HC Deb 14 October 1946 vol 427 cc718-47

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Edwards (Middlesbrough, East)

I beg to move, That the Nurses Amendment Regulations, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1141), dated 17th July 1946, a copy of which was presented on 22nd July, be annulled. The House will recall that some months ago a Prayer was put down to annul a Regulation by the Minister of Health which provided for the protection of certain classes of people who are nurses, but who are not described as nurses under the Act. When the relevant Act was in process of being passed in this House a request was made by people interested in the Christian Science movement that the Minister should use the powers he had to exclude certain classes of nurses from the operation of the Act. There are, under the Regulations, a good many classes of people who are, in every sense of the word, nurses. The Minister has used the powers given him under the Act to preserve the privileges of those classes of people, so that they may continue to nurse in the manner in which they have been in the habit of nursing.

It was represented to the Minister, I understand, that the Regulation which authorised Christian Scientists to be exempted was slipped in through a loophole in the Act. So far from that being the case, I want to read a letter from a previous Minister of Health, after written representations had been made to him, which led to this exemption for Christian Science nurses. The Minister wrote to the Committee on Publication, which controls this kind of activity for the Christian Science movement: The only way in which the Bill affects Christian Science nurses is that it prevents them using the title 'nurse,' unless an exception is made in their favour, either in the Bill itself or in the regulations which our Minister will be evoking under proviso (b) to Clause 6 (1). You urge that a special provision should be included in the Bill on this point. These are the words which I want to impress on the House. They are the Minister's words: We have considered this very fully in the light of the arguments you put forward, and I am authorised to say that Mr. Brown is prepared to give an assurance that, when he comes to evoke regulations under proviso (b) to Clause 6 (1) of the Bill, he will include a provision to the effect that nothing in the Subsection shall prevent the using of the name or title of 'Christian Science Nurse' by a member of the Church of Christ, Scientist, who is certified (or recognised) by the Church to be qualified for employment as such a nurse by the members of the Church. That letter will, I think, in the view of all fair-minded people dispose of the argument that this provision had slipped in through a loop-hole, when, so to speak, every one's back was turned. Had we not had these written terms from the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, we should certainly have moved an Amendment to the Act. The Minister gave an assurance that there was no inten- tion to interfere in any way with the practice of these nurses. The present Minister has stated exactly the same thing—that nothing is to interfere in any way with the practice of Christian Scientists, or of Christian Science nurses. It is difficult to understand, if there is no intention to interfere with the activities of these people in nursing, why anyone should want to make an unfair discrimination against this class of people, who, as I hope the House will realise, have been practising as Christian Science nurses for more than 50 years. In the early days of Christian Science practice, had the practitioners who undertook the care of the sick by spiritual means made no provision for the care of people who were bedridden, I am sure that they would have come in for a great deal of criticism.

It was always in the mind of those responsible for the conduct of this Church that there must be some provision to care for the sick, until more understanding is obtained so that cures can be made instantaneously—and no one professes that that is yet the general experience. The difference between us arises only when it is suggested that nobody should be allowed to practise and call themselves nurses unless they are qualified according to the standards of the medical profession. Anybody who knows anything about mental or spiritual healing, or Christian Science, will realise that it would be very difficult for Christian Scientists to practise nursing if they had to have the qualifications of medical practitioners or medical nurses. There is a vast difference. I could bring before a suitable inquiry many medical nurses and medical men who, because in their experience Christian Science has been much more efficacious, have turned from medical practice to Christian Science practice. Those people who have the qualifications are not in question, of course, because they will be allowed to continue; it is the people who, although they are not without adequate training, do not have the standards of training demanded by the medical profession. It is quite impossible to demand a medical training for Christian Science practice. There is so very little in common between the two.

I hope the House will believe me when I tell them that, in an experience of 30 years, when I had little trust in this or anything else, and medical practice had failed to help me when I was near to death, I turned to this thing and it healed me. I did not know how it helped me. I was like the blind man—"Whereas I was blind, now I see." Whereas I had been dying, now I was well. It would be a very serious matter if one compelled practitioners who were able to do that for me and for many hundreds of thousands of other people to stop practising, or to stop calling themselves nurses, unless they were up to the standard fixed by people who do not profess to know anything about this method of healing.

I have been in heresy hunts with my right hon. Friend when he was not the hunter, and I am sure he is the last man in the world who would want to encourage or defend any heresy hunt. My right hon. Friend is perfectly sincere in believing that this Act was intended to give protection to nurses, and that the standard of the nurses was placed in jeopardy, but having regard to the fact that two previous Ministers considered this matter quite as fully as he has done and came to the decision that these people should have proper protection, it is going to be a little dangerous in our legislative practice if another Minister, who has probably not had the same evidence before him, reverses that decision, and still another Minister may come and reverse it again. I ask the Minister to institute an investigation into this thing before he does that. He was persuaded in his mind that the position of nurses was placed in jeopardy, in spite of the fact that many other people are exempted from the operation of this Act by the Regulations. To anybody who takes a fair view of this matter, there does seem to be unfair discrimination. I believe that there is in the minds of many people, although they say they do not want to interfere with this practice, a profound distrust of this kind of practice. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] An hon. Member says, "Hear, hear "; it may be of interest to the House to hear what a previous Archbishop of York said about this. Dr. Lang, addressing the Lambeth Conference, said: The Christian Scientists have got something we ought never to have lost. That great woman Florence Nightingale, who founded the profession, was born about the same time as Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, and they died in the same year. When Florence Nightingale wanted to emphasise the essential part of the nursing profession, this is what she said: Nursing ought to signify the proper use of fresh air, light, warmth, cleanliness, quiet, and the selection and administration of diet at the least expense of vital force to the patient. I invite the House and the Minister to inspect some of the Christian Science nursing homes—or, as a concession to the previous Minister and the nursing profession, we call them "Christian Science houses" in preference to "nursing homes" so that there could not be any possible confusion. There was no difficulty in that case because in the Manual of the Mother Church, from which I want to quote, there is no provision for nursing homes.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan)

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am very sorry indeed to interfere with my hon. Friend but I can quite see that if the present line he is deploying is to be continued we shall be here all night. The merits of Christian Science are not in fact under consideration, nor are the merits of Christian Science nursing. There is only one thing under consideration—whether in fact this Regulation which refuses to describe Christian Science nurses as nurses should be annulled. It is purely a matter of nomenclature.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)

If the right hon. Gentleman had not anticipated me I was about to raise the point. I was however very loth to interrupt the hon. Member but I hope he will not go further with his discussion of the merits of Christian Science, but will confine himself to the particular point at issue.

Mr. A. Edwards

I thank you for that correction, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What I quoted came from perhaps the greatest nurse in history, who stated what she considered nursing to be, and I am trying to put it to the House that anybody who conforms to that description is entitled to nurse. I do not think that anyone is entitled to claim a monopoly on a word or name. If any body of people is to claim that nobody else may use a name, including a body of people who have used that name for more than 50 years in this country and have been registered as nurses during the whole of that time, I say it is a very serious thing indeed. I never thought, after the years I have given to fighting for freedom alongside my hon. Friends, that we should have this freedom given to us by a Tory Minister and taken away from us again by a Socialist Minister. This is rather a serious matter and I wanted to try to show the connection between nursing as described by Florence Nightingale and as described by this Manual of the Christian Science Church. This is the only definition in the Manual, and it reads as follows: A member of The Mother Church who represents himself or herself as a Christian Science nurse shall be one who has a demonstrable knowledge of Christian Science practice, who thoroughly understands the practical wisdom necessary in a sick room, and who can take proper care of the sick. That surely is conforming to what that great woman nurse required?

Dr. Morgan (Rochdale)

What sort of nursing training in a systematised established course does that Manual indicate is necessary in the case of a trained nurse?

Mr. Edwards

It requires five years' thorough training in all the requirements of the sick room. When this change was made and conditions laid down under the Act, the board of directors in Boston at once revised and extended their requirements. There must be five years' proper training—but of course not medical training in the sense the medical profession would demand; but then the medical profession could not do the healing Christian Science does.

Dr. Morgan

We are not referring to medical training but to nursing training.

Mr. Edwards

On that point I would put a consideration to the Minister. Is there any doubt in his mind or in the minds of other hon. Members, that Christian Science nurses have as thorough a training, in every real sense of the word, as medical nurses? If there is, I invite the Minister to make an investigation. I can assure him he will find that thorough training is required, as thorough as any medical training, and for a period of five years. That is the time taken to qualify as a Christian Science nurse. I ask that there should be an inquiry also as to whether Christian Science nurses care for the sick as well as any body of people practising this healing art can do. We will stand by the result of that investigation. We have had testimony from many medical practitioners, and from medically trained nurses, that in our nursing homes, or as we call them nursing houses, people are perfectly happy. I do not think the Minister can say that there has been any charge of negligence or any falling short from the standards demanded by the medical profession. In this country we have 300 churches, about 1,000 practitioners, and only about 40 to 50 registered nurses. I hope that the Minister will order an investigation, when I am sure he will find that to have good nursing under Christian Science treatment requires nurses who are sympathetic to Christian Science and not those who are antagonistic to it. When people are seriously ill they need all the help that they can get.

I am sure that not many Members believe it would be possible for one who needed a medical nurse, to make the mistake of engaging Christian Science nurses. How would that be conceivable? We have offered to do anything possible by way of distinguishing the title "nurse," in a way which would make confusion impossible. No-one is allowed to practise as a Christian Science nurse unless qualified and recognised by the Department. They are not allowed to use the name at all otherwise. No sympathiser with the medical method of healing would say it would be possible to engage Christian Science nurses by mistake. We do not want confusion, and we have offered to go as far as possible. We have tried everything, short of stopping the use of the word "nurse," and we claim that nobody has the right to monopolise that term. We will do anything to satisfy this House or any impartial body. Is it fair that all these people who rely upon Christian Science because they have failed to get help under material medicine should be placed in this position? Many people did not go to Christian Science for healing until doctors had said that their case was pretty hopeless. Let me tell the House what happened to two personal friends of mine. One was laid on his back for two years with valvular disease of the heart. He commenced Christian Science treatment and was healed in a few weeks. While he was having that treatment, was he to be nursed by somebody who was antagonistic?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I really do not think that point arises. The question at issue is the name or title of Christian Science nurse.

Mr. Edwards

The point is that this House decided previously, after a full investigation, that these people have a right to call themselves Christian Science nurses—

Mr. Bevan

No, the House never did.

Mr. Edwards

Surely the Minister, after full investigation, issued the Regulation? Is he not acting for this House?

Mr. Bevan

For the country.

Mr. Edwards

The regulations provide, anyhow, until they are reversed tonight, that it is perfectly right for any Christian Science nurse to practise as a Christian Science nurse and call himself or herself that. There is nothing to stop it. The Minister has proposed to reverse that authority. People who are being treated by Christian Science nurses and need nursing have a right to have available, and at their disposal, nurses trained for that specific purpose and in sympathy with them. It is true that this says that they shall not call themselves Christian Science nurses but does anybody believe that we are going to insist that they do not call themselves nurses and encourage the practice of nursing? There can only be one purpose for preventing the use of the name. There should be no confusion and people should not have the same opportunity of choosing these nurses. However unintentional the Minister is, he is being unfair. Other Ministers have made the decision and he is proposing to reverse what they have done. He is not being fair to himself if he does this without the fullest information being at his disposal. Why could not this be left a short time so that we might have an inquiry into the conditions under which these people practise, and if he is satisfied that they reach an adequate standard and that they are not jeopardising the position of medical nurses, let it stand. There is nothing unreasonable about that. I invite the Minister to make a full investigation. We will give every facility and abide by the result.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper (Middlesbrough, West)

I beg to second the Motion.

I would like to indicate what has lead up to the proposal that this Regulation should be annulled. In the first instance, when the Nurses Act, 1943, was being discussed, representations were made by officials from the Christian Science movement, I am informed, to see if some provision could be made in that Act itself for Christian Science nurses to practise in this country. I understand that a written undertaking was given to the officials, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards), to say that these nurses would come under a regulation which would be issued at a later date, and that would cover the requirements which they were making. As a result of that, they did not press any further at the time the Bill was going through the House to have their particular requirements covered.

In the Nurses Act, 1943, under Section 6(1), the Minister may make regulations to authorise the use, either generally or by specified classes of persons or in specified circumstances, of specified names or titles containing the word nurse or the word nurse otherwise qualified in accordance with the regulations. Reading that, I believe that it was meant to apply to such cases as those represented by the Christian Science authorities. In that Act provision is made for the exemption of children's nurses. Children's nurses need not have the same qualification required of other nurses. This Regulation, which was brought in in due time, allowed for Christian Science nurses. As my right hon. Friend brought in that Regulation earlier, I take it that it received his blessing. It was laid on the Table of this House, and Christian Science nurses were provided for in accordance with the undertaking given by his predecessor.

What, I think we may ask, has caused him to change his mind on this? Is it that he feels that Christian Science nurses do not justify such a title, or is it due to pressure and representations made by the medical nursing profession? I suggest that it is entirely on the grounds of representations that have been made to the Minister by the nursing profession that he has changed his mind. In view of that, I think it is as well that the House should consider what the attitude of the medical nursing profession has been on this matter. Various nursing journals have referred to "back door methods into the nursing profession" if the Regulation applying to Christian Science nurses is allowed to stand. They say it might interfere with the recruiting of medical nurses, and they have even gone so far as to say that it might even tend to lower the standard of the nursing profession.

The earlier Regulation was debated in this House as the result of a Prayer which was put down against it on 17th October last year, and the speeches made then tend to confirm that there is some definite hostility to Christian Science nurses on the part of the medical profession. If I may, I will refer briefly to the speech made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), who made reflections on the training of Christian Science nurses, which he compared adversely with the training required by the General Medical Council—

Dr. Morgan

The General Medical Council has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Cooper

I apologise, I should have said the General Nursing Council who, I understand, require a four-year training. The suggestion was made by that hon. Member that there was an injustice to State registered nurses, and also that to use the term "Christian Science nurse" would be misleading to the public. The hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) stated that every organisation connected with nursing was opposed to this one exception of Christian Science nurses, and I think he went on to say that it might cause a misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) said it was a travesty of the use of the word "nurse." I suggest that these remarks tend to show that there is hostility on the part of the medical nursing profession to the practice of nursing by Christian Science nurses, and it seems to me that the Minister is being persuaded by a hostile feeling on the part of one section of the community to the rights and the freedom of a minority.

I believe that these objections are in point of fact unfounded, and that it can be shown that the actual qualifications of Christian Science nurses are as high as, if not higher than, those of the medical nursing profession. I suggest this because of the regulations applying to Christian Science nurses. In the first instance, they are very carefully selected. They must in any case have a standard of education which is equivalent to the school certificate. They have to pass an interview by the Committee on Christian Science Houses which is already recognised by the Ministry of Health. The Committee on Christian Science Houses checks to see that these are kept to the high standard recognised by the Ministry of Health. Further, they have to go through two years' training in this country and, in addition to that, they have three years' training at one of the Benevolent Associations of the Christian Science movement in the United States of America. That makes up the five years, and during that course of training they have to learn the reasonable practices of sick nursing to ensure that they can take control in an emergency. I remember the hon. Member for South Tottenham asked what might happen if a patient had a hæmorrhage. A Christian Science nurse would know how to act if there was an emergency.

Mr. Messer (Tottenham, South)

May I ask my hon. Friend if it is not a fact that when I put that question, the reply I got was that the nurse would send for a doctor? If he is quoting, let him quote it properly.

Mr. Cooper

I take it that in certain cases that might be done if the hæmorrhage could not be got under control. That may be a very wise procedure, but it tends to show that these nurses know how to act in an emergency. I will go further and suggest that this band of people, Christian Science nurses, would be very severely handicapped if they had to adopt some other title. In any case, the suggestion that they should adopt some other title is entirely due to the suggestion put forward that there might be some confusion in the mind of the public. With the qualification of "Christian Science" in front of the word "nurse," I suggest that there would be no such confusion.

For what reason do the Christian Scientists wish to retain the word "nurse" as distinct from some other word? It is for the reason that, in the first instance, it has been laid down as part of the practice of Christian Science that in certain cases there shall be available Christian Science nurses. The words "Christian Science nurses" are used in the By-Laws of the movement and even if the Regulation goes through, there is no chance of it actually affecting that phrase. In any case, it is laid down in the ByLaws of the Mother Church in Boston, America. The Minister must consider whether or not this Regulation is capable of achieving what it wants—to prohibit the phrase "Christian Science nurse" being used. Even if the Regulation should go through, the Minister would not be able to prohibit the phrase being used. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough said, there are some 300 Christian Science churches in the British Isles. Each week these churches hold testimony meetings of healings by Christian Scientists. In any one of these meetings the words "Christian Science nurses" might be used. The Church issues literature, and in this literature the phrase "Christian Science nurses" may be used. These churches each distribute some thousands of copies of literature in this country. The various periodicals of the Christian Science movement include a monthly "Journal," a weekly "Sentinel" and the daily "The Christian Science Monitor," which is circulated throughout the world. I have seen some hon. Members of the House reading the "Monitor," in the reading room. If the Minister wishes to prohibit the use of the phrase "Christian Science nurses," is it his intention to prevent the circulation of all this literature in this country?

Again, there are lecturers who lecture to the public. These lecturers are announced in the Press, and reported in the Press. In any one of these lectures the words "Christian Science nurse" are likely to be used. I suggest that if the Minister adheres to the revoking of the existing Regulation, which recognises the Chrisian Science nurse, he will do a grave injustice to a most consecrated and most worthy, though perhaps small, band of workers in the sick room, who endeavour to bring to the sick the most sincere, most compassionate and highly qualified training, which is material in helping the sick to recover, and in some cases to recover when they have been abandoned as incurable by the medical profession.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I should make it clear that one Debate will cover the two Motions. They are in precisely similar terms.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris (Cambridge University)

Unlike the two hon. Members who have addressed the House, I have no association with Christian Science, and no great admiration for it, and I am not likely to apply myself to the study of the works of Mary Baker Eddy until the possibilities of the rest of the literature of the world are exhausted. My only interest tonight is in the question whether the abrogation of this Regulation is in accordance with reason and justice and commonsense. At the same time, as one who takes some interest in the evolution and application of the English language, I am rather impressed, perhaps I should say depressed, by the high-handedness with which a certain body of very estimable people want to arrogate the use of one particular common English word to their own purposes. After all, one cannot take a common English word and drive a stake through it as through a suicide at a cross road and say that it is to mean what one wants it to mean and nothing else.

The original meaning of the word "nurse" had nothing whatever to do with tending the sick. It applied to those admirable women to whom so many Members of this House in the past owed their survival whom I still make bold to call wet nurses—though no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to designate them nowadays as practitioners in vicarious lactation, or something similar—and who constituted an invaluable bulwark, or shall we say breastwork, against infant mortality in past generations. The French, who are much more logical and sensible than we, in some respects, do not make the mistake of confusing the sense of this word. For the ladies who render the services I have mentioned, and also look after the children when they are a little older, they use the same word as in English, nourrice, while for hospital nurses they use the term garde-malade, sick-tenders. If we made the same distinction in English perhaps this Debate would not be necessary.

However, the word has assumed this double connotation, and this use of the word "nurse" is now consecrated by two Acts of Parliament, that of 1919 and that of 1943. In that respect the earlier Act seems to me preferable, because it debars anyone from improperly using the term "registered nurse." I think that the House will agree with that; it is a perfectly reasonable proposition. The second Act goes further, and debars anyone from using the word "nurse," apart from certain exceptions specified in the Regulations, one of which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to change. But, of course, it is a material fact that these Regulations were made by the previous Minister of Health. He laid it down in spite of this general prohibition that all sorts of people might call themselves nurses with qualification. We could have a trained nurse, a children's nurse, a mental nurse, a student nurse or we could have a Christian Science nurse. I cannot for the life of me understand what objection should be taken to the use of that term. At least, I can understand one or two objections which in fact have not been made. I could understand the two Archbishops and the four Houses of Con-vocation objecting to the use of the word "Christian" in this connection. I should not be astonished if the Royal Society and the British Association, and perhaps the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn), protested against the use of the word "science." But why the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else should object to the use of the word "nurse" in the phrase "Christian Science nurse" do not comprehend.

In this matter it seems to me that the nursing profession is being even more exacting than the medical profession. There are those who sometimes think the medical profession rather unreasonable—not, I am sure, my right hon. Friend—but they do not narrow down the use of the word "doctor" to the extent that the nursing associations wish to narrow down the word "nurse." Take the case of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The fact that he can only pocket taxes and not attack poxes does not in the smallest degree limit his right to be termed Doctor. Nobody is in the least irritated or annoyed if that word is applied to him, except perhaps occasionally himself. By the same analogy, I think we may ask for a similar display of reason on the part of the nurses and on the part of my right hon. Friend who, I assume, in this matter is championing the cause of the nurses.

There is another consideration which I think is not altogether irrelevant. Even if the Government Whips are put on—and I sincerely trust they will not be— and this Regulation is annulled, practically everything that any Christian Science nurse could desire to achieve can, I imagine, be achieved in spite of that. Though Section 6 (b) deals with the rights of the Minister to make regulations such as we are discussing, subsection (c) reads as follows in dealing with the penalties for any breach of the regulations: A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this subsection by reason only that, without objection by him, other persons use the word 'nurse' in addressing or referring to him. That is a very wide latitude which is conferred by that subsection. Any one in referring to a Christian Science nurse can call him or her a Christian Science nurse as much as they wish. If, therefore, "A.B." is a Christian Science nurse, there is nothing, so far as I can see, to prevent his or her friends from inserting an advertisement in "The Times" every day of the year extolling the virtues of "A.B." and saying what an admirable Christian Science nurse he or she is, thus giving him a publicity such as no Christian Science nurse would desire or seek. Therefore, if this regulation is annulled, nothing will be achieved except a certain display of perversity on the part of the nursing profession which, I hope, will not be supported by my right hon. Friend. I trust that after he has listened to the arguments advanced tonight, and after an appeal has been made to his sense of justice and common sense, he will consent to think over this matter again. I cannot see what conceivable good can be achieved by annulling this Regulation. It has stood for 12 months and cannot hurt any one. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the Regulation another 12 months and during that time reconsider it carefully.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Erroll (Altrincham and Sale)

It is not often that I find myself in agreement with the Minister of Health, but on this occasion I do, though I do not agree with the Regulation at all. Surely, we are not to prohibit the use of a perfectly ordinary word and restrict its use only to a particular class of person. I speak as no supporter of Christian Science. I speak for the freedom to use a good honest English word, and I hope I will not be misunderstood either by my supporters or my opponents when I say that. When people come to me and ask me what I am in ordinary life, apart from being a Member of Parliament, and I say to them that I am an engineer, they at once say, "What kind of an engineer? Are you a mechanical engineer, an electrical engineer, or a civil engineer?" They want a qualification, and I suggest that that happens in many professions and not least in the mining profession, with which, I believe, the Minister of Health is somewhat remotely connected. If somebody asked the right hon. Gentleman what he had been before he became a Member of Parliament and he replied, "A miner," he would be asked immediately, "What sort of a miner? A coal miner, a gold miner or somebody under the age of 21 years?" I say that with no disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman. I can appreciate that in South Wales they enunciate English rather better than Anglo-Saxons, and that that, undoubtedly, contributes very greatly to the Minister's success, if not in this House.

The real point is in regard to Christian Science nurses and those who believe in using them—which I certainly would not think of doing and I wish to emphasise that point; it is that they would not like to be called by anything except by the term Christian Science nurse. That is a phrase which, to them, is all important. If you say to them, "You are only a nurse," they would say, "No, I am not a nurse; I am a Christian Science nurse." I do not really see why a person could not use the general term nurse, provided that a qualifying phrase is used in front of it, namely, Christian Science nurse, which is the qualifying phrase which all connected with Christian Science wish to use. They do not wish to use the term nurse, because it may denote a person nursing his constituents and a whole lot of other matters. The verb "nurse" is in very general use in political and other senses. The word is no proprietary right of some august body in Portland Place. It is a word used and widely believed in by the people of this country. If we accept this narrow restriction of the word, we shall have the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Edith Summerskill) saying that only members, and productive members, of the Married Women's Association are to be allowed to use the word "mother," and I do not think anybody would like to see that happen. We must be clear in our use of the word.

Dr. Morgan

Does the hon. Member use the word "mother" of unproductive women?

Mr. Erroll

Most certainly, it would not in the least surprise me to hear of Socialist use of that word. If I may, I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that the original interruption was rather unwarranted. We are here witnessing yet another restriction on the people of this country; we are seeking to restrict the use of the very general word "nurse." I do not think that that is fair or right, particularly as the people who want to continue using the word are automatically going to use the qualifying prefix "Christian Science" because they are unorthodox and wish to distinguish themselves from the ordinary run of nurses. I sincerely hope that the Government will not put their Whips on tonight; I do not wish to see their cohorts tramping through the Lobby and trampling another page of English history in the dust beneath their heels.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Messer (Tottenham, South)

Much that has been said tonight would, perhaps, have been more appropriate in Debates on the Second Reading of the Nursing Bill, 1943.

Mr. Erroll

Some of us were not here then.

Mr. Messer

I know. If hon. Members speaking here tonight had been present in 1943 or had read the Debates they would have realised that there was a very real need for that Bill, now an Act, and that its main purpose was to protect the name of "nurse." Over all the long years that people have been struggling to make the nursing profession a real profession, the one thing that has been most in mind has been to get the name "nurse" accepted in connotation with a standard of nursing. We have been told tonight about the word "nurse" being a good old English one, but we have to remember that we now demand of those who train as nurses a type of training which is very much more than is really required. They have to learn physiology, anatomy and theoretical work which makes them almost assistant doctors and yet they are never called upon to use their knowledge. To become State registered nurses, they have to undergo that training.

Broadly speaking, there are three types of people who will be entitled to the name of nurse. One will be the listed nurse. She is the nurse who has had training and has the necessary qualifications, but who failed to get on to the register in 1919 or, as extended, in 1926. For certain reasons she was unable to get on to the register. The fact remains that she has the qualifications, but is not a State registered nurse. Then there is another type of nurse who does not attain the standard of a State registered nurse. She is asked to undergo training for two years to become an assistant nurse. She goes on the roll and becomes an enrolled nurse. The third is the State registered nurse who goes through the period of training and gets on to the State register.

If Ernest Brown, as Minister of Health, had hinted during the passage of that Bill that he was going to produce a Regulation of this description, he would have found the House against him. I remember that when we were dealing in the Schedule with the list of people entitled to call themselves nurses, many Amendments were put down. If an Amendment had been put down saying that there should be a body of people entitled to call themselves nurses without being called upon to undergo the training recognised by the General Nursing Council, a body set up by Parliament, a statutory body and one charged with the responsibility of deciding what shall be the standard for nurses, the House would have been against it.

Mr. Wilson Harris

Would the hon. Gentleman please clear up one point? I presume that Regulation was laid upon the Table for 40 days. Was it ever prayed against?

Mr. Messer

If the hon. Gentleman had paid some attention to this question, he would know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health inherited that Regulation, and it was not laid on the Table until this Parliament met, after the House had decided that it did not want Ernest Brown any longer. The Regulation was laid on the Table and a Prayer was made against it. That Prayer was withdrawn on the undertaking of my right hon. Friend that if some compromise or agreement could not be reached then he would take the matter in hand with a view to safe- guarding the position. Attempts have been made to reach agreement. I want to pay this compliment to my hon. Friends who have made this Prayer tonight, that I believe they have striven for agreement. It is true that the General Nursing Council and the trained body of nurses themselves cannot agree, as a result of which my right hon. Friend has kept his part of the pledge. What I regret very much about this matter is that back door methods have been adopted. Those interested in this question when we were debating the Act had no idea that this correspondence was taking place between the Christian Scientists and the Minister of Health. I want to make it plain that I refuse to be bound by an undertaking given by a Minister of Health when I myself was never consulted with regard to what he agreed, and I do not think this House is bound by that undertaking. We had no opportunity of saying whether or not he was entitled to give that undertaking. He certainly cannot bind a successor to himself in this respect.

The nursing profession, as everybody knows, is in a very bad state at the present time. It is difficult to get recruits. There are probably many reasons why that should be the case. My view is that it is not a question of money. There are plenty of girls who have the aptitude and the desire for this work, but they want to know that there is something at the end of their long period of training. They want what so many nursing reformers have wanted; they want to see it a real profession. Up to now it has not succeeded in attaining that status. They call it a profession, but it is not. The nurses say, "If we are to be regarded as people who have passed an examination after training over a period of years, we are entitled to the protection of the word 'profession'." It has been argued that Christian Science nurses are very clever, that they have a five year training—one year more than that of the ordinary State registered nurse. I know it is difficult when we are tackling these questions of religion, but why cannot a Christian Science nurse have the ordinary training of a nurse? What is there to prevent her coming into the profession?

Mr. Erroll

May I answer that point? The answer is very simple—because she does not believe in that training, for better or for worse.

Mr. Messer

The answer is the one I expected. As she does not believe in that training is she entitled to the title of those who do believe in that training? The whole question boils itself down to whether or not we are going to have a recognised standard, and having set that standard, whether we are going to prescribe those people who pass an examination before they can be known by the name of those who have attained that standard. I do not think there is any difficulty in regard to a Christian Science nurse if she has this desire to serve her fellows. Why should not she take that examination?

Mr. Erroll

Because she does not believe in it.

Mr. Messer

I know she does not believe in it, but if she underwent that training she would be a trained nurse, and nothing could prevent her then being a nurse. Whether she believes in it or not the truth is, once she is trained the public then have the protection of knowing that she has been taught to do the job. I know it is said, "But the Christian Science nurses do not practise on the public; they do not nurse the public; they only nurse the members of their own religion." This House has a responsibility, not merely to the members of the public apart from the members of that religion, but even to the members of that religion.

I suggest that from another aspect this Prayer should be rejected. It cannot for one moment be believed that the General Nursing Council has lightly decided in the way it has The Royal College of Nursing, the General Nursing Council, the National Health Confederation, the Trades Union Congress—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

The closed shop.

Mr. Messer

The medical profession is a closed shop. Although I might possess as much legal knowledge as a lawyer, I cannot plead in the courts because the legal profession is a closed shop. There are some things about which it is better that there should be a closed shop. In this matter I do suggest, it is not only the nurses but the members of the public who should be protected. What did Lord Ammon, when he was Mr. Ammon, say in this House in the Second Reading Debate, "This Bill is welcomed because it sees the end of Sarah Gamp, the Sarah Gamp who could call herself a nurse"? You cannot open the door to the Christian Scientists and shut it to the Sarah Gamps. It is not because the Christian Scientists are Christian Scientists, but because it is a departure, because it would be saying, in effect, that all that has been done to prevent misuse of the word is now ended. We cannot open the door to the Christian Scientists unless we open it to everybody else.

9.54 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan)

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke now. Perhaps it will help us to get away rather earlier—at least I hope so—than might otherwise be the case. I would like to remind hon. Members opposite in particular, that this is an Act which was passed by the last Parliament with the full support of all parties in the House. It was a decision taken by the last Parliament to accomplish the purpose so admirably described by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) to confer upon the nursing profession the status which the nursing profession has always desired. Therefore, it is not a party matter. This is an obligation laid upon me, as Minister of Health, by Statute.

What was the situation as I found it when I took office? I found myself faced with a Prayer, moved from this side of the House and seconded from the other side of the House, last October; it was an inter-party Prayer to annul the Regulation giving exemption to the Christian Scientists. That was the situation in October. In other words, there was a perfectly proper cross-party opposition to the exemption being given at all. I was naturally anxious, as was everybody else in this field, not to be drawn into controversy about the merits of Christian Science. I wanted, as far as I could, to dispose of the issue in the most amiable and least acrimonious way, and, therefore, the hon. Members concerned agreed to withdraw their Prayer, to see whether we could not reach an understanding. If that had not been the case, the House would have been faced with a Division last October, and if I had been faced with a Division last October I should have advised the House to vote for the Prayer for the annulment of the Regulation. But I thought there was a possibility of reaching an understanding.

Several meetings have been held. I have given a great deal of time to it. I have met representatives of both sides, separately and together; but no compromise has proved to be possible. Obviously, if a concession had to be made, it would have had to be made by the Christian Scientists, because the Prayer was against them. But no concession of a substantial kind could be made by them, because this nomenclature is written into their covenant, into their sacred books; and, therefore, they found they could not do so. I was faced with the position that I had to give the House an opportunity once more of considering the matter. So, in fulfilment of the promise I made to the House last October, I had to make this Regulation.

The House must recollect that the whole purpose of the Act of 1943 was to surround the word with sacrosanctity. The hon. Member the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), who has made a very witty speech, has forgotten that charter after charter has been given by the House of Commons in order to give a certain name a certain definite meaning.

Mr. Wilson Harris

rose—

Mr. Bevan

May I finish my sentence? For example, the words "solicitor," "medical practitioner"—

Mr. Erroll

Doctor?

Mr. Bevan

"Medical practitioner"—all kinds of words. The hon. Member will not prove his point by saying there are words in the English language about which there is no charter. There are 40,000 words.

Mr. Harris

The Act itself specifically provides for exceptions under the Regulations, and there are exceptions, most of which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted.

Mr. Bevan

If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will deal with that point when I come to it. It is not relevant to what I am saying at the moment. We are attempting to constrain the English language. Every time we make a charter, and we give a specific meaning to a name, we do circumscribe it. That is the whole point. It is a necessary accompaniment to the status of the profession that the name should be preserved with a definite meaning, and that other people should not, possibly, use it frivolously or irrelevantly. Here we are with a body of women—devoted, dedicated, hard working, absolutely indispensable for the care of the sick. I venture to say that in the care of the sick the trained nurse is as important as anyone in any other branch of the medical profession. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not denied."] Hon. Members must let me finish. These women, these girls, resented the fact that after extremely arduous training, after their difficult examinations, they were known by a name which anybody could adopt.

An Hon. Member

They were not.

Mr. Bevan

Yes, anybody else could call themselves "nurses."

Mr. Michael Astor (Surrey, Eastern)

Would the right hon. Gentleman say, for instance, that a general in the Salvation Army could be confused with a general in the British Army?

Mr. Bevan

Really, hon. Members opposite must attempt to face this very serious problem with something less than their usual frivolity. We are now discussing something which is extremely serious, and hon. Members must remember what the reaction outside will be towards this discussion tonight. It was therefore desired to surround this name with certain protections. In fact, if that were not the purpose, the Act need not have been passed at all. That was the purpose of the Act An hon. Member has said that power was given to make certain exemptions in the Regulations. Yes, but the language giving that power is extremely circumscribed, and I am certain that what my hon. Friend said is quite right—had it been known that the Minister of Health had privately given an undertaking to put an interpretation upon those words that enabled him to give exemption to the Christian Scientists, it would never have gone through the House at all. Quite frankly, I deprecate Ministers giving undertakings to influential people behind the back of Parliament. When a Bill is before the House of Commons and the House is debating it and placing certain constructions upon its provisions, it is altogether improper that a different and secret construction should be put upon it

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

rose—

Mr. Bevan

The hon. Member should contain himself. He bubbles up all the time. There is nothing to prevent him from blowing bubbles. The position therefore was that I found that an undertaking had been given by Mr. Brown, then Minister of Health, in a letter which was not brought before the House of Commons. It is perfectly true that the Minister said that he was prepared to give the undertaking in public if he were asked to do so, but he was never invited to do so and so these people who thought that they were protecting nurses against something of this sort were themselves left without any protection. What are the exemptions? They are all exemptions within the hierarchy of nursing itself—mental nursing, trained nursing, in other words they are all different forms of nursing within the register. They are not extraneous categories.

Mr. A. Edwards

Will the Minister allow me one question—Is it not a fact that some of these exceptions do not need to have the medical training which it has been suggested should be insisted upon in the case of the Christian Scientists? I think I would agree with what he said that the manner of this undertaking was rather unfortunate, but does he not see that had the Christian Scientists not had that undertaking, they would have had opportunities of bringing Amendments before the House?

Mr. Bevan

We agree on how unfortunate the proceeding was, but my hon. Friend is resting his case on the fact that he had an undertaking, and I am saying that the undertaking has no validity, and that we should return to first principles.

Mr. A. Edwards

Yes, but the undertaking—

Mr. Bevan

It is an undertaking given privately by a Minister, and ought not to have validity. The House of Commons is master in these matters, and must remain master. This undertaking has put both parties in a difficulty, but I am absolutely satisfied, and any hon. Member who was in the last House can confirm this, that if the Christian Scientists had put down an Amendment to give this exemption, they would have been hopelessly defeated. They would not have obtained for themselves an exemption that was denied to anybody else. My hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) was quite right. How can you grant this exemption to the Christian Scientists and deny it to anybody else? Where do you stop? Where is the Minister of Health going to be if I receive importunities from other sources? Any other organisations of a religious denomination can do exactly the same thing. There are a large number of them. Can they all come forward and ask for exemption?

Let hon. Members opposite consider this. If you give this exemption, what is going to happen to the nurses? I have Questions on the Order Paper every Thursday, asking me why it is beds are not available, why hospitals are not sufficiently staffed, and what are we doing to provide accommodation and assistance for the long queues that cannot enter hospitals because we have not the staff. At the same time hon. Members are frivolously considering offending a whole body of people, and I ask hon. Members to be very careful what they are doing. One of the first things which happened to me, when I took office, was to receive letters of protest from nurses against exemptions given, in spite of every promise that their professional status would be upheld, and that they would not be exposed to more denigrations about which they had been protesting all their lives. It seems to me the case is wholly made out that this Regulation should stand. I warn hon. Members who walk into the Lobby and vote for this Prayer that they will have to tell me how this Act is going to be construed, and set frontiers on what the Minister of Health can do if he is to give exemptions of this sort because a certain body of opinion has influence and is able to lobby Members. Certainly I do not object to lobbying. It is a perfectly proper Parliamentary practice. Nevertheless, if you are to allow this exemption to occur in this case, where is it to stop? I shall have a stream of applications to pass regulation after regulation. The 1943 Act will be of no value at all, and a great body of fine women will have been deeply and mortally offended.

Mr. A. Edwards

Have all these people who have exemptions been compelled to take the kind of medical training which the Christian Scientists are asked to take?

Mr. Bevan

I do not know what kind of training the Christian Scientists are asked to take. I am not an authority on medical training.

Mr. Edwards

That is not the point I put. It was put from the nurses' point of view that if these Christian Science nurses wanted to be called nurses, they should be willing to take medical nursing training. Have those others who have been exempted had to take a course of medical training?

Mr. Bevan

They have to take a course of medical training prescribed by the General Nursing Council before they are entitled to use the term "nurse." There is no objection to any trained nurse practising any form of therapy he or she likes. We say, for the protection of the public, that people who describe themselves in language which purports to give them certain knowledge must have that knowledge. If they have not got that knowledge, the public is not protected.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Michael Astor (Surrey, Eastern)

This Debate started with the mover and seconder of this Prayer drawing two red herrings across the track. The former spoke about the efficacy of Christian Science, and the second about the efficacy of the Christian Science nurse. Neither of these two matters has anything to do with the case. Neither do I think it is of the slightest importance whether these good ladies are called Christian Science nurses or not. I have no sympathy with the Christian Science organisation but I am in sympathy with this Prayer because I believe that an important matter of principle is involved. That matter of principle is that legislation is being approved which, in fact, penalises one section of the community. I believe that to be a thing which this House, if it chooses to regard it as such, would in fact disapprove. The penalisation of this section of the community varies only in degree from generally baiting Jews, of which this country has for so long disapproved. That is the relevant argument, and any other arguments, to my mind, are entirely secondary. The right hon. Gentleman took it as an irrelevant interruption just now, but I still maintain it to be a perfectly good simile that if you are going to penalise these people calling themselves Christian Science nurses, where no confusion arises between the ordinary fully- trained nurse and the other nurse—no confusion can arise, because one cannot ring up for a nurse and find a Christian Science nurse at one's door—surely, one could just as rightly object to a Salvation Army general calling himself a general. There is a last point I would like to make. I believe I am right in saying that this legislation cannot be effectively carried out in this country because the mass of publications on behalf of the Christian Science organisation have their origin in America, and whatever we say or do here this evening will have little or no effect on the publishing houses in America. I urge that this matter be reconsidered on those grounds.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)

I intended originally to speak on the question of the Scottish Order, but both are being taken together, and I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, who must have had very considerable representations from Christian Scientists in Scotland on this matter, whether he is in agreement with what the Minister of Health has said. I am very sorry, but I do not think anything the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has said tonight really alters the subject. The whole point is that this is a question of title. I hold no brief for Christian Science nurses. I have never had any experience of them. I am thankful to say I have had very little experience of any nurses. [Interruption.] I did say very little experience.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)

The nurses have been very lucky.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

I must admit they have done their job well. I have the very highest respect for the orthodox nursing profession, as I think everybody must have, but I feel that if anybody is called a Christian Science nurse, there can be no question about whom one is referring to. The Christian Science nurse cannot be mixed up with the orthodox nurse, and I do not think any orthodox nurse could have any objection. One is an orthodox nurse and the other is a Christian Science nurse. This organisation has undertaken that it will use the words "Christian Science" combined with the word "nurse." Therefore, there can be no confusion. I cannot help feeling that the Minister of Health is being rather unreasonable in this matter. I would like to know what the Secretary of State for Scotland has to say, because there is a great deal of feeling in Scotland on this subject

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood)

I can give an assurance first, that I have had few representations from Scotland, secondly, that I am entirely in agreement with what has been stated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and thirdly, with regard to the number of Christian Science nurses,

as they are called at present, in Scotland, to the best of my knowledge they number only six.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

Does the number affect the question of principle?

Question put, That the Nurses Amendment Regulations, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1141), dated 17th July, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 22nd July, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 43; Noes, 245.

Division No. 286.] AYES. [10.17 p.m.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Granville, E. (Eye) Nicholson, G.
Amory, D. Heathcoat Grenfell, D. R. Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Astor, Hon. M. Grimston, R. V. Ranger, J.
Birch, Nigel Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge) Sanderson, Sir F,
Bossom, A. C. Harris, H. Wilson Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Bowen, R. Hobson, C. R. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Hope, Lord J. Turton, R. H.
Chamberlain, R. A. Lang, G. Vane, W. M. F.
Channon, H. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Viant, S. P.
Clarke, Col. R. S. Low, Brig. A. R. W. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Williams, C. (Torquay)
De la Bère, R. Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping) TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Erroll, F. J. Marsden, Capt. A. Mr. Alfred Edwards and
Gibbins, J. Mellor, Sir J Mr. Geoffrey Cooper
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
NOES.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Coldrick, W. Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Cole, T. L. Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Allen, A. C, (Bosworth) Collick, P. Grey, C. F.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Collindridge, F. Grierson, E.
Alpass, J. H. Collins, V. J. Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Colman, Miss G. M. Guy, W. H.
Attewell, H. C. Comyns, Dr. L. Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Hale, Leslie
Awbery, S. S. Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.) Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Baird, J. Corbett, Lieut-Col. U. (Ludlow) Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Balfour, A. Crawley, A. Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Barstow, P. G. Crossman, R. H. S. Hardy, E. A.
Barton, C. Daggar, G. Harrison, J.
Battley, J. R. Daines, P. Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Davies, Edward (Burslem) Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Bechervaise, A. E. Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Hewitson, Capt. M.
Benson, G. Davies, Harold (Leek) Hicks, G.
Berry, H. Deer, G. Holman, P.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) de Freitas, Geoffrey Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Bing, G. H. C. Diamond, J. Hoy, J.
Binns, J. Dobbie, W. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Blackburn, A. R. Dodds, N. N. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Blenkinsop, A. Donovan, T. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Blyton, W. R. Drewe, C. Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Boardman, H. Driberg, T. E. N. Jay, D. P. T.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Durbin, E. F. M. Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Dye, S. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Bramall, Major E. A. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Brook, D. (Halifax) Edwards, John (Blackburn) Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Keenan, W.
Brown, George (Belper) Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Kenyon, C.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Evans, E. (Lowestoft) Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E,
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Fairhurst, F. Kinley, J.
Buchanan, G. Farthing, W. J. Lee, F. (Hulme)
Burke, W. A. Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.) Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Follick, M. Leslie, J. R.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Foot, M. M. Lindgren, G. S.
Chater, D. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) Linstead, H. N.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R. Gaitskell, H. T. N. Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Clitherow, Dr. R. Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Longden, F.
Cluse, W. S. Gibson, C. W. Lyne, A. W.
Cobb, F. A. Glanville, J. E. (Consett) McGhee, H. G.
Cocks, F. S. Gooch, E. G. McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.) Parker, J. Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Maclean, N. (Govan) Paton, J. (Norwich) Thomas, George (Cardiff)
McLeavy, F. Pearson, A. Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Peart, Capt. T. F. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries) Perrins, W. Thurtle, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield) Tiffany, S.
Mann, Mrs. J. Porter, G. (Leeds) Titterington, M. F.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Pritt, D. N. Tolley, L.
Marquand, H. A. Proctor, W. T. Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Marshall, F. (Brightside) Pursey, Cmdr. H. Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Mayhew, C. P. Randall, H. E. Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Messer, F. Reeves, J. Walkden, E.
Middleton, Mrs. L. Reid, T. (Swindon) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Mikardo, Ian Richards, R. Watkins, T. E.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R. Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall) Weitzman, D.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Molson, A. H. E. Sargood, R. West, D. G.
Monslow, W. Scollan, T. Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M. White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Morley, R. Shurmer, P. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.) Silverman, J. (Erdington) Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Simmons, C. J. Wilkins, W. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.) Skeffington, A. M. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Mort, D. L. Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Moyle, A. Srow, Capt. J. W. Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Murray, J. D. Solley, L. J. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Nally, W. Sorensen, R. W. Williamson, T.
Naylor, T. E. Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Neal, H. (Claycross) Sparks, J. A. Wilson, J. H.
Neven-Spence, Sir B. Stamford, W. Wyatt, W.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Steele, T. Yates, V. F.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Stokes, R. R. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Noel-Buxton, Lady. Stross, Dr. B. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Oldfield W. H. Sutcliffe, H. Zilliacus, K.
Oliver, G. H. Swingler S.
Paget, R. T. Symonds, A. L. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield) Capt. Michael Stewart and
Palmer, A. M. F. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Mr. Popplewell.
Pargiter, G. A. Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Mr. A. Edwards

I beg to move, That the Nurses (Scotland) Amendment Regulations, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 1144), dated 17th July 1946, a copy of which was presented on 23rd July, be annulled.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper

I beg to second.

Question put, and negatived.