on this side have never said that in no circumstances ought a doctor to have a fixed payment. We agree that he ought to have if he is in a scattered area. The right hon. Gentleman may agree that there ought to be a fixed payment of a small amount for special qualifications. That is a matter which does not affect a large proportion of the profession, and would not have the effect, on the men of the profession as a whole, that a basic salary would have.
  Then, we are told that it reduces competition. I do not see how that squares with the right hon. Gentleman's next point, that the basic salary is to be comparatively small and the capitation fee is to be comparatively large, because —taking the right hon. Gentleman's view of certain members of the medical profession, which I am not endorsing, but which I accept just now for the purpose of the argument—so long as the capitation fee remains substantial, the motive for competition remains, whether you have a basic salary added or not. Therefore, it seems to me that if the right hon. Gentleman is in earnest in his argument

  1129
  about competition—and I know that that appeals to many hon. Members opposite —that points directly to the basic salary becoming very soon a major part of the doctors' remuneration, otherwise the competition argument is not made out. What the right hon. Gentleman has said about competition this afternoon, certainly sharpens my suspicious that this small basic salary will be a very temporary matter if the party opposite remain in power, and it will not be long before the right hon. Gentleman's scruples, based upon a certain amount of knowledge which he has acquired, are brushed aside, and we have the party policy in full progress again.
  How is this salary to work? We are told that the salary is to be sufficient to produce "a serene mind" among practitioners. Does that mean that the salary will be paid to all doctors who have more than a very small minimum number of patients? With regard to the young doctor, that minimum must be very small if the right hon. Gentleman's object is to be achieved. I do not know and I think that we have not heard about that, except, I believe, that at one stage the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to take the view that some comparatively substantial minimum number of patients on the list would be required before any saalry was paid. Of course, if he does not take that view, the Government will be paying a salary for nothing. As he very well realises, and as he has told us in these Debates: If one pays a substantial salary, one must couple with that power to direct unwilling patients to that doctor. The Government are not going to pay a substantial salary of £500 or £600 a year to a man who has only 200 or 300 patients. Therefore, I say that they must put the minimum number of patients fairly high, if the basic salary is to be fairly high, or pay away money to people who do not deserve it.
  Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman uses words that may be misinterpreted. I do not recollect having said that "unwilling patients would be directed to a doctor." I think that I must ask him to quote my words or withdraw his statement.
  Mr. Reid: I think that that is the necessary implication. I am not professing to quote the right hon. Gentleman's exact words. The first thing that happened
  1130
  was that the Parliamentary Secretary made it perfectly clear that the free choice of a doctor was inconsistent with a full-salaried service. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman endorsed that in Committee, and said the same thing, though not quite so emphatically. He said:
  "I found it very difficult to reconcile the free choice of doctor with the complete abolition of capitation." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C; 18th June, 1946, col. 595-6.1]
  Mr. Bevan: That is not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said just now. What he said was that I myself recognised that if the basic salary was substantial—in other words, there is still capitation—I would find it necessary to direct unwilling patients to particular doctors. I never said that. It really is a little lawyer's logic, at the moment, to twist my words.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Reid: Let us get this matter straight. Take first the position in which it is all salary and no capitation. The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, admitted that, if one has a service in which it is all salary and no capitation, it necessarily follows that one must have power to direct unwilling patients to a doctor who does not attract them. Certainly, the Parliamentary Secretary said that in so many words, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman endorsed it. If he says "No", then I will listen to him. If one gets to the stage when the basic salary is the greater part, and the capitation is only a small proportion of the total earnings, the same result must necessarily follow. If one pays a basic salary of £500 or £600, one must ensure that the doctor has a reasonable number of patients. One must, therefore, say to the doctor, "Unless you attract 500 or 600 patients, or whatever is the minimum, you will not get any salary at all "—in which case the security argument is completely gone—or else you say, "I cannot afford to pay a doctor £600 a year if he only attracts 200 patients, and, therefore, I must send him some more patients." There seems to be a complete dilemma. [Laughter.] I have often noticed that when an argument is getting difficult for hon. Members opposite, their uniform reaction is to laugh. I know how well drilled they are, and I cannot help feeling that they have had some instruction from a laughter leader as distinct from a cheer leader.

  1131
  Let me restate the position. Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that it is a difficult argument. Supposing one says, "I am going to pay a doctor a minimum basic salary of £600 a year," one or other of two things necessarily follows: Either one says, "I will only pay £600 a year to a doctor who has, say, 600 patients on his panel," or one must say, "I will pay it to all doctors who are in the scheme; but, of course, the Government cannot afford to pay, unless they have 600 patients on the panel, and, therefore, if a doctor has only attracted 300, we will send a further 300." No Government can say, "We will pay a large basic salary for a small panel of patients."
  Mr. Robens: In the teaching profession, teachers are not paid on the basis of the number of scholars they have in their class.
  Mr. Reid: I have always understood that scholars have very little choice of teacher.
  Mr. Robens: They have a choice of school.
  Dr. Segal: If a doctor found himself being paid a basic salary with only 200 or 300 patients, would not that area automatically be an over-doctored area, which is one of the things this Bill seeks to prevent?
  Mr. Reid: Of course not, because there are many people who say, "I would rather have no doctor than have Doctor X." It does not in the least follow that because one doctor in an area is unable to attract patients, the area is under-doctored or over-doctored. One finds in all areas doctors who either are not able or do not care to trouble to attract a large number of patients. What will happen, of course, is that if the right hon. Gentleman has any basic salary of any great magnitude as a proportion, he will have to deal both with doctors who are unable to attract, and with doctors who do not want to attract, a very large number of patients. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman realises quite clearly that the scheme will be completely unworkable unless the basic salary is kept down to a very small sum, but his followers do not realise that. What I am apprehensive about—and I am sure a great many Members of the medical profession are appre-
  1132
  hensive about it—is that once the door is opened and a start is made with a small salary, it will not be long before the salary begins to mount, and then the damage will be done. If one could be certain that the salary would never exceed £100 or £200 a year, it might be all right. That might not do much harm, although it would not do any good. It would not give the security for which the right hon. Gentleman is looking. All these arguments about security and competition necessarily imply ultimately a large salary, and it is with that in view I hesitate to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurances as likely to cover more than his own tenure of office.
  The argument has been put forward that at present a certain number of doctors are in receipt of salary and no harm is done, and therefore, why should not all doctors be in receipt of substantial salaries? I believe there is such a thing as a general atmosphere in a profession. Those who enter a profession and advance in it are immersed and become steeped in that atmosphere. The atmosphere depends to a very large extent on the conditions in which the large majority of members of the profession do their work. At present, the large majority of members of the medical profession are free and independent, and as a result the atmosphere in the medical profession, as far as I can judge it, is an atmosphere of freedom and independence, in spite of the fact that a number of doctors have a secure, salaried and pensionable job. That does not affect the general feeling in the profession.
  However, as soon as the great majority in the profession are put on a salary, I believe that atmosphere will change fairly rapidly, and I believe it will change very much for the worse. I do not think it is in the interests, and certainly it is not according to the wishes, of the doctors that the atmosphere or the conditions should so change. But I am much more concerned about the patients. I believe that the result of any change of atmosphere of this kind will be a most serious diminution in the quality of the services which the doctors afford, not because they will deliberately want to scamp their services in any way, but because those services depend upon what is at the back of the minds of the people rendering them. If a man is free and independent, and regards the patient as the person to whom alone his loyalty is owed, a different

  1133
  quality of service will be offered from that offered by a man who is brought up in a different atmosphere. It is with that in view as the likely ultimate result of rejecting this Amendment that I ask the House to support the Amendment.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, in asking the House to disagree with the Lords in this Amendment, based his case largely on the contention that the Amendment would put him in a strait waistcoat. There is something less in the way of clothing than a strait waistcoat. If the Bill goes through without the Amendment, not only will the right hon. Gentleman have no strait waistcoat; he will have no clothes of any sort, because the Bill as drafted is entirely silent on the method of remuneration of doctors, and it will be open to the Executive Councils, subject to regulations made by the Minister, to employ any method of regulation whatever. All that the Amendment does is to lay down that the capitation method is to be employed except in exceptional circumstances. The Amendment does not preclude payment by way of salary. It simply lays down the general principle that capitation is to be preferred, and unless there are special circumstances, capitation only is to be used.
  I submit that the principle raised by the Amendment is one of the utmost importance. It is important not only in connection with this Measure and doctors; it has the widest possible importance to all branches of life. The principle involved concerns not only doctors: it concerns men and women of all professions who serve the public. If the general principle is to be agreed that a basic salary is desirable for doctors, then precisely that principle and precisely the same arguments must be accepted in regard to all other professions, and certainly those that serve the public as a whole. Surely, it is the duty of Parliament, when changing policy in the way in which this Bill does, to give some guidance to the Minister, who will have to carry out the policy, as to the extent to which Parliament is prepared to go in a matter of this great importance. If this Amendment to rejected, it will be left in the hands of the Minister to decide whether doctors are to be paid wholly by piece work or wholly by time work, or by some combination of the two.
  1134
  I would most willingly accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said as regards his own intentions and those of the Government in this matter. I am quite certain that he is sincere and that, as long as he occupies the office of Minister of Health, he will strive to see that his undertakings are carried out, but if the Amendment is not inserted in the Bill, the road will be left wide open, without any impediment, for a gradual and steady change to be made from the capitation to the salary method of remuneration. I do not believe that any hon. Member has any doubt that if we leave that road open, we shall inevitably move steadily from capitation to salary. Indeed, the rejection of the Amendment is supported by hon. Members opposite, who remain, very wisely, silent, because if they got up and had to argue, they would argue for the method of salary as a whole. I think I shall be in Order in quoting what was said in another place by the Lord Chancellor regarding the Government's policy in this matter. In the Third Reading Debate in another place, the case for the Government was based by the Lord Chancellor on the evil of a few doctors competing for patients by lax certification. Indeed, that case has been put here again by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister. In another place the Lord Chancellor said:
  "If you had abolished this per capita payment altogether and made it a straight out and out salary, of course that temptation—"
  that is to say the temptation to compete for patients—
  "would have gone. I do not for a moment suggest that.
  It is true that the Government may be sincere in not suggesting the out and out abolition of capitation and the introduction of a whole-time salary, but it is quite certain to my mind that if this House lays it down as a general principle that the Minister has power to provide by regulation that all doctors shall be wholly paid by salary, that must be ultimately what occurs. After all, the policy in this matter will be worked out at the Ministry of Health. There will be constant pressure on the part of that Department to encourage and enlarge the salary element in remuneration. From the point of view of the civil servant the salary has everything to commend it, and I am certain that the Minister will constantly find pressure being put upon him from his own Department to enlarge,

  1135
  vary and encourage the salary element in the doctor's remuneration. I believe that if we once introduced the salary element it would be increasingly popular with doctors themselves. I know that that is not so at the present time but, after all, as the right hon. Gentleman has said in the course of his speech, security is by no means a bad thing to have. Although I fully recognise the right of some Members of this House to speak more feelingly on the subject of the absence of security than myself, I can nevertheless say without fear of contradiction that while security may be a good thing it is also a terrible opiate. If once we begin to introduce this security element, we shall have a demand for more and more of it until the whole thing is security, and the whole profession a State salaried service.
  Dr. Morgan: What is wrong with that?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It will require a very strong Minister indeed to resist the combined tendency of his own Department and of the medical profession both of whom will, I am certain, continue to want an increase in the salary element once it is let in. Although the present Minister may be well able to look after himself in resisting that sort of pressure, I have grave doubts whether that resistance will be kept up in the period of years and with the constant changes of Minister—whether drawn from that side of the House or this—
  Dr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is arguing as if a salaried service would lead —as one hon. Member has suggested—to a great deterioration of medical practice and in the relations between the doctor and the patient. If this is so, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is true now of all those medical officers who are paid full time salaries in various institutions, both voluntary and local authority—the Indian medical service, the Colonial medical service, local government employees and so on, especially, that is, in voluntary hospitals?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am obliged for that interruption. The answer is that there are no grades of general practitioners in this country, and for my part I do not see how one could introduce them. Secondly, I believe that, with many exceptions, the doctors in ordinary general practice in this country are on the whole better than those
  1136
  one finds in salaried positions. There are many notable exceptions, but 1 am considering the whole of each section and my own belief is that the private practitioner comes out well ahead on average.
  Dr. Morgan rose—
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: There is a third point in answer to the hon. Gentleman's interruption. In order not to take up too much time I have not argued against the general principle of a full time salaried service, and I take it from the Minister's statement that he is as strongly opposed to that as I am. I think, however, that the interruption coming from behind the right hon. Gentleman shows very clearly indeed the kind of pressure that is going to be upon him by his own supporters if once Parliament lets that kind of thing in.
  I would conclude my remarks by saying that I certainly would not wish the House to tie up the right hon. Gentleman in a strait waistcoat. He is going to have a very difficult time indeed and I have every sympathy with his desire for a great deal of flexibility. On the other hand, where a matter of first class importance such as this is raised, it is the duty of Parliament to indicate in the Measure which introduces the change of principle how far they think that change should be allowed to go. We ought not to give carte blanche to a Government Department to change overnight, if it wishes, the basis of pay of the medical profession as a whole from a capitation to a salary basis. Unless we have an Amendment of this kind in the Bill we are giving that completely free hand, and leaving the matter entirely at large, and I believe that that is an abrogation of our duty as the House of Commons.
  Mr. Gage: I should like to say a word about the difference in effect upon the standard of the medical profession of a basic salary and a capitation fee respectively. I am quite certain that for medical practitioners who are practising today it will not make the slightest difference to the standard of their services whether they are paid a private fee, a capitation fee, a salary, or even if they are not paid at all. I think they will continue to give patients exactly the same services that they always have. That is, after all, the tradition of their profession. But when one considers this matter one has to envisage the position

  1137
  as it will be in 40 years' time, and I feel strongly that if an element of salary is introduced into a profession which, up to now, has always depended for its remuneration on the services which it has performed, that will result in a lowering of the standards. There are many things that attract people into the medical profession, and I do not think that this very important one should be ignored—that many good men are attracted to a profession where they feel they will obtain reward for their industry and where idleness is punished. There are, of course, people who prefer salary and the possibility of promotion over a period of years, but they are not normally the type of person from which the medical profession —indeed my own profession—obtains its best recruits.
  One can, of course, give examples. In the early part of 1939, it was my misfortune to become a patient. I make no apology for giving such of my experience as may be interesting, particularly as almost every hon. Member who has spoken has said that the views of the patients should be treated with the utmost sympathy. Heaven knows, if the intentions of all hon. Members in that respect were to be carried into effect, there would be very little that the unfortunate patient could do except to fold his hands and expire. I was a patient when I came into my first contact with the Army Medical Service as a very humble member of the Army. As we sat about, shivering and waiting for our medical inspection—the Army had no idea of the health centres of the right hon. Gentleman—the matter that was canvassed among us was on these lines: Is the medical officer who is coming to see us a regular member of the R.A.M.C. or is he—we were irreverent enough to say —a proper doctor who was coming in from outside? It was noticeable throughout the Army that the confidence given to the doctor who came into the Army from outside was much greater than was accorded to the regular R.A.M.C. doctor.
  One might have been quite wrong in that attitude. When I got to know the Service better I found very many admirable and devoted officers in the R.A.M.C. Nevertheless, one must say that the general confidence of patients—we were all patients then—was not to give nearly so much confidence to the doctors of
  1138
  the salaried service as it was to doctors who came from outside. There was no getting away from it. It is no use trying to escape that fact, which was the common experience of almost everyone in the Army. I feel that if salary is imported, even though it is only a part-time salary, there will be a falling off of public confidence in the medical profession and eventually there will be a falling off in the standards of the profession.
  The argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite, so far as I can understand it, in favour of the salary is that you must give to young men coming into the profession a measure of security. It was my fortune when I started reading for the Bar to live in rooms in company with four medical students, also young men at the outset of their profession, and I got to know them quite well. They were all impecunious, but not one of them worried about questions of security once they were qualified. They were naturally unsettled while they were unqualified and earned nothing at all, but they were all encouraged by the knowledge that once they were qualified they could stand on their own feet.
  It is from that type of young man that the medical profession has drawn its members. It will be a sorry day for that profession when young men come into it to seek security. The medical profession has many great things to offer, integrity, high standards and ideals—but it does not offer at present a sheltered and secure life. I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that in that fact lies its strength. If the Minister gives it security he may take away from it something which is far more valuable, and that is its exceedingly high standards.
  7.45 p.m.
  Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I am sorry that the Government have decided not to agree with the Lords in this Amendment. I think there is no doubt that the capitation fee system is much better than the payment of a salary. In isolated areas, where the population is too small for the doctor to be properly remunerated on a capitation basis, possibly there might be a case for salary, as in other special cases. I am sure that the majority of members of the medical profession would prefer a capitation system. It is to their credit that they prefer it. It would be easy for them to accept a salary, which would give them a

  1139
  much easier life and much more security. It would abolish all competition and the doctors would be well paid. Whatever the figure was, it would be a fixed salary or emolument, and the doctors could do as much or as little as they liked. It would be very difficult for any Government to turn any of them out. If a doctor is not entirely conscientious, it is not impossible for him to give the impression that he is conscientious. Which profession can do that better than the medical profession?
  The personal interest which exists in the relationship between doctor and patient cannot be taken away. It is no use for any Socialist doctrine or theory to try to abolish fundamental laws of human nature relating to personal interest. Hon. Members have asked what about doctors who are salaried today. I am not casting any reflection upon medical officers of health or doctors in any of the Services, but I must say that in the course of their lives the personal element does not enter into it to the same degree as it does between a sick individual in his own house and his medical attendant. I think it has been proved that the list built up by a doctor under the capitation fee system is a reflection of his ability. I do not doubt that some doctors are able to achieve this result by their very good bedside manner. Others do it by personality although their knowledge, academic and practical, might not be quite so strong or well developed as in other individuals who may have much smaller lists. The point is—and it is the foundation of the whole matter—that the man who builds up a successful list on which he gets capitation fees does so on a basis of confidence.
  That is the very basis on which a person expects to get well. An individual cannot get well so easily in the majority of cases unless he has confidence in the doctor who is looking after him. A patient has confidence in the doctor who puts him on his list. That medical man is paid individually for that person, and no amount of doctrine—I do not care if this Government were in office for 20 years in succession—will alter that. But one day the Government will be altered. If all doctors are paid by salary, what will happen is that we shall get a dull uniformity of service which will take all the
  1140
  glamour out of the profession, and if we take all the glamour out of the profession, we shall get only dull people in it. Doctors of that kind will make one worse instead of better. We want to get some colour and picturesqueness in a doctor. We all know large numbers of medical men who have most brilliant academic qualifications and yet their patients have no confidence in them at all, not because of their lack of knowledge but because they lack the capacity to inspire confidence.
  Mr. Sparks: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether that doctor, if he is paid a capitation fee, will take more interest and inspire more confidence in the patient than if he were in receipt of a salary?
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: Of course he will. Everybody acquainted with the medical profession knows that. The doctor will have a much more personal interest in his list—
  Mr. Messer: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? This is a very important matter. Does he mean that the general body of the public have no confidence in the hospitals which are staffed by salaried doctors?
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: No, my general argument was in the main that those concerned in branches of public service like medical officers of health, do not come into the same contact or intimacy with the patient.
  Mr. Gallacher: The more money is offered to them, the more confidence there is.
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: If the capitation system is adopted in the main, with a proviso that the salary can be introduced in certain special instances, the medical profession will be much more inclined to look favourably at this scheme, not because some of them are likely to make any more money out of it, but because it will give that element of competition which is vital if one is to make a success of any health scheme in this country. The salary basis should be abolished because it reduces the whole thing to a dull level of uniformity, as a result of which the profession loses the colour and characteristics which are the foundation of medicine.
  I am sorry that I did not hear the arguments of the Minister at the beginning of

  1141
  the discussion on this Amendment, but I understand that his main argument was much the same as that which he used in Committee—that by providing a salary, security will be given to young men coming into the profession. I do not think there is any fear on that score, because for many years the supply of doctors will be much less than the demand. Not one young medical practitioner who has left the Services or the colleges or universities, need have any fear that in this country, for many years, he will not be fully employed at a fair remuneration.
  Dr. Morgan: I did not want to intervene because I think the whole discussion is a sheer waste of time and is partly the result of the obstructive tactics adopted by the other side, but certain things which have been said from the medical point of view need to be answered. The Amendment as proposed seeks to insert in the Bill provision that doctors giving service under this Act shall be paid by capitation fee and in no other way—[Hon. MEMBERS: "No."]—with certain exceptions. There was also the Minister's assurance that he will pay them partly by basic salary and partly by capitation fee. The suggestion behind the Amendment is that the payment should be by means of capitation fee—
  Mr. Willink: The Minister said so himself.
  Dr. Morgan: What does that mean? Even if the Minister says it, may I not state my own case? The right hon. and learned Gentleman is capable of stating his own case later on. The hon. Member who spoke last said that if doctors were paid by salary and not by capitation fee there would be disadvantages associated with any form of medical service and that the relationship between doctor and patient, the giving of certificates, diagnosis and other treatment would be hampered by the fact that the doctor was paid by salary. Is that the case in the Indian Medical Service and the Colonial Medical Service and in the laboratories of this country where salaries are paid?
  Commander Galbraith: What are the conditions in the Colonies and India? Would any doctor ever receive an adequate salary in some of the Colonies on the basis of capitation fees?
  Dr. Morgan: I thought that a human being was a human being no matter where he lived. A doctor should give him the same attention no matter whether he lived in the Colonies, in India, in Timbuktoo, in Great Britain or in Tredegar—
  Sir H. Morris-Jones: The hon. Gentleman asked a question in regard to the Indian Medical Service. Is he aware that in referring to that service he is dealing with a largely disciplined service? Surely, he is not suggesting that the people of this country should be under a rigid discipline as the result of this scheme?
  Dr. Morgan: I deny the thesis that we are dealing with a disciplined service. The ordinary Indian receiving attention from the Indian Medical Service is not under discipline. The ordinary Colonial receiving attention from the Colonial Medical Service is not under discipline. To come to this country, what about the doctors in the voluntary hospitals and assistants in general practice who are paid whole-time salaries by general practitioners? Are they rendering a bad service? Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the doctors in the prison service, the police service and all these other services are rendering bad service? One minute it is said that it is necessary to make these payments by capitation fee because the doctors will otherwise be tempted to indulge in lax certification, and then hon. Gentlemen opposite prophesy with a whole series of jeremiads that if a man is paid a salary for his work his service to his patient will not be as good just because of that fact.
  8.0 p.m.
  Is that the way the insurance companies pay their doctors to do work—to give reports deliberately against the medical interests of the man who is fighting for his workman's compensation? Is it argued that the industrial medical officers of insurance firms do not do an adequate job? The doctor does his job if his, heart is in his work. If that is his line, the doctor will do his job, by comparison with other professions, as well as his human nature will allow him and he will do it better, in my opinion, if he is paid a salary and knows exactly where he is, than if he has to indulge in all sorts of little tricks in order to get his patients to come to him, patients who do not know the value of

  1143
  real medical service and real medical skill. The whole idea of the argument that a man who is paid a salary necessarily loses contact with his patient is perfectly ridiculous. The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) referred to the R.A.M.C. Has he ever heard of Manson, of Ross, and the brilliant work which the American Army Medical Service did in clearing the Panama Canal of yellow fever? Did they lose any of their skill by being in a full salaried service? I have worked in every branch of medicine, not only in general practice, and I worked temporarily in the last war for the R.A.M.C. I know that in the R.A.M.C. we gave as fine and devoted service as any general practitioner.
  Mr. Gage: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but of course I did not put it in that way. I said that when I got to know the R.A.M.C. better, I realised that there were many outstanding people in the Service. My argument was that, as private soldiers, when we came under the R.A.M.C. we had not the same confidence in the regular R.A.M.C. officer as we had in the private doctor. Anyone who has been in the Army knows that to be the fact.
  Mr. Messer: The hon. Member is a victim of ignorance then.
  Dr. Morgan: Of course medical men do different types of work, and the R.A.M.C. regular officer tends to do administrative work, but I am talking about the man who comes in direct contact with the patient. The whole theme of the arguments coming from the other side is that if a man is paid a salary in any service, under any conditions, he will not be so public spirited in his work as he would be if he received a capitation fee. That I want to deny. The whole argument is thoroughly ridiculous and is not meant to be constructive. No one has ever yet put up a decent case that a man will do better work for his patients if he is paid a capitation fee instead of being paid a regular salary, especially in a good service with superannuation and study leave and foreign study leave as well. Let us consider this Bill with good will and benevolence. It will need all our assistance. Under the present system the people of this country have a chaotic service, an uncoordinated service. This well thought out, brilliant Bill is deserving of every support and assistance from every politician in this
  1144
  House. Instead of frittering away our time on puny points, let us get down to the bedrock of the medical service itself, which we hope will be of benefit to every citizen in this country.
  Mr. Marlowe: I rather resent the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) suggesting that if we make suggestions to improve this Bill, we are necessarily being obstructive. Considering that the germ of this Bill was born in the Coalition Government, in which this party was in a majority, it seems fanciful to suggest that we are trying to obstruct it. We are putting forward ideas which we believe would improve the Bill. The hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted to tend more and more towards a salary, and less and less towards capitation. That entirely confirms what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid), that that would be the inevitable result of the present Government scheme—that we would move further and further towards a salary.
  I think the hon. Member for Rochdale completely misunderstood the argument when he put forward examples of those doctors who are now on a salary basis. It is agreed, of course, that many of them do good work, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) dealt with that. It has been pointed out that they do so at the moment, but the more you tend towards salary, the more you alter the profession and lower its standards. All experience has shown that a salary is an inappropriate basis for a professional man. The spur of competition is what makes for success in a profession, and where all are equal, and on the same basis of salary, that competition disappears. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health referred to the question of security for the young practitioner. The right hon. Gentleman has never been in a profession, but I can assure him that the greatest road to success in a profession is not to have security when you are young and when you start.
  Mr. Janner: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman forgive me for interrupting? I want to ask only one question out of curiosity and that is, whether the highest profession in this land, the profession of judge, is made less worthy by the fact that he accepts a salary.
  Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman is really taking an absurd example—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] A judge is not a professional man at all.
  Mr. Janner: Oh, is he not?
  Mr. Marlowe: To suggest that a judge is engaged in a profession, is really quite absurd.
  Dr. Morgan: Surely he does professional work?
  Mr. Marlowe: I do not suggest, for instance, that a Cabinet Minister, who receives the same salary, is a professional man.
  Mr. Edward Evans: What about the Church?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir R. Young): I think we had better get back to the Bill.
  Mr. Marlowe: I agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The point I was making when I was interrupted was on the question of security for the young man. I think the Minister of Health is on the wrong path altogether if he thinks that it is necessary to provide security to attract the right type of young man into the profession. The type of man required in any profession is the man who is prepared to undergo hardship in his youth and make his mark by his own personality, ability and individuality. The more you tend towards a salary, the more you tend to attract, not the type that will adventure and will do his best in order to achieve success in his profession—and thereby do best for the profession—but the type that is looking for security and a comfortable life, and that is quite the wrong type for any profession.
  Dr. Segal: I must apologise for intervening in this Debate at this somewhat late hour, but certain points have been raised by hon. Members opposite which I feel call for an answer. The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) said that insecurity is an incentive. I think he fails to realise that there are many doctors who are born into this world in a state of security. Very often these are the doctors who are able to specialise and achieve the highest positions in the medical profession. Because they happen to be born of wealthy parents, that does not necessarily mean that they are the best fitted. It means they have opportunities of specialis
  1146
  ing after they qualify. Let us admit that some are born into security, and are often the least deserving elements in the community. What the Bill seeks to do is to make sure that some of the deserving elements of the community shall not be deprived of rendering their services in the field of medicine because of lack of security. What I hope the Bill will achieve, ultimately, is that whereas many doctors when they qualify have to spend years and years in the drudgery of serving as assistants and locum tenons they will be much better qualified to go on and specialise. I know of many instances in which this has happened. In my own case, I had to go immediately as an assistant as soon as I qualified in order to pay for my diploma of qualification, and such instances could be multiplied of people who are far more deserving to render service to the community in the field of medicine.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) asked why we should attach so much importance to the younger elements within the profession. He said that, after all, young men are only a small proportion of the total in the profession. That is true now but they will form by far the majority of the profession in 10 or 20 years' time. Because we want to look ahead and to create a medical service worthy, in the fullest sense, of the community, and of the art and practice of medicine, we mean to get the best elements in our community and to give them every opportunity to develop their skill. Apparently the Opposition are agreed on the principle of fixed payment as part of remuneration but they dispute what proportion of remuneration shall consist of basic salary as distinct from capitation fee. The right hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) shakes his head, but apparently from the trend of the Debate the Opposition are opposed root and branch to the whole principle of a basic salary. We are in favour of the principle of basic salary because we believe that, to some extent, it will assist in laying less emphasis on the commercialisation of medicine and tend to emphasise the pure art and science of medicine, so that the doctor will be able to throw himself heart and soul into his profession without having his attention distracted by day to day financial worries.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead spoke about a free and inde-

  1147
  pendent profession "as it exists today." I very much doubt if that is so. Many of our youngsters now in elementary and secondary schools long to go into the medical profession, but, because of the enormous costs of qualifying today—at least £1,500—many of those who would be the best doctors are denied an opportunity of qualifying. I urge on the Minister that the necessary corollary to his standing by this principle of the basic salary, is to ensure that the State will make provision for those students best qualified to enter the medical profession, to see that they can not only qualify as doctors but that they will have the opportunity after qualification of going into post graduate work, doing research and developing their faculties to the utmost possible extent to the benefit of medicine, and to the benefit of the community.
  8.15 p.m.
  Why, then, do we on this side of the House support the principle of a basic salary? The hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) says, "Of course, a doctor must think in terms of what salary he is to receive." I refute that suggestion as emphatically as I can. The hon. Member himself knows of innumerable instances in which a doctor is summoned to a street accident, and renders the best service he can to a patient who may not be in a position to reward him at all. He knows in his own case how often he has rendered service to Members of the Opposition, who may have needed assistance, without any question of whether he was paid on a capitation basis. In fact, as long as he has sat in this House, I believe he has been paid a basic salary. I believe in the principle of a basic salary because I am convinced that, through it, the quality of our doctors will be improved. I believe it is a principle which is fundamental to this Bill, and I sincerely hope not only that the Minister will not yield, if it comes to a Division, but that he will assert this point as strongly as he can, when it comes to negotiating with the medical profession, in order to secure as large a proportion of remuneration through a basic salary as he can.
  What do we hope this principle will ultimately achieve? First we hope that ultimately it will prevent the farming of practices to assistants. Secondly, we hope that it will abolish the buying and selling
  1148
  of practices. On the other hand, what do we hope that this basic principle will not achieve? We hope that it will in no way damp the spirit of initiative and adventure in the medical profession. We hope that adequate incentives will be provided to every doctor to develop his qualities to the fullest possible extent, but we must make sure that these incentives which the Bill lays down will be incentives which are fully deserved, that will not be acquired on the basis of the doctor's commercial instincts, but will be gained on the actual qualifications of the doctor himself. We hope that this principle will not allow a doctor with capital to cash in on the patients in this country, and we hope, furthermore, that the acceptance of this basic principle will especially not allow the moneylender to cash in on the young doctor's financial difficulties.
  It may be said, and it has been asserted during various stages of this Bill, that fully 95 per cent. of the medical profession are totally opposed to this principle of a basic salary. All of us will remember that exactly the same situation happened in 1911. Then the doctors were actually opposed to the principle of the capitation fee. Now we find that they have come round to that principle. Not only have they done so, but they actually want to extend it to cover not only insured persons but the dependants of insured persons. Just as the doctors now realise how it was to their advantage to come into the National Health Insurance scheme, and accept the capitation fee, so I am absolutely convinced that in years to come the medical profession as a whole will come round to the view that it was in their own interests and in the interests of medicine itself that they should come round to this principle of a basic salary as part of their remuneration.
  I hope that in this Bill we shall be able to combine all the best elements of Service medicine without its obvious disadvantages. The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) spoke of how much greater was the confidence he felt during his Army service when he was attended by a doctor who was not a regular Army doctor. It is a matter of one's own personal inclination. I would like to ask him when he was being attended during his Army service by a temporary doctor, did he ask that doctor whether he had been paid on a capitation basis in civilian life or on a basic salary? Many of the

  1149
  finest temporary doctors we had in the Services were people who were accepting full time salary from hospitals. Many of them formed the finest elements in medical service during the war in the fields of both surgery and medicine. I hope this Bill will achieve the synthesis of all the best elements in service medical practice with all the best elements of medical initiative, originality and research in civilian practice combining the advantages of the one with those of the other. Finally, I believe it will be in the best interests of the people of this country that the money motive in our profession should become less and less insistent and that much more emphasis should tend to be laid on the art and practice of the science of medicine itself.
  Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I do not wish to detain the House for many minutes, but, having taken part in all the stages of this Bill, I did not—rather, I suspect, like the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan)—want to let this last battle go by without entering into the fray for a few moments. This question of the remuneration of general practitioners is one of the most controversial and—let us face the fact—one of the most suspect parts of the whole of this Bill. Unfortunately, we can only argue on general grounds because, as the Minister said, we do not know the rate of remuneration that will be paid, and the ratio as between salary and payment of capitation fees. I feel that on an important question like this the House should give some general direction of their intention. I did not agree when the Minister said that we should not put whatever the tribunal is that decides this matter into a straitjacket. This House should make its mind known on a question of this nature and give a general direction. On general grounds possibly this is the old political fight between those like the hon. Member for Preston (Dr. Segal) who believe that the greatest blessing a Government can confer on doctors or mankind is that of security and those who believe that the greatest blessing is that of freedom. Unfortunately, we always find that the people usually want both. That is something which it is very difficult for Parliament to provide. No doubt that is the reason why the people usually are dissatisfied with whatever Government is in power.
  1150
  There is no question but that we all agree that a basic salary, or an element of basic salary, gives a greater measure of security but in accepting even a small element of security the medical profession or the general practitioner gives up some part of his independence.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Why?
  Lord Willoughby de Eresby: The hon. Member asks why. One would have thought that one would not have had to explain to hon. Members opposite the difference between payment on results and payment for fixed hours on a fixed salary. I do not wish to overstress the point. I think it can be overstressed. Security does not at all times go hand in hand with hard work, extra effort, or even progress. The doctors, as we know, do value their independence to a very high degree, and they are suspicious, possibly wrongly suspicious, of what are the Government's intentions in this matter. They think this element of a basic salary may be the thin end of the wedge, and I do not think that we can altogether blame them. There have been statements and speeches from the other side of the House which leave no doubt in many people's minds that the intention of the party opposite is towards a whole, full-time salaried service. I know this has been denied by the Minister in this House and also in another place, but suspicion, unfortunately, still remains.
  I cannot see that there is this great insecurity today for a young man entering the medical profession. Certainly, in my own part of the world, it is not a question of insecurity for the doctor, but one of insecurity for the patients, because there are not enough doctors to do the great amount of work which has to be done. When the Bill is passed, that position will be aggravated, and an increasing amount of doctors' time will be taken by administrative work. I feel that we would be well advised to accept the Lords Amendment in this particular case, as it can always be altered if the position changes at a later date.
  Mr. Willink: I am very sorry that I was not able to hear the right hon. Gentleman's arguments today, but I have heard him twice upon the subject before, and I think I have got an accurate note of the grounds on which he proposed that the

  1151
  House should disagree on this occasion. I think it is time now that I should attempt to express what I feel is the essence of this matter, and what I believe are the views of hon. Members behind me. The Debate has ranged rather widely, and I think it is desirable that we should clear up one or two points which were stressed, for example, by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). Nobody is arguing here today that none of those who are remunerated by salary in this world work as well as those who are remunerated in other ways. We all know there are many occupations in which the only possible form of remuneration is by salary, and we all know, too, that there are many civil servants who work as devotedly as many other people in the country. But there are many distinctions between the life and the work of a general practitioner and the life and work of a civil servant, or an officer of the Royal Army Medical Corps or a member of the staff of what used to be the voluntary hospitals which are to be local authority hospitals in the future.
  Many of the considerations that have been advanced are really quite beside the point in connection with the issue we are discussing. For example, any comparison with any occupation, in which there are recognised grades of promotion and recognised appointments carrying higher status and higher remuneration, is entirely beside the point when considering the proper remuneration for general medical practitioners as a whole. I gather that no new arguments have been put forward, and that the position is as it has been for some months; that the right hon. Gentleman, to our relief, has disowned, for the present at any rate, the official policy, as it was admitted to exist by the Lord Privy Seal; that he is not applying that policy for the present, because the medical profession is not ripe for it, and that it is admitted that the official policy of the party opposite is to deprive the people of this country of freedom of choice of their own doctor, because their official policy of a wholetime medical service is inconsistent with freedom of choice. While we have, for the moment, that very valuable admission, the question is whether there are any solid grounds, or merely grounds of political compromise, for the Government's
  1152
  refusal to exclude the ubiquitous element of salary in the general practitioner service.
  8.30 p.m.
  We are not so much concerned with the doctors; we are concerned with the interests of the patients. I am convinced that the patients of this country will be less happy and, in many cases, less satisfied with a service which is a salaried service, whatever is the proportion of that salary. There is all the difference in the world between what a sick person thinks of the medical officers in a hospital, the medical officers of a local authority or what a Territorial soldier thinks of the R.A.M.C. officer in his battalion, and what the average family thinks of their own family doctor. It is an entirely different relationship. We have not heard one argument from the Minister inducing us to believe, or to begin to think, that the people of this country will like their family doctor being a salaried officer or a salaried servant, whatever one likes to call it, of a Government organisation. We believe that they will not like it, that it will reduce their confidence and that it will, in fact, lead to a lessening of the warmth of feeling which there has been in the past between doctor and patient in the general practitioner field.
  Mr. Scollan: I have listened with great interest to many hon. Members speaking about the family doctor and the relationship between the family doctor and the family. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to say how many families, in his estimation, could afford the luxury of having a family doctor?
  Mr. Willink: I am grateful for the interruption. Of course, that is the basic advantage of this Measure in the medical practitioner field. There is going to be no difficulty for any family, in having a family doctor, but we want the relationship to be that of the family doctor, even if it is without expense. Our objection is to the Minister's expressed intention to make every doctor, in part, a salaried man just at the moment when we believe that the whole of this House and the whole country desire that there should be a general practitioner service available to everyone without charge; we believe that he is quite unnecessarily, and without any substantial argument, destroying a great

  1153
  deal of the relationship between those who could afford a family doctor, a relationship which we want to see established between all persons who require a doctor in the future.
  Mr. Scollan: But what is the proportion?
  Mr. Willink: There is no question of proportion. All people are going to be enabled to have a general practitioner service free of charge, and the only issue on this Amendment is, Is that service to be one received from a doctor who is in part a salaried person, or from somebody who derives his income in relation to the zeal and skill which he shows with regard to his patients? We are convinced that it is an injury to the general practitioner service that the Minister should obtain from Parliament the power to administer what we believe is a compromise with the policy of his party containing this element of basic salary.
  What are the arguments for it? They are those which we have heard in the past. There is another argument which has been developed—I do not know whether it has been developed by the Minister today but it has certainly been developed by Ministers in another place—that the bringing in of a basic salary will get rid of the difficulty of swollen lists. I cannot understand that argument at all. It is most necessary that any doctor in this service should be limited as to the number of patients he can take, but he is no more and no less limited because he receives a salary. What is clear is this: The larger the amount of salary, the less must be the incentive to get his list up to its allowed limit, because if he is a lazy fellow he will say "The salary is all I really want; I will not have anything more." I would have thought that at the moment when we are undoubtedly short of doctors, it is most desirable that all the doctors should be as keen as possible to get lists of a size which the Ministry of Health regard as suitable.
  Then we have these old considerations which I have never been able to understand, namely, that the medical practitioner must have a basic salary in order to have something to which he can add something else, for a special qualification, or a refresher course, or because an area is difficult. I have never understood why
  1154
  one must have X, in order to add Y to it. The Minister has said this on several occasions, and it appears to be one of his best arguments but I have never been able to understand it, and I do not believe anybody else can, neither do I believe the right hon. Gentleman can really have put forward the argument seriously. So far as difficult areas are concerned, that matter is covered by the Amendment which the Minister is asking the House to reject.
  The point concerning the Minister's intentions as to how the Bill will work is a serious matter. The hon. Member for Rochdale said this was a puny point. The question whether the general practitioners are to be salaried or not is far from a puny point. I am not affected by the question whether in a few years time the doctors are to receive £300, £l400 of £500 a year. Our whole interest is whether it is to the advantage of the patients whom it is sought to benefit under this Bill. We can see no ground whatever for believing that the patients will be advantaged in any way by this reduction of incentive to the doctors. We believe that the patients will come to feel that their doctors are not their doctors in the same way as they were in the past. We recall—and I would respectfully call the attention of hon. Members opposite to this point—the stress that was laid by the Webbs in their books about Socialism, on the value to any community of the professions being wholly independent of the State, not answerable to the State for their remuneration, and certainly not salaried. We believe that the theories of the Webbs with regard to Socialism have suffered a sad decline in this attempt to bring everybody in this direct relationship with the State, and we believe this is a grievous blemish on the Bill. The Minister has announced his intentions in regard to working the extremely wide provisions of the Bill. We believe that the Bill is shocking in the freedom that it gives to the Executive. We believe that the way in which it is proposed to be applied is dangerous, both to the profession and to the people, and we shall be bound to object to the Motion.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 303; Noes, 128.

  Division No. 293.]

  AYES.

  6.35 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Daggar, G.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Daines, P

  Hicks, G.

  Allighan, Garry

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Holman, P.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Horabin, T. L.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  House, G.

  Austin, H. L.

  Deer, G.

  Hoy, J.

  Awbery, S. S.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

  Ayles, W. H

  Delargy, Captain H. J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Diamond, J.

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Dobbie, W.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Baird, J.

  Dodds, N N.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Balfour, A.

  Donovan, T.

  Irving, W. J.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Janner, B.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Barton, C.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Battley, J. R

  Dye, S.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Edelman, M.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Benson, G.

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Keenan, W.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Kenyon, C.

  Binns, J.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Key, C. W.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Kinley, J.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Kirby, B. V.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Lang, G.

  Boardman, H.

  Ewart, R.

  Lavers, S.

  Bowdon, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Follick, M.

  Levy, B. W.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Forman, J. C.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Gibbins, J.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Gilzean, A.

  Longden, F.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Lyne, A W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  McAllister, G.

  Byers, Frank

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  McEntee, V La I

  Callaghan, James

  Grey, C. F.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Grierson, E.

  Mack, J D.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Champion, A. J

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Chater, D.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

  Gunter, Capt. R. J.

  McLeavy, F.

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Guy, W. H.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Cobb, F. A.

  Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hale, Leslie

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Coldrick, W.

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Collick, P.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Collins, V. J.

  Hardman, D. R.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Hardy, E. A.

  Marquand, H. A.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Harris, H. Wilson

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Cook, T. F.

  Harrison, J.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Cooper, Wing Comdr. G.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Medland, H. M.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Messer, F.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Rankin, J.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Reeves, J.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Monslow, W.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Thurtle, E.

  Montague, F.

  Robens, A.

  Tiffany, S.

  Moody, A. S.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Titterington, M. F.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Tolley, L.

  Morley, R.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Scollan, T.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Moyle, A.

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Murray, J. D.

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Nally, W.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Shurmer, P.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady.

  Simmons, C. J.

  West, D. G.

  O'Brien, T.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Orbach, M.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Parker, J.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Solley, L. J.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Pearson, A.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Williamson, T.

  Pearl, Capt. T. F.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Willis, E

  Perrins, W.

  Sparks, J. A

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Stamford, W.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Steele, T.

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Popplewell, E.

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Woods, G. S.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Wyatt, W

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Yates, V. F.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Zilliacus, K.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Swingler S.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Symonds, A. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Randall, H. E.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and Mr. Hannan.

  Ranger, J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Maude, J. C.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Medlicott, F.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Birch, Nigel

  Haughton, S. G.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Boothby, R.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

  Bower, N.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Nicholson, G.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Hurd, A.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Carson, E.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

  Pickthorn, K.

  Challen, C.

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  De la Bère, R.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Digby, S. W.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Dodds-Parker A. D.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Renton, D.

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Drayson, G. B.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Ross, Sir R.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Snadden, W. M.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Gage, C.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Marples, A. E.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Teeling, William

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

  Thornton-Kemsiey, C. N.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Touche, G. C.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

  Turton, R. H.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Mr. Drewe and Major Ramsay.

  Vane, W. M. F

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Division No. 294.]

  AYES.

  [8.40 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

  Allighan, Garry

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Ewart, R.

  McLeavy, F.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Fairhurst, F

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Austin, H. L.

  Farthing, W. J.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Follick, M.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Baird, J.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Balfour, A.

  Gallacher, W.

  Marquand, H. A.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Barstow, P. G.

  Gibbins, J.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Barton, C.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Medland, H. M

  Battley, J. R

  Gilzean, A.

  Messer, F.

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Belcher, J. W.

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J

  Gordon-Walker, P. C

  Mitchison, Maj. G. R.

  Benson, G.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Monslow, W.

  Berry, H.

  Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)

  Montague, F.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Grey, C. F.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Grierson, E.

  Morley, R.

  Binns, J.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

  Blackburn, A. R

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Moyle, A.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Gunter, Capt. R. J

  Murray, J D.

  Boardman, H.

  Guy, W. H.

  Nally, W.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Hale, Leslie

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

  Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Bramall, Major E. A.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Hardman, D. R.

  O'Brien, T.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Harrison, J.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Orbach, M.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Paget, R. T.

  Burke, W. A.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Callaghan, James

  Hicks, G.

  Parker, J.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Holman, P.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Champion, A. J.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Chater, D.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Pearson, A.

  Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.

  House, G.

  Pearl, Capt. T. F.

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Hoy, J.

  Perrins, W

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Coldrick, W.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Porter, G (Leeds)

  Collick, P.

  Hynd, J. D. (Attercliffe)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Collins, V. J.

  Irving, W. J.

  Proctor, W. T

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Janner, B.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Randall, H. E.

  Cook, T. F.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

  Ranger, J.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr G.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

  Rankin, J.

  Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Reeves, J.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Daggar, G.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Rhodes, H.

  Daines, P.

  Keenan, W.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Kenyon, C.

  Robens, A.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Key, C. W.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Rogers, G. H. R

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Kinley, J.

  Sargood, R.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Kirby, B. V

  Scollan, T.

  Deer, G.

  Lang, G.

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lavers, S.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Diamond, J.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.

  Dobbie, W.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Donovan, T.

  Levy, B. W.

  Shurmer, P.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Lewis, T. (Southampton)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Simmons, C. J

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Dye, S.

  Longden, F.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  McAllister, G.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Mack, J. D.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Solley, L. J.

  Tiffany, S.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Tolley, L.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Stamford, W.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Steele, T.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Williamson, T.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Viant, S. P.

  Willis, E.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Walkden, E.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

  Swingler S

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Warbey, W. N.

  Woods, G. S.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Wyatt, W.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Weitzman, D.

  Yates, V. F.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  West, D. G.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and Mr. Popplewell

  Thurtle, E.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Pickthorn, K.

  Aitken, Hon. Max.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Barlow, Sir J

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Beechman, N. A

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Birch, Nigel

  Hurd, A.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Bower, N.

  Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.

  Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (Hillhead)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Renton, D.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Ross, Sir R.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'Id'n)

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Byers, Frank

  Low, Brig. A. R. W

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Carson, E.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Challen, C.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.).

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Teeling, William

  Digby, S. W.

  Marples, A. E.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Dodds-Parker A. D

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Drewe, C.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Touche, G. C.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Maude, J. C.

  Turton, R. H.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Medlicott, F.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wadsworth, G.

  Fraser, Sir I: (Lonsdale)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Gage, C.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Gates, Maj. E. E.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Wittink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

  George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Glyn, Sir R.

  Nicholson, G.

  York, C.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Grimston, R. V.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Sir Arthur Young and Major Ramsay.

  Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Question put, and agreed to

  CLAUSE 34.—(Distribution of medical practitioners providing services.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 34, leave out "hearing," and insert "determination."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment deals with the question of the time when a successful applicant should take up his position
  1158
  when an objection has been raised by an unsuccessful applicant. As the Bill stands, it is held up until the appeal has been heard, and what we wish to put in here is that it shall be held up until the appeal is determined.
  Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 13, at end, insert:
  "(9) The Medical Practices Committee shall, in a case where persons have to be

  1159
  selected from a number of applicants and the Minister shall, on an appeal in any such case, have regard to any desire expressed by any applicant to practise with other medical practitioners already providing general medical services in the area or part of an area concerned, and of any desire expressed by such other medical practitioners to take any applicant into practice with them, and shall have special regard to the matters aforesaid in cases where an applicant is related to any such other medical practitioner."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is concerned with the appointment of applicants to the new medical practices; it is desired that consideration shall be given to applications to serve either with relatives or in partnerships that are already in existence.
  CLAUSE 35.—(Prohibition of sale of medical practices.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 23, leave out from "death" to the end of line 26, and insert:
  "not being a payment in respect of that partner's share in past earnings of the partnership or in any partnership assets or any other payment required to be made to him as the result of the final settlement of accounts, as between him and the other partners, in respect of past transactions of the partnership."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  In this case, on consideration, it was felt that there were certain cases where a partnership agreement already in existence might make some sort of provision for payments to be made at death or retirement that were quite legitimate and, as a matter of fact, would be normal processes in the winding up of a partnership. It was considered that there was no reason for regarding these as being part of the sale of the goodwill; they could be settled up without that being the case.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This of course is a most admirable Amendment, and if anybody on either side had thought of it at an earlier stage it would undoubtedly have been adopted. The fact that it was not thought of until the very last moment by anybody, although we had all been busy going through this Bill with a tooth comb, shows how unduly elaborate this very harsh Clause 35 is, and I fear very much that there may be other equally im
  1160
  portant points which have still escaped our notice. I hope that the fact that an important point like this was not discovered until the last moment may weigh with the Government when they come to consider other Clauses of this character in other Bills; and that they will see fit not to try to cover the ground as elaborately as here, because this sort of thing shows that they are doing more harm than good. I hope it will be a lesson causing the Government to revert to a more simple mode of life.
  CLAUSE 4I.—(Supplementary ophthalmic services.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 2, leave out "and opticians."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This and a subsequent group of Amendments are all related to the same purpose, namely making plain on the face of the Bill the distinction between the ophthalmic optician who both tests sight and supplies spectacles and the dispensing optician who only supplies spectacles. It has been felt, after consultation, that this distinction will add to the better administration of the Bill. The definitions are included in pages 60 and 6I, and this series of Amendments to page 36 relate to the same point.
  CLAUSE 42.—(Disqualification of practitioners.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 38, leave out lines 19 to 22, and insert:
  "(i) of appearing, either in person or by counsel or solicitor or such other representative as may be prescribed, before the Tribunal and, in the case of an appeal, before a person appointed by the Minister; and
  (ii) of being heard by the Tribunal or the person so appointed and of calling witnesses and producing other evidence on his behalf;
  and that the hearing, whether by the Tribunal or the person appointed as aforesaid, shall be in public if the person who is the subject of the inquiry so requests."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment relates to hearings before the tribunal, and will enable the practitioners concerned to be represented

  1161
  by counsel and to call witnesses. It also secures that there may be a public hearing. These matters would have been covered by the regulations which would have been made under the Bill, but it was thought that they should be made plain in the Bill, and we have no objections.
  Mr. David Renton: I should like to congratulate the Government upon having made clear this principle, namely, that doctors concerned may have either a counsel or a solicitor appearing for them. If the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) had been present, I am sure that he would have been anxious to express his gratitude that solicitors as well as counsel have been included in this Amendment.
  CLAUSE 43.—(Powers of Minister where services are inadequate.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 39, line 37, leave out "for the purpose of such other arrangements he."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This and a subsequent Amendment deal with the extent of the Minister's powers to dispense with regulations. These words really restrict, and the restrictive words in the second Amendment make the Minister's exercise of power dependent on exceptional circumstances, and then only to the extent necessary to enable special arrangements to be made.
  CLAUSE 48.—(Provision of courses for medical and dental practitioners.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 43, leave out "practitioners", and insert "persons."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  In the Bill, we talk sometimes of "medical practitioners," sometimes of "dental practitioners" and sometimes merely say "practitioners." In order that there may be no confusion, we propose to omit "practitioners" and insert "persons."
  CLAUSE 60.—(Power of trustees to make payments to Regional Hospital Boards and Boards of Governors.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 5o, line 6, after "hospital," insert "or to a Hospital Management Committee."
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment introduces a reference to hospital management committees being the recipients of endowments, and is consequential on the New Clause A.
  Subsequent Lords Amendments to line 25 agreed to.
  Mr. Key: On a point of Order. Are we not taking, Sir, the Lords Amendment in line 25, at the end to insert new Clause A (Preservation of associations of denominational hospitals)?
  "Where the character and associations of any voluntary hospital transferred to the Minister by virtue of this Act are such as to link it with a particular religious denomination, regard shall be had in the general administration of the hospital and in the making of appointments to the Hospital Management Committee to the preservation of the character and associations of the hospital."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry, but I thought the hon. Gentleman had included that new Clause in his remarks about the Lords Amendment to which we have just agreed. We cannot go back now.
  CLAUSE 65.—(Qualifications, remuneration and conditions of service of officers.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 51, line 25, after "authority," insert "in their capacity as such authority."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The effect of this Amendment is to make clear what we have always intended, that any regulations which govern the qualifications and remuneration of officers of local health authorities should apply only to those officers of the local health authority who are acting in a capacity in the health services, and not to other members of the staff of the local authority who have other functions besides that of maintaining the health services.
  CLAUSE 66.—(Superannuation of officers.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 53, line 26, leave out "so employed who leaves his employment," and insert:
  "who leaves employment in Scotland of Northern Ireland entitling him to participate in superannuation benefits (whether provided under the said Act or otherwise)."
  Mr Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  As the Bill stands without this Amendment it would mean that when the Scottish National Health Service Bill has been passed the regulations will provide for the preservation of the potential superannuation rights of people who are employed in that national health service. When any of them were transferred to the health service in this country their superannuation rights would be preserved. What is wanted here is to make this extend not merely to those who would have served in the national health service in Scotland, but in other local government services as well.
  Question put, and agreed to.[Special Entry.]
  THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Regional Hospital Boards, Hospital Management Committees and Board of Governors of Teaching Hospitals.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 44, at end, insert:
  "Before making appointments to fill vacancies the Minister shall also consult the Board."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment deals with appointments to be made by the regional hospital boards and by hospital management committees, and ensures that the Minister shall consult with both these bodies before appointments are made.
  SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Constitution of Tribunal.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 70, line 43, after "solicitor," insert "of not less than ten years' standing."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  1164
  This is a common form of requirement and one which, in the Regulations, would have been observed. It is felt, however, that it should be put into the Bill.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the discussions which have recently taken place, would the Minister confirm that the words being added apply equally to barristers, as well as to solicitors? I think it would be unfortunate if there were any distinction.
  Mr. Bevan indicated assent.
  NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendment and repeal of Enactment relating to persons of unsound mind and mental defectives.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 75, line 35, at end, insert:
  "in subsection (3) the word 'private' where it last occurs shall he omitted; and for subsection (6) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
  '(6) Where any patient detained in a registered hospital in pursuance of a contract with a Regional Hospital Board is permitted under this section to be absent upon trial two members of the managing committee of the hospital may make an allowance to the patient during the period of his absence not exceeding the amount payable under the contract for his maintenance in the hospital and the allowance shall either be paid to him or for his benefit as the members of the managing committee may direct.'"
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is one of a series of Amendments which arise from the same point. It deals with the question of registered hospitals. Under the Lunacy Act, 1890, a registered hospital is defined:
  "As any hospital not being a public mental hospital wherein patients are received and supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions or by any charitable bequest or gift or by applying the excess of payments of some patients for, or towards the support of, provision or benefit of other patients."
  When this Bill was being prepared, it was thought that any registered hospital likely to be regarded as necessary for the services to be provided under this Bill would automatically be taken over into the hospital service under Clause 6, and any other registered hospital not so acquired would be disclaimed, and, therefore, would, in future, receive

  1165
  only such patients as were being treated outside the National Health Service. After discussion with the Registered Hospital Association, it has been agreed that there may be a further alternative: That the registered hospital may provide for national health service patients by contract with the Regional Board; and, therefore, to make this third alternative possible it has been necessary to reinstate in the Bill some of the provisions of the Lunacy Act, 1890, which, as the Bill was drafted, had been modified or repealed. The series of Amendments deals with various points of that kind. For instance, the Amendment, which we are now considering enables, first of all, that the superintendent of the registered hospital shall be given power to allow a patient so received under contract to be sent out on trial, and also, in the second part of the Amendment, it will enable the governors of the registered hospital to make a payment to such a patient who is sent out on trial. These are necessary conditions if we are to be able to accept the third alternative.
  Question put, and agreed to.[Special Entry.]
  Lords Amendment: In page 75, line 44, at end, insert:
  "For section sixty-one there shall be substituted the following Section:—
  '61. Where a patient is detained in a registered hospital in pursuance of a contract with a Regional Hospital Board, the Board may make an order for the removal of the patient and may direct the mode of removal and on production to the manager of the hospital of a copy of the order he shall forthwith remove the patient or permit him to be removed in accordance with the order'."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is necessary to give the hospital regional board the power to remove or maintain patient under contract from the regional hospital to any other care.
  TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Consequential Amendments and Repeals.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 85, line 5, at end, insert:
  "The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 23 & 24 Geo. 5. C. 12.
  In section ninety-two, for the words 'Board of Control' there shall be substituted the words 'Minister of Health'."
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is really consequential upon the transfer of certain powers of the Board of Control to the Minister of Health under this Bill. Section 92 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, excludes from the term "voluntary home", for the purposes of Part V of that Act, any institution, house or home certified or approved by the Board of Control under the Mental Deficiency Acts, 1913–1927. The functions of the Board of Control relating to such certification and approval are transferred, by this Bill, to the Minister of Health, and it is for the purpose of their operation that it is necessary to make this Amendment.
  Lords Amendment: In page 88, leave out lines 29 to 34.
  Mr. Key: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This provision in the Schedule brings officers of Executive Councils who leave their service to undertake war service within the scope of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, which enables the war service of such officers of local authorities to be taken into account for superannuation purposes; but there are other bodies established under the Bill, such as the Regional Hospital Boards, for whom it should be necessary to make a similar provision, and the appropriate provision cannot be made by a simple simplification, by the Bill, of the 1939 Act. Therefore, power to modify Acts of Parliament for superannuation purposes is conferred in the Bill already under Clause 66, and it is proposed to leave out the provision referred to in the Amendment, and to operate under Clause 66. I would point out, however, that any of the regulations made under that Clause will be subject to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses, and therefore, the position is adequately safeguarded.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. (Several with Special Entries.)
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amend-

  1167
  ments to the Bill: Mr. Aneurin Bevan. Mr. Eric Fletcher, Mr. J. H. Hare, Mr. Somerville Hastings, and Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. A. Bevan.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to: To be communicated to the Lords.

  ATOMIC ENERGY BILL
  Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.
  Ordered: "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Wilmot.]
  Lords Amendments considered accordingly.
  CLAUSE II.—(Restriction on disclosure of information relating to plant.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 8, line I, after "person", insert "except an authorised person."
  9.15 p.m.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment, and the following Amendment—in line I6, at the end, insert:
  "In this Subsection 'authorised person' means, in relation to information on any subject to which this Subsection applies, a person to whom, by virtue of a general authority granted by the Minister, information on that subject may be communicated."
  —are Government Amendments which are inserted as the result of suggestions made in another place. It was suggested that Clause II of the Bill related the consent of the Minister under that Clause to communications of specific items of information, but that it did not enable the Minister to give a general authority to communicate either information on the subject or specific aspects of information to particular named persons. It was thought, for instance, that the absence of this power might prevent colleagues at a university discussing a matter with one another. I think that it is probable that the Minister has this power under the Clause as it was originally drafted, but in order that there should be no possible misunderstanding and that the matter might be quite plain to the ordinary
  1168
  reader, these Amendments have been put forward.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I apologise to the House—apart from having had to run very fast—because I am not sure that I may not be raising a quite trivial point and being rather unusually stupid. I am not quite certain that this puts right what it is intended to put right. I dare say this is the right way of doing it, but I am not quite certain whether the effect of this Amendment may not be now to exclude the particular person. The objection before was that the Minister could not give a general authorisation and that it would be an awful bore if he had to give authorisations for each individual case. I am not quite sure now how he is going to give an authorisation when the individual case arises. I am not enough of a lawyer to know for certain, but it seems to me possible that the method would be that he would give authorisation to a list of classes; Class A, perhaps, university professors; Class B, persons working in certain laboratories; Class C, persons working in certain factories; and, for all I know, it may be competent under this Amendment for him to add a Clause D, "such other individuals as I may from time to time name in lists to be issued by me." I am not sure whether I am making myself quite plain. It may be that that is what is intended now, but I wish to be reassured that we are not, in making the general authorisation possible, cutting out the particular authorisation and thereby, perhaps, landing ourselves in a greater inconvenience that we are remedying.
  Mr. Wilmot: I think the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that that has been met. The effect of the Amendment, as he will see, is to remove from the Clause any authorised persons. Who those authorised persons are, whether few or many, entirely rests with the Minister. Thus the total effect of the Clause and the Amendment now proposed is that the Minister's consent may be given, either in relation to specific information which may be communicated, or in relation to specified persons. I think the points raised in another place and that raised by the hon. Gentleman have now been met.
  Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY (SPECIAL ORDERS)
  Resolved:
  "That the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Special Order, 1946, dated 29th July, 1946, made by the Electricity Commissioners and confirmed by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, a copy of which Order was presented on 30th July, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Margate, Broadstairs and District Electricity Special Order, 1946, dated 17th August, 1946, made by the Electricity Commissioners and confirmed by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th October, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Lancashire Electric Power Special Order, 1946, dated 30th July, 1946, made by the Electricity Commissioners and confirmed by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, a copy of which Order was presented on 30th July, be approved."—[Mr. Gaitskell.]

  GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Draft of the Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Colchester Gas Company, which was presented on 8th October and published, be approved."—[Mr. Gaitskell.]
  9.21 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I rise to put a point of some principle, although I will not occupy the House long with it. What is the purpose of bringing before the House Motions like this, and the Electricity Special Orders which we have just passed, if no explanation is offered about them by the Minister? It would be appropriate, if this is to be done, to rearrange the law so that these matters pass through automatically; otherwise, the Minister should give us an explanation.
  9.22 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I was prepared to answer questions which might be asked, but I really left it to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether to insist that I should speak when nobody had asked me to do so. It would be out of Order for me to make any comment in respect of the Electricity Orders but if the noble Lord wishes I shall be
  1170
  glad to answer any question on the Order now before the House. Briefly stated, the Order enables the Colchester Gas Company to increase its share capital by £100,000. It makes minor consequential Amendments also, in the Private Legislation of the company.
  Resolved:
  "That the Draft of the Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Colchester Gas Company, which was presented on 8th October and published, be approved."

  BISCUIT SUPPLIES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]
  9.23 p.m.
  Mr. Garry Allighan: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Food to certain aspects of biscuit supply which weigh very heavily upon many of my constituents. The matter is of concern also to hon. Members whose constituents may be employed in the biscuit industry. The Minister may, when he replies, say something in contradiction to what I say, but I think he will agree that the points division of the Ministry of Food is being driven almost crazy in attempting to face the avalanche of public demand for an increased supply of biscuits in order to give variety to the diet. This is especially the case now that bread is rationed, because it involves a fresh demand for biscuits.
  Captain John Crowder: On a point of Order. Are we not to have the presence of the Minister of Food or his Parliamentary Secretary, for this Debate?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I imagine that a representative of tht Ministry will be here shortly.
  Mr. Allighan: The Ministers concerned knew that the matter was to be raised. In my constituency people complain that they never see a biscuit. The matter is becoming serious for the housewife who is trying to provide some alternatives in the diet. The situation is such that if only two points were used by everyone who wanted to get biscuits, it would, I understand, involve 92,000,000 points for biscuits and that the biscuit industry would

  1171
  be unable to meet the demand. The situation has been worsened by the switch-over from war to peace, because 3,500,000 men and women from the Services, who were receiving supplies of biscuits from Service canteens and from N.A.A.F.I., are now back among the civilian population. This creates an increased demand for biscuits which cannot be supplied. Instead of the supply being increased, it has been reduced throughout the country. Now that we have the pleasure of the company of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, perhaps she will be able later on to give reasons for the present situation. I am sure she will have to admit that on the basis of expediency and of relevant values and priorities, there is a very serious and insistent claim for more biscuits being allowed to the general public.
  For several reasons biscuits are unlike that noxious and mysterious concoction which masquerades under the fine British name of bread. Biscuits have certain advantages which are very necessary to the public welfare. They keep longer than bread and they retain their food values much longer. They are not subject to the mites and mildew that eat their way very quickly into the alleged bread if it is kept for any length of time. Biscuits are exceedingly portable, which is of great importance to the housewife in preparing the midday package for the husband or schoolchild. Nutrition is high in biscuits as it is low in bread. People in my constituency who work in neighbouring biscuit factories tell me that in the making of biscuits there are three essential elements—carbohydrates, proteins and fat—and that it is only in biscuits that these three are found in combination in that respect. Because of this, if for no other reason, biscuits are not the luxury that they appear to be regarded as by the Ministry of Food. Because of their high nutrition value and other qualities, biscuits have become a necessity in this country now that the British loaf has become a menace to British health—
  Mr. Leslie Hale: That is the second time that the hon. Member has made this attack on the British loaf which most medical experts regard as very much better than in the past. Can the hon. Member give any reasons for this un-
  1172
  necessary attack on his own Minister, which seems to be quite unjustified?
  Mr. Allighan: It is not an attack on the Minister nor on the great British loaf. As to the suggestion that medical evidence and medical experts are unanimous on this matter, I discovered long ago, as I am sure my hon. Friend has, that there is always a divergence of opinion between experts on any subject. I have discovered that there are as many experts on bread who say that bread is creating digestive troubles as experts who say that it is very good—
  Mr. E. P. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of us agree with his definition of the British loaf?
  Mr. Allighan: Apart from whether I get agreement or not whether the bread is as bad as I think it is and sometimes feel it is, or as good as the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) really believes it to be, the fact remains that so long as we are in the position where bread has to be rationed it is very necessary to have the variety in the diet which I maintain that biscuits would provide. The Minister will no doubt tell us the reasons why we cannot have more biscuits, but I hope she will be able to give some concessions. We realise now that biscuits have an effect on the workers so far as production is concerned. We learnt that last Friday when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury used these words:
  "If I were asked why some people today may not be working as long hours as they might, I would say that one reason is that there is very little to buy in the shops … and that their diet, unfortunately, is not as varied as it might be."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st November 1946; Vol. 428, C. 1017.]
  I hope that the Minister will give some encouragement to the hope that the diet will be varied by making more biscuits available to the housewife.
  The Minister, I understand, has made two concessions on this matter. One is that they are restoring certain of the cuts. The most serious cut in the raw material of biscuits, which has been cut and cut again, was in last May, when 27½ per cent. of flour was cut at the time when we were allowing 200,000 tons of white flour to go to Continental countries. Certain of these cuts have been restored but they do not equal the 27½ per cent. by any means, and it is only a temporary restoration to make a few more biscuits for the Christ-

  1173
  mas period, again indicating that the Minister's attitude towards biscuits is that biscuits are a luxury.
  Then we may be told that the situation is being eased because the Ministry is to permit a wide importation of biscuits. I am not sure that is the best way of curing this particular ill because it might create another ill. That is one of the aspects of the case which gives concern to hon. Members who have constituents working in the biscuit industry, for the more this is developed along this line, the more risk there is of our own people being thrown out of employment. Therefore, I do not think the cure is necessarily to increase the imports so much as to increase the possibilities of our own home production. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies, I hope she will not pin all her hopes on to imports because, as I say, in the process we may cripple our own manufacturers, throw our own people out of work, and introduce very unfair competition to our home folk.
  It may be argued that neither the public nor the Government are so anxious about where commodities come from as that they get to the people, but that may not be the wisest policy to adopt, for it might even upset the Government's own economic plan if there were such an unbalanced amount of imports that it induced unemployment in our own industries. The effect of this is that there are wholesale dismissals going on in the biscuit factories. I have heard of one manufacturer who, having invested over £80,000 capital expenditure in a factory at the Government's request to develop a biscuit industry in South Shields, has now had to dismiss a whole shift of 150 of his workpeople. So what we want, parallel with imports, is to increase the facilities by which our own people can produce the goods which the British public need. For those reasons, I submit that there is an urgent necessity for reviewing the basic situation to ascertain whether it is not possible now to increase the raw material supplies of our biscuit manufactures so that the housewife receives a diet which is both more varied and more nutritious.
  9.33 p.m.
  Colonel Wheatley: I want to say a few words in order that the Parliamentary Secretary may realise that the complaint does not come only
  1174
  from Kent. This shortage of biscuits is being very severely felt as far away from Kent as Dorset, and I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Allighan) said; in fact, if there were more biscuits about I might say he has taken the biscuit over the complaint he has brought forward. I agree with him that, in spite of the remonstrance of his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), biscuits are required as a complement to our bread—I will not say whether it is good or bad bread; all I say is that it is bread which will not keep. The housewives, especially in working class areas, have missed having biscuits to give to their children and to their men folk when they go out to work. I am told by troops returning from Malta that biscuits are plentiful there; in fact, when they came home and found themselves unable to get biscuits here, they said they could not understand why they were able to get any quantity of them in Malta.
  The other evening the Parliamentary Secretary said in another Debate that she had great feelings of kindness, sympathy and humanity for human beings. I hope she will show the same feelings of consideration for the housewife and children and, by some means or other, help the biscuit industry. I agree with the hon. Member for Gravesend that we want our own home production, and not imported biscuits. I think everyone who has eaten foreign biscuits will agree that there are none like our own home product. I hope the hon. Lady will do everything in her power to arrange for the production of our own biscuits, and not to import them.
  9.36 p.m.
  Mr. Walkden: The point I want to raise is of minor degree, but it may have a bearing on the kind of reply the hon. Lady gives. I imagine we shall be told of the ratio cut in raw materials in relation to fat, flour and such other mixtures as are used in manufacturing biscuits. I suggest that something has happened to biscuits since bread rationing began, and it did not happen before. That something, in my opinion, is maldistribution of a kind which is unpardonable. It is rather strange, but true, that only certain firms or large shops seem able to get biscuits now. The normal small shop, or Co-operative store, where the average consumer makes his or her purchases, in the average town, cannot

  1175
  now get any biscuits whatever. They have disappeared, and Heaven knows why. Only the larger shops and certain stores receive the biscuits, which are now in short supply. Whereas cake used to go under the counter, shop keepers dare not now put them under the counter. We can get cakes where we could not get them all through the war years. The average citizen can get cakes, and the common people are now enjoying what they could not obtain before bread rationing.
  If we look at this problem more deeply, we may find that it is related to those who administer it at the Ministry of Food and who represent the trade itself. I do not wish to attack individuals, but to suggest to the hon. Lady that those who actually direct production, or distribution, or allocating of materials, represent certain trade interests. It is a wellknown fact that in recent months there has been a change in what are known as the directive controls at the Ministry. I want the hon. Lady to look into the question, and give to us some information, either now or later on, as to what has actually happened; why is there this maldistribution all over the country? Whether it be Yorkshire, Dorset or Kent, it is the same story everywhere. I feel that if the hon. Lady has the answer only in figures, it will not be good enough. But if she can tell us about maldistribution, she will give an answer to the country, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Allighan) as well.
  9.39 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: I intervene both as a would-be consumer of biscuits, and as the representative of many other would-be consumers in the City of Edinburgh, which used to be the home of biscuits. I would like to support the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Allighan) and the other hon. Members who have spoken. There is a very considerable shortage of that wholesome food at the present time. But, quite apart from my interest as a potential consumer, it so happens that Edinburgh is one of the centres where a number of biscuit making firms are very much interested in the question of the import of biscuits from abroad. I am mystified as to where they are coming from, because I understood there was a serious shortage
  1176
  of food in most Continental countries. Perhaps the hon. Lady would enlighten us as to whether they are coming from any nations where there is any particular shortage of food.
  As has been mentioned earlier in the Debate, we have sent flour to these countries. It seems rather odd that we should be sending flour abroad and that it should apparently be coming back to us in the form of biscuits. Perhaps the hon. Lady might take that matter a little further. I would suggest, as has already been suggested by the hon. Member for Gravesend, that it would be a good idea if the flour and other ingredients necessary for the manufacture of biscuits, instead of being sent overseas, were diverted to manufacturers in this country, in order that we might have our home-made biscuits, and give assistance to our home industry and more employment to our own people. I hope that in her reply the hon. Lady will make reference to these points.
  9.41 p.m.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: I would merely like to ask my hon. Friend if she will answer these questions in her reply. One is, is there a scarcity or is it maldistribution? My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) has said that the supply seems to go to the big firms. On the contrary, I was much surprised, when out with my caravan trailer on Saturday, to find, in a very remote village in the Firth of Clyde, a plentiful supply of biscuits. Not merely was there a good supply, but I was astonished to notice those very delicious sandwich cream biscuits, which I think most of us have forgotten about. How does such a delicious biscuit get into such a remote corner? As well as asking for her comments on distribution, I would like to urge the Parliamentary Secretary to give a larger supply, and not only that, but a larger supply of better quality biscuits, as I find that the biscuits are very dry and unattractive. I believe that the bakers promised that if they got more sugar they could produce a more attractive biscuit. I have been waiting for that more attractive biscuit coming along, and I wonder if they are really using their sugar supplies for biscuit making, or what has become of the supplies of sugar for this purpose.
  9.43 p.m.
  Major Mott-Radclyffe: It is a pity the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-

  1177
  bridge (Mrs. Mann) did not tell us which was the remote corner of England where these biscuits were to be found. They are certainly something which none of us have tasted for a long time and many hon. Members on both sides of the House might have found some excuse to go in a similar direction during the coming week-end. I am a little mystified about where the imported biscuits come from, and I hope that the hon. Lady will tell us. If my information is correct, the original arrangement made by the hon. Lady's Department with the biscuit manufacturers was that roughly 3,600 tons of biscuits would be imported into this country in one year, which by and large was about 60 per cent. of the imports of 1939. Subsequently, as I understand the position, the hon. Lady's Department found that they were unable to ask foreign biscuit importers to keep to that limit, and the field is now thrown open. When it is remembered that these foreign biscuit manufacturers can use first quality ingredients, such as 70 per cent. extraction flour, eggs, milk and butter, none of which are available to biscuit manufacturers in this country, I am sure she will appreciate that our home biscuit manufacturers are at a serious disadvantage. I hope she will assure the House that she will do something not only to put a few more biscuits on the market but also to ensure that as far as possible they come from our own manufacturers.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hoy: I do not wish to delay the proceedings but I think I ought to correct the impression given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) that the Firth of Clyde is in England. I also would like to know in which particular corner of Scotland all these biscuits are to be found. My mother is a small shopkeeper and she complains about the difficulties in the supply of biscuits, and their lack of variety. I am sure hon. Members wish to know where the supplies are going, and whether flour is being sent abroad. Surely, it would be better to use that flour for manufacturing biscuits at home. In my constituency there is a large firm of manufacturers, and we need all the employment it is possible for the Government to provide. If flour is available, I suggest to the Minister that it should be allocated to manufacturers in our own country who are quite capable of making all the biscuits we require.
  9.47p.m
  Mr. Viant: In my constituency also there happens to be a large biscuit manufacturing concern, Since it was announced that this subject was to be discussed I have had correspondence from both manufacturers and operatives who are concerned in this matter. It has already been mentioned that if certain European countries are hard up for foodstuffs it is difficult to understand how they are able to manufacture biscuits for export to this country. That is a question I could not attempt to answer and I had to inform my constituents that I was not fully acquainted with the facts. Naturally, those who obtain their livelihood in the industry, and others who are interested, are rather concerned. Many of them are keenly anxious to return to their original job of making biscuits. The only reply I have been able to make to my correspondents is that at present we are not in a position to buy the raw materials necessary for the manufacture of this product. That may be true. I would point out that whilst those of us in normal health may not eat many biscuits, very often they prove quite appetising to invalids. I hope the Minister will give favourable consideration to the suggestion that the supply of raw materials should be increased. It seems rather odd to find biscuits being imported from countries where it is said that they are short of foodstuffs when we are in a position to make all the biscuits necessary to supply our own people. On the face of it, it wants some understanding, and I hope the hon. Lady will be able to give an answer that will satisfy the House, and, furthermore, those who are rather apprehensive at the present time because they are unable to return to their normal industry, that of manufacturing biscuits.
  9.51 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): The last time I addressed the House, I had to defend an Order designed to reduce the rations of feeding stuffs to pigs and poultry. I am afraid that, tonight, I have to advance the same argument, in answering the hon. Gentleman who contends that biscuit manufacturers are not getting a square deal, namely, that the shortage of supplies makes economies inevitable. Of course, I endorse everything the hon. Gentleman said—
  Colonel Wheatley: If the hon. Lady agrees with everything the hon. Gentleman said, does she include the remarks he made on bread?
  Dr. Summerskill: No, on biscuits. I think everyone agrees that biscuits vary the diet, and I wish we could provide more. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's disparaging remarks about the British loaf, I would say that it is eminently superior to the loaf which the hon. Gentleman consumed before the war.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: Is the hon. Lady aware that the presence of phytic acid in the offals of wheat destroys the vitamins in the wheat kernel?
  Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Lady is aware of that, and she is also aware of the fact that we are making an addition, in the form of calcium carbonate, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is an antidote. I should like to remind hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this subject of the history of the biscuit industry during the war, in order that they may be reassured, that the biscuit manufacturers are having a square deal, having regard to the shortage of supplies. In August, 1943, we decided to control the production of biscuits, and production was regulated by what we called the "Target system," which I am sure hon. Members recall. This was, of course, designed to secure economies in manpower, ingredients and factory space. Under this system, each manufacturer was allocated a certain tonnage. The factory target also indicated whether production was for civilian consumption, Government contracts or Service canteens. Shortly after 1943, when this system was in operation, there was a demand by the Government for the Service type of biscuit at the rate of 140,000 tons per annum, out of a total of 266,000 tons, but this was the peak period, and, later, the Government demand gradually declined, so that, by the end of 1944 it was at the rate of 80,000 tons out of a target of 276,000 tons. I am told that the reason for this was that the Services in the Middle East had collected large stores of biscuits, and, after a time, found that there was no need to add to these stocks.
  It will be seen, therefore, that biscuits for civilian consumption gradually increased as Government and other Service demands fell away. By November, 1945, when this system of control was
  1180
  terminated, the position was reached where civilian production was rated at 238,000 tons out of a total of 281,000 tons. The target system was removed when it was found no longer necessary to arrange for Service biscuits in large quantities, and, labour being more plentiful, the time had arrived to allow manufacturers to make the best use of available ingredients.
  On the question of ingredients, I would remind the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Allighan) that the most essential ingredients of biscuits are flour, fats and sugar. Those articles are in very short supply today. The decision to give more freedom to the manufacturers enabled the gradual uptrend of civilian production to continue, with the result that, by May of this year, the output was at the rate of 240,000 tons, or about 80 per cent. of the prewar performance. It was at this stage —hon. Members will recall the Debates which took place in this House on food and agriculture—that, owing to the critical situation which had developed in the world, we decided that we must cut the supplies to the biscuit manufacturers to 25 per cent. We did, however, take all possible steps to minimise the severity of the cut by allowing manufacturers to use the ingredients in the way they thought would produce the largest output, with the result that, although we cut them by 25 per cent. so far as ingredients were concerned, the drop in production was approximately only 20 per cent.—of the rate of output current when the cut was imposed—and the present level for civilian consumption is equivalent to some 65 per cent. of the prewar figure.
  Mr. Walkden: Of the total tonnage?
  Dr. Summerskill: Yes. I think I gave the hon. Member the figure of about 250,000 tons, but I will give him the exact figure.
  Mr. Walkden: Is not that equal to 4 ozs. per ration book per week for the whole country? If that is the figure which the hon. Lady gives to the House, where do the 4 ozs. go to?
  Dr. Summerskill: I do not know what the figure is, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
  Mr. Walkden: I can assure the hon. Lady that the figures are correct.
  Dr. Summerskill: I think that the hon. Member for Gravesend said that he had

  1181
  a small factory in his constituency and that another hon. Member said he also had one in his. I want them to rest assured that we are constantly examining the position of the biscuit manufacturers. It was possible, only recently, to arrange for an increase of 12½ per cent. in the sugar allocation as from 13th October, and to allow manufacturers to use 10 per cent. more flour during the current licensing period, which ends on 4th January. This should have the effect of preventing further immediate discharges of labour to an appreciable extent, but it should be stressed, however, that supplies of flour are still precarious and, as my right hon. Friend has stated, there is a great shortage of oils and fats, which cannot be immediately overcome.
  Ears Winterton: In the world generally?
  Dr. Summerskill: In the world generally. I want to mention the question of imports.
  It being Ten o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
  Dr. Summerskill: The recently-announced decision to allow the importation of biscuits has been construed in certain quarters as one of the reasons why biscuit manufacturers in this country are encountering production and labour difficulties. The House will appreciate how entirely at variance with the facts is this construction of the problem, when I tell them that so far no biscuits have been imported into this country commercially. Therefore, I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), and I find it difficult to understand where he has obtained his information. Those are the facts. Of course, we shall fully consider every application which we may receive from countries abroad to import our biscuits, before we give an import licence. Actually, one import licence has been granted, but no action has been taken on it.
  Major Mott-Radclyffe: Is the hon. Lady telling the House that, in fact, the restriction to 3,600 tons was never made because there was never any ceiling or
  1182
  limit put upon the importation of foreign biscuits, or any figure named?
  Dr. Summerskill: I think the figure of 60 per cent. which has been quoted may have been right—I shall have to refresh my memory upon that—but at the moment we have taken no action at all. We are quite prepared to revise these amounts and, as I say, we have not imported any biscuits yet.
  Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Would the hon. Lady say in respect of which country the import licence has been granted?
  Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Denmark. To believe that imports are in any way responsible for the present position in the biscuit industry is groundless, and this is borne out by the wide margin of unsatisfied demand. It is difficult to reconcile the contribution of one hon. Member who said that imports are spoiling the business of biscuit manufacturers and, on the other hand, to hear an hon. Member say that there is a shortage of biscuits in every part of the country.
  On the question of distribution, 1 would remind the House that appetites vary in different parts of the country. It may be that a woman with points to spare will say, "I will use these for biscuits." In another area she might use them for tinned salmon, and in another area she will buy beans with them. I cannot say anything about the tastes of the village which was mentioned by one hon. Member, but it may be that in that particular area there was not a big demand for cream biscuits, when there may have been a big demand for a savoury on points. So far as possible, we try to distribute them equitably throughout the country. Having been at the Ministry of Food for a little over a year, my experience is that no Member, from whatever part of the country he comes, is satisfied that his constituency is being dealt with, so far as food is concerned, as fairly as any other. When we have Members going to Northern constituencies and speaking, they come back and say that they have had wonderful meals and that the shops are full of food. Members here from the North look at our shops and say that we are better off than the people in the North, and so on. Therefore, it is a little difficult to satisfy everybody. Before the war, imports amounted only to some 6,000 tons per annum, or just under 2 per cent. of

  1183
  the total consumption. It will, therefore, be recognised how small is the danger to be anticipated from this source, and I find it difficult to understand why hon. Members with special knowledge of the biscuit industry, as apparently the hon Member for Gravesend has, should fear this competition which might arise from imports, in view of the fact that we imported only 2 per cent. of our biscuits before the war. It is the intention of the Ministry to do all that can be done to assist manufacturers to surmount their difficulties, and directly supplies of ingredients are sufficient for the purpose their claims will be met.
  Earl Winterton: No doubt the hon. Member who raised this question will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood him to say that there was grave danger of a reduction in employment in this industry. When the hon. Lady talks about giving supplies to surmount these difficulties, does that or does that not mean that in the near future if will be possible to make available to these manufacturers, who are in danger of having to close down part of their works. sufficient supplies to carry on?
  Dr. Summerskill: I thought I had made it clear to the noble Lord that we were very short of flour, fats and sugar, and although as I came into the Chamber an hon. Lady told me that biscuits could be made with syrup and oatmeal, I think most people prefer biscuits made of the usual ingredients. I really cannot promise that we shall be in a position to give the manufacturers the supply of fats, sugar and flour that they need in the near future.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: Is not the question of fats and sugar very much more important than the question of the supply of flour?
  Dr. Summerskill: Fats and sugar are very important, but one also needs flour. As the hon. Gentleman knows, bread rationing is in operation in this country today, and therefore we cannot give an unlimited supply of flour to biscuit manufacturers. I am sorry that I am not in a position to tell the hon. Gentleman the proportion of flour to sugar and fats but I will let him know.
  Mr. Smith: I think the hon. Lady misunderstood me. What I really meant to say was, is notit the fact that flour is the less scarce of the three ingredients in biscuits, and therefore can she tell the House she is giving every possible encouragement to the manufacture of biscuits which require less fat and less sugar?
  Dr. Summerskill: I thought I had made that clear when I said we had relaxed all our restrictions and left it to manufacturers to use their ingredients as they thought fit; we do not specify how they should use them; if a manufacturer feels he has a recipe which perhaps needs less sugar and fat he is at liberty to use it. Finally, I do want to tell the House that the Ministry regret the shortage as much as hon. Members. We are very anxious to vary the diet of the people, and we know that biscuits can supply that variation. However, I am quite sure that when hon. Members have thought over this matter and realised the difficulties with which we are faced, they will appreciate that at this time we cannot promise manufacturers more ingredients than they have at the moment.
  Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes past Ten O'Clock