Commons Sitting of 1 July 1949

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For the Borough of Leeds (West Division) in the room of Thomas William Stamford, Esquire, deceased.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  EDINBURGH AND MIDLOTHIAN WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

RAILWAY WORKERS (DISPUTE)
Mr. Eden(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he can now make a statement about the decision of the N.U.R. to put into force a "go-slow" campaign on the railways at midnight on Sunday next.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am not yet in a position to add to my statement of yesterday, but I hope to be able to make a further statement before the House rises today.
Mr. Eden: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman says I do not think any of us want to press him, particularly if he makes a statement later today, but I would ask him whether he has in mind—I am sure he has—and whether all concerned have in mind how very serious the position must be at a time when our national economy is so very precarious? I think we have a measure of sympathy, particularly for the lower-paid railway workers in this situation, but is it not a fact that a concession has already been offered to them to cost something like £2 million, and would not this "go-slow" policy simply jeopardise the conclusion of the negotiations as a whole?
Mr. Isaacs: I am pleased to be able to state that I know that the fact mentioned in the first part of the right hon.
1660
Gentleman's Question is having a considerable influence, and will influence the negotiations which are now practically terminated.
Lord John Hope: The Minister's intention to say something this afternoon depends on certain things that may or may not happen in the meantime, but may we take it that he will in any case definitely make a statement before the end of Business today, whether the negotiations take one turn or another during the course of the day?
Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. I hope the thing will reach a conclusion before the House rises, and should I get any such decision I shall undertake to communicate it to the House.
Lord John Hope: I must apologise for pressing the point on the right hon. Gentleman, but surely we must, before the weekend, have some kind of a statement as to what is going on and whether a decision has been come to or not?
Mr. Isaacs: Do not press me any further. What the hon. Gentleman asks for will be done.

STRIKE, LONDON DOCKS
Mr. Eden: May I now ask the right hon. Gentleman another question of which I have given Private Notice? Can he make any statement to the House on the position of the strike at the London docks?
Mr. Isaacs: I regret to state that there is no improvement in the position this morning. In view of the statements that have been put out to the effect that the present situation constitutes a lock-out, I realise that the men may feel confused on this point. To remove misunderstanding I will explain the position as I see it. Under the dock labour scheme, the men are required to accept work offered them. If the National Dock Labour Board do not direct labour in response to requisition by employers, they may be held to be in breach of their statutory duty. The employers have a perfect right to requisition labour in such priority as they feel desirable or necessary.
I may say that this question has been raised on a number of occasions during

1661
the last few weeks. At my direct request the employers and the Dock Labour Board refrained from taking any action, but in view of the legal position I could not continue such a request indefinitely. The dock labour scheme confers considerable benefits on the dockers, and their unions are intent on preserving it. The men should resume normal work, in the knowledge that this is the advice of their unions, given in the light of all the facts.
Mr. Eden: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that statement. May I ask him, in view of the reports that there is considerable confusion in the minds of some of the dockers as to the exact position, whether he will consider making that statement fully available at the earliest opportunity? Might I also ask whether he would consider coupling it, in view of the serious situation which has now arisen in our export trade, with an appeal from this House as a whole that work may be resumed and the life of the nation may be allowed to flow again?
Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. In case the statement that I have made this morning may not get the publicity that is required, I will consider immediately what other steps can be taken to bring home to the workers concerned both the points mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Osborne: In view of the confusion in the minds of some of the workers, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider making a short statement of the history of the case—how the trouble has arisen and how it affects the men over here—so that the position may be thoroughly understood? I believe that would help to get a settlement more quickly.
Mr. Isaacs: The history of the case is really so confusing and there is so much disagreement on the details, that we have not intervened on the merits of the dispute in another country but on the rights of our people to honour the laws, customs and agreements in their own country.
Mr. Eden: Is it not a fact that there are now 70 ships held up and that the position is becoming extremely serious? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he can add to the appeal just made, an appeal on behalf of this House
1662
to the men concerned that this state of affairs should be brought to an end?
Mr. Isaacs: We may rely upon the Press of the country, concerned as they are with the affair, to give publicity to what has just been said. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's expression. I am sure that he is speaking for the House of Commons, and that this appeal is now made by the House of Commons not so much upon the merits or the demerits of the dispute or on the differences between employers and workers, but because of the absolute necessity, in the interests of the country's present position, that we should restore normal working.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HAIRDRESSERS (REGISTRATION) BILL
  Order for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee) read.
  11.12 a.m.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sparks.
  Mr. Sparks: On a point of Order. Is it your intention, Sir, to call the proposed new Clause—[Offences and penalties].
  Mr. Speaker: I have called the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) to move the first Amendment which stands in his name.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Further to that point of Order. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you do not propose to call the new Clause standing in the names of some of my hon. Friends, and myself.
  Mr. Speaker: I should have thought it was obvious that as I had called the second notice on the Paper I was not calling the first.
  Sir T. Moore: May I explain that the proposed new Clause, and the consequential Amendments, represent a very important principle, which was defeated in the Committee by only 11 votes to eight. That made one hope that the whole House would have an opportunity of judging the matter?
  Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to give reasons why I select or why I do not

  1663
  select Amendments. The principle may be important or it may not, but I saw the proposed new Clause for the first time only at ten o'clock this morning. The other Amendments on the next Bill I received late last night by manuscript. I have to go carefully into all the merits of such matters. In view of those circumstances and of the previous discussion I decided not to call the proposed new Clause.

  Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCIL.)
  Amendment made: In page 1, line 6, leave out from beginning to second "a."—[Mr. Sparks.]

  Clause 4.—(PERSONS ENTITLED TO BE REGISTERED.)
  11.15 a.m.
  Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "class," and to insert "form."
  We think the word "form" is preferable. There is a little controversy about what is meant by "class," but there is not the same controversy about "form," which is a description of hairdressing contained in Clause 17.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I beg to second the Amendment.
  It will bring Clause 4 into conformity with the definition in Clause 17. It would create confusion if the word "class" continued in Clause 4 while the word "form" were used in Clause 17.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 16, leave out "the class," and insert "any of the forms."
  In line 16, at end, insert: "as defined in section seventeen hereof."—[Mr. Sparks.]

  Clause 6.—(ISSUE OF CERTIFICATES.)
  Amendment made: In page 2, line 34, leave out "Registrations," and insert "Registration."—[Mr. Sparks.]

  Clause 8.—(APPEAL AGAINST REJECTION OF APPLICATION.)
  Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 3, line 2, after "persons," to insert "to be."
  1664
  This Amendment is linked with the following Amendment and is intended to broaden the scope of the appeal tribunal by giving power to vary the personnel of the tribunal, in accordance with the kind of case which may at any time be referred to it.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I beg to second the Amendment.
  One of the consequences of including these Amendments will be that there will be no need to keep a permanent tribunal for this purpose.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 3, after "State," insert:
  "from time to time as regards the matters in issue in any such application as aforesaid."—[Mr. Sparks.]

  Clause 10.—(FEES.)
  Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided however that in the event of a further application by such person to enlarge the form of hairdressing which the said registered person is entitled to practise being granted no further fee shall be payable by such registered person."
  We undertook to look into this point on Standing Committee in order to make it quite clear that it was not the intention that every time a person made an application for registration for an additional process or form of hairdressing he should be required to pay the registration fee of 10s. Our intention was that only one fee of 10s. should be paid upon first registration and that subsequent registrations to enlarge the certificate of the applicant should not incur a further fee.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I beg to second the Amendment.
  There are a number of forms of hairdressing and a person applying to be registered may be registered in one form or more forms. If it should be only one, there is a registration fee of 10s. The Amendment makes it clear that if there are subsequent applications and further registrations, further payments of 10s. do not have to be made.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 11.—(OFFENCES AND PENALTIES.)
  Amendment made: in page 3, line 29, leave out "class," and insert "form."—[Mr. Sparks.]

  Clause 12.—SAVING FOR DOCTORS, CHEMISTS, TRICHOLOGISTS AND OTHERS.)
  Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, after "with," to insert "or derogate from."
  In the opinion of some of us, the words "rights or functions" were rather restrictive, and we wanted to make it quite clear that it was not intended to derogate from the functions or to interfere with the rights and functions of the various categories of persons covered by the Clause.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. John Paton: There is a close connection between this Amendment and my Amendment in page 3, line 37, after the second "of," to insert:
  "Or the carrying out of any operation normally carried out by."
  I prefer the addition of the form of words which I propose because, as has been pointed out, there is a doubt whether the use of the term "rights or functions" may not be too restrictive. I am advised that that view may be held by lawyers. At least, the doubt exists that they may be regarded as rights and functions statutorily determined in one form or another. Since most of the bodies named in the Clause are bodies which have rights and functions prescribed by Act of Parliament, it would follow that if "rights or functions" remains, even with the addition of "or derogate from", it might be that the Institute of Trichologists, which also appears in the Clause, would not be covered by "rights or functions" because that institute has no rights or functions determined by statute. I hope that my hon. Friends will be prepared to accept my Amendment in order to put the matter beyond any doubt.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels Mr. Turner-Samuels rose—
  Mr. Speaker: The Mover of an Amendment has the right to make another speech but the seconder has not. Therefore, the hon. and learned Member must first ask the leave of the House.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: May I then ask leave of the House to refer again to this matter, Mr. Speaker? I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) is in agreement with our
  1666
  Amendment but would like his words added as well. I see no objection to those words being added.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. J. Paton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 37, after the second "of," to insert:
  "Or the carrying out of any operation normally carried out by."
  I am grateful to my hon. Friends for accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. Skinnard: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, to leave out "chemist," and to insert "pharmacist."
  The reason for the Amendment is that under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, the proper expression is "registered pharmacist."
  Mr. Sparks: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out "a male or female nurse," and to insert:
  "an enrolled assistant nurse within the meaning of the Nurses Acts, 1919 and 1943, or any person authorised by regulations made and in force thereunder to describe himself as a nurse or any person engaged in or applying the process or practice of physio-therapy."
  Mr. Speaker: The Amendment to line 39, at the end, to insert:
  "Or a member of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists or of the Physiotherapists Association of Great Britain."
  in the name of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) may be discussed at the same time.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The definition in regard to nurses which is now proposed is that asked for by the Nurses General Council. We also seek to ensure that physiotherapists shall in no way be prejudiced by the provisions of the Bill. To some extent they do certain work which is done by hairdressers and there is the possibility of some confusion. Our object is to protect them and to exclude them from the provisions of this Bill.
  Mr. Sparks: I beg to second the Amendment.

  1667
  As we are also considering the second Amendment, I want to point out to my hon. Friends that the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists are not now in favour of the Amendment and that they have written to say that they accept the words which we have incorporated in our Amendment and accept the description:
  "Any person engaged in or applying the process or practice of physiotherapy."
  They indicate that they do not desire their name to be incorporated in the Bill. Therefore, I hope in the light of that, my hon. Friends will not press the second Amendment.
  Mr. McCorquodale: Will this Clause cover the skilled masseur who wishes to carry on his work?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Yes, it covers all masseurs, and the exclusion is intended to protect persons who are not hairdressers proper.
  Mr. J. Paton: The explanation by the seconder of the Amendment regarding the position of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists does not alter the importance of the matter I have in mind, which is that the use of the words in the Amendment is no kind of protection for the qualified and registered physiotherapist. There is nothing whatever to prevent anybody who wishes to evade the general purposes of the Bill, from calling himself a physiotherapist and setting up in practice under that title, thereby evading the purpose of the Bill.
  The Clause is much too widely drawn. If we are to protect physiotherapists in their proper rights and functions, it is essential precisely to state in the saving Clause to what we are referring. While I hear with regret that the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists—who put their case to me the other day quite strongly in favour of this Amendment—have now apparently communicated with the sponsors of the Bill in a contrary sense, I cannot accept that statement as being in any way decisive on this point.
  We are dealing here not merely with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists but with another body of physiotherapists, the Physiotherapists Association of Great Britain, which is composed largely of ex-Service men—[An HON. MEMBER: "And women"]—who have turned to this profession, have undergone a strenuous and severe training, and have
  1668
  qualified in a proper way to exercise the profession. It seems to me extremely likely that there may be objections on the part of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists, who have now taken this belated move to being included in the Bill because we have included the other society in our Amendment. I am not largely concerned about the claims of rival practitioners; what I am concerned about is that people who have a proper claim to be considered in this way should be included in the saving Clause of the Bill. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends whether they would not be willing to get rid of the loose, ill-defined and meaningless phrase, "The process or practice of physiotherapy," which anybody can do, and substitute the precise definition in my Amendment,
  "or a member of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists or of the Physiotherapists Association of Great Britain."
  11.30 a.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton). As the promoters of this Bill are determined to make the hairdresser's craft a closed trade by refusing to accept the Amendments on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, they should give the right to those practising ancillary trades to get on with their jobs. It seems to me an evil step that we are taking. Hitherto it has been the job of the promoters of the Bill to try to make it suitable for those engaged in the trade; now they are deliberately excluding those practising ancillary trades. It shows a meanness which is contrary to what this House desires.
  I do not know on what grounds the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that the physiotherapists are now prepared to support his view, but when I was in my constituency recently I had consultations with ex-Service men practising this craft, and they were strongly opposed to not having the saving Clause for their profession. I earnestly hope that the promoters of the Bill will have second thoughts, which are generally best, and accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich.
  Mr. Skinnard: Like the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton), I cannot see

  1669
  why there is difficulty on the part of the promoters about the inclusion of this safeguard. In their own Amendment the words
  "or any person engaged in or applying the process or practice of physiotherapy"
  are much too loose a definition. My hon. Friend and myself have used only words which would be applicable to recognised associations or societies of people practising physiotherapy; we are not concerned with the dispute between organisations representing different groups of practitioners.
  Mr. William Ross: Is the hon. Member satisfied that these two organisations are the only associations of physiotherapists?
  Mr. Skinnard: As far as my knowledge goes, those are the only two recognised organisations of physiotherapists, but if there is still a doubt in the mind of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), he would be reassured if he could get into touch with the Ministry of Health which has formed recently a consultative committee for the practice of this side of medical work. Notwithstanding what has been said by the Chartered Society, I hope that, on second thoughts, it will be found possible to agree to the inclusion of this helpful Amendment.
  Mr. Paget: This Amendment seems to epitomise some of the drawbacks of this Bill. Either we can have the first Amendment, which makes the Bill meaningless because then anybody who wishes to practise as a hairdresser outside the provisions of this Bill has only to write up over his shop "Hairdresser and Physiotherapist"; or we can have the alternative Amendment which tries to define to which physiotherapist we are referring. If we have that, we are asking Parliament to plunge straight into blind interference with the rights of citizens without having any knowledge of the subject.
  We do not know whether the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists or the Physiotherapists Association of Great Britain include all the physiotherapists. We have not the remotest idea whether they have passed any examination or have any qualifications—indeed, as to about four-fifths of us, we probably do not know what a physiotherapist is. We are asked in this slipshod, idiotic way to interfere with the rights of people. I humbly
  1670
  submit that both these Amendments are perfectly hopeless and that we should not act in this irresponsible way.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: If by leave of the House I may say another word, there is only one point on which I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). That is when he says he knows nothing about physiotherapy. His speech demonstrated that up to the hilt. He says that all one has to do is to put over the door of one's shop that one is a hairdresser and physiotherapist, and one can avoid the whole of the provisions of this Measure. What utter nonsense. That not only shows that my hon. and learned Friend knows nothing about physiotherapy, but also that he knows nothing about the Bill. If he will read Clause 17 he will see a very clear definition of "hairdresser." It is true that in the context of Clause 17 there are one or two items included in the practice of physiotherapy, but that does not make the man practising those things a hairdresser, but merely means he is what he says he is, a physiotherapist. To say there is any confusion is to fail to understand the Clause.
  Mr. Paget: Before my hon. and learned Friend departs from that point will he read Clause 12 and see what it says:
  "Nothing in this Act"—
  —and I presume Clause 17 is in the Act—
  "shall interfere in any way with any of the rights or functions of a registered medical practitioner, a registered chemist, a member of the Institute of Trichologists, a registered nurse or a male or female nurse."
  Then my hon. and learned Friend would add in place of "a male or female nurse":
  "an enrolled assistant nurse within the meaning of the Nurses Acts, 1919 and 1943, or any person authorised by regulations made and in force thereunder to describe himself as a nurse or any person engaged in or applying the process or practice of physiotherapy."
  Therefore, anyone who applies that phrase in any way, would have nothing in the Act applying to him.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Now that my hon. and learned Friend has read the Clause he had better study it. The reason why this Amendment was moved was that this is a Hairdressers Bill. It is not a Bill to regulate the vocation of physiotherapy. If there is anything wrong with their house, they had better put it in order by

  1671
  promoting a Bill of their own. We are only concerned here about hairdressers and the idea of incorporating something into this Bill, to put right something which is wrong with the occupation or vocation of physiotherapy is all wrong. If we started to do that we would have to do the same for everyone else excluded. The Chartered Society, who have been agitating about this matter all along, have now said quite candidly and definitely, that their point is met by this Amendment. In a letter dated 30th June, they say:
  "Our clients consider that their interests are sufficiently protected by the concluding words of your Amendment."
  They say that the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) is quite unnecessary, having regard to the general words in our Amendment. It is a case of "save me from my friends" so far as my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich and East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) are concerned. As for the solicitude of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, if he had acquainted himself with elementary knowledge about physiotherapy, he would have supported our Amendment.
  Mr. Paton: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the phrase that he wants to employ renders the whole Measure null and void and permits anyone to escape by simply calling himself a physiotherapist?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: In answer to that, it is a very strange thing that the physiotherapists themselves, the Chartered Society, have not realised that.
  Mr. Paget: Why should they?
  11.45 a.m.
  Mr. McKie: I hesitate to enter a discussion between the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). I am sorry the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester did not pay more heed to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). I think the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester has given a more accurate interpretation of what it is intended to do than has the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. The former has been
  1672
  connected with the Bill from the start, in March when we considered it in Standing Committee and, no doubt, in three months the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester, with the great assiduity he always brings to bear to any task he takes in hand, has been studying the Bill almost night and day. That is why I think his interpretation of what it is intended to do in regard to physiotherapy is more likely to be the proper interpretation than the view outlined by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. In saying that, I do not intend to be so impertinent as to pass any aspersions on the hon. and learned Member for Northampton as far as legal ability and training are concerned—very far from it but, I think perhaps he has not applied his mind to this matter as much as his hon. and learned Friend.
  I accept the interpretation of the Amendment given by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester and only hope that the point put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs in regard to ex-Service men who may be indulging in the practice of physiotherapy, whatever that may be, has been fully met. My hon. and gallant Friend and I could never be parties to anything which would prejudice the livelihood of ex-Service men, particularly ex-Service men who have suffered grievous hardship as a result of their gallantry in the last war or the war of 1914–19. This matter may have been troubling their minds and, although the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester is not prepared to accept the Amendment in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton), I hope he will pay heed to what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend and that he will be able to relieve any further anxiety on that score.
  Mr. Symonds: To get the position a little more clear, I wish to put a question to my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich (Mr. Paton) and for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard). Their objection to the Amendment under discussion is that the phrase,
  "Any person engaged in, or applying the process or practice of physiotherapy."
  would allow any Tom, Dick or Harry who chooses to do so to call himself a physiotherapist—
  Mr. Paton: And escape the consequences.
  Mr. Symonds: And escape the consequences. They suggest that their phrase,
  "a member of the Chartered Society … or Association.."
  would give some limitation. I want to know whether there is any limitation on the membership either of the Chartered Society or the Association. In other words, are there any qualifications for membership because, if there are none, there is no safeguard at all and a person like myself would not be prevented from paying a subscription and thereby getting the protection of this Measure.
  Mr. Skinnard: In actual fact both organisations exist on the passing of tests and examinations and confer different degrees. I know only that of the second one, which is L.P.M.E.—Licentiate in Physiotherapy and Medical Electricity.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: I very nearly find myself in disagreement with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and, what is even more rare, find myself in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). Thus I have had two unexpected experiences this morning. This is not a Bill which has come to the House quite unexpectedly or without thought, or on which the House has been asked to decide without a good deal of investigation. The Hairdressers' Association and their profession attach great importance to this exceedingly important Bill, and it is designed also to be of value to the public. Clearly, when any occupation, trade or profession is seeking what is tantamount to substantial exclusive power—I appreciate the apparent inherent contradiction in the phrase—it is right that they should treat with the greatest tenderness the existing practitioners of reputable organisations.
  It is all very well to say that the Clause makes nonsense of the Bill; it does not. It is clearly part of the normal duty of a male nurse in a hospital to shave a very sick patient; it is not part of his normal duty to open a shaving shop. It is clearly part of the duty of a physiotherapist to give massage treatment; it is not part of the normal duty of a physiotherapist to give shampoos or
  1674
  sell hair restorers. It is therefore right and proper that the Clause should have been drafted in as wide a form as possible so that the promoters can say to the House, as they are saying, "We are not seeking to interfere with reputable occupations properly conducted. We are not seeking to acquire any powers which can be criticised as destroying other people's livelihoods or affecting the ordinary and proper operation of their powers." This Clause is so drawn as to go no further than is desirable in that respect.
  We are now confronted with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs, which is a perfectly fair point. If hairdressers say they want protection they must not, by inference, destroy the protection enjoyed by physiotherapists, and I am sure that they do not intend to do so. I am sure that when the first of the two Amendments which we are discussing was drafted it was not intended to do that. Certainly it was an Amendment dealing with the physiotherapy part of the question which made the position much more clear and gave existing protection to existing societies. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton says that there may be another society. I have been in touch with hairdressers and physiotherapists, and if such a society exists and has not expressed its views, it cannot complain. In any event, there remains another place where any such complaint can be made known.
  I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that a combination of the two Amendments would meet the point which has been made. As I understand the feeling of the House, subject to the exception of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, the first Amendment is generally accepted down to the word "nurse" towards the end. We then have the final few words which conflict with the Amendment down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton), because it is quite clear that the first Amendment destroys the effect of my Friend's Amendment. The first Amendment covers all he wishes to cover in the way of widening the provision, but so widely as to destroy the protection which their organisations give to the physiotherapists. It seems to me that on this important subject I should not be misrepresenting the clear

  1675
  feeling in all parts of the House if I said that if the two Amendments could be combined by a manuscript Amendment, which would insert the whole of the words of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich in place of the last line of the promoters' Amendment after the words "as a nurse," we should meet completely the sense of the House. The combined Amendment would then read:—
  ".…as a nurse or a member of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists or of the Physiotherapists Association of Great Britain."
  As this is really an attempt to meet the very real needs and desires of existing associations, I wonder whether it would be possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to say whether, in the somewhat exceptional circumstances, you would consider accepting a manuscript Amendment to that effect, even on the Report stage? It appears to me that it meets the whole sense of what has been said on both sides of the House, and would meet a point which would otherwise have to be dealt with in another place, with the possibility of Amendments having to come back to us later in the Session, when there would be pressure on the time of the House which might have an adverse effect on the future of the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: It is perfectly in Order for the hon. Member, if he thinks fit, to move a manuscript Amendment.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Perhaps, with the leave of the House, I can shorten consideration of this matter a good deal. Up to today the point has been made that the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists should be included. For the first time the Physiotherapists Association of Great Britain has been introduced this morning in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton). I cannot resist the persuasion of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). I am prepared to look at the matter again and to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and further, to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, and delete the words from "nurse" in the last line of my Amendment, and to substitute for the deleted words the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend.
  Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill" put and negatived.
  1676
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Amendment made in the proposed words, to leave out
  "or any person engaged in or applying the process or practice of physiotherapy."—[Mr. Hale.]
  Mr. Paton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed words as amended, at the end, to insert:
  "or a member of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists or of the Physiotherapists Society of Great Britain."
  Mr. Skinnard: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. McCorquodale: While not opposing in any way what is proposed, I should like to hear a further statement from those interested in this matter on behalf of the physiotherapists. Are we endeavouring to organise physiotherapists or hairdressers? It sounds to me as though we are here organising physiotherapists, and we ought to have some statement on behalf of the physiotherapists' organisations as to whether that is correct. I wish to know whether under this Clause, physiotherapists are or are not allowed to practise. We have not been told, but it seems odd if this Bill should endeavour to regulate the occupation of physiotherapy.
  12 noon.
  Mr. Paton: The hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension about what is proposed. The Amendment before the House is an Amendment to the saving Clause of the Bill, which seeks to except from the operation of the Bill a number of specified professions or crafts which it is not intended to bring within the scope or operation of the Bill, since, in practice, physiotherapists, in the exercise of their profession, do some of the things which are defined as hairdressing in Clause 17. It is necessary to give physiotherapists protection against being compelled under this Bill to register as hairdressers. That is the sole intention and purpose of this Amendment. If there are physiotherapists up and down the country who are not qualified and registered, who practise what they call physiotherapy, they are perfectly entitled to do so, but if they are unlicensed, unregistered and unqualified they may find themselves in trouble through the operation of the Bill. It is to prevent that happening to registered

  1677
  qualified people that the Amendment has been put forward.
  Mr. McCorquodale: In fact, what the Amendment does is to say that all those who are in these two bodies practising physiotherapy will be protected against the operation of the Bill, but that all others practising it will not. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Surely, that must be the case?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: No, only in regard to that part of it excluded by Clause 17. That is all, but it makes all the difference.
  Mr. McCorquodale: I said in regard to this part of the Bill. I want everybody to realise that it is now suggested that this House is legislating to confer benefits on two bodies of physiotherapists but not on any other body of physiotherapists, and I want to know if these two particular bodies in fact cover all physiotherapists or not.
  Mr. Paton: I am sorry if I have not made the point clear. We are not imposing anything on anybody connected with physiotherapy. What we are trying to do is to prevent people who are practising it properly, from being affected by this Bill. We are offering them a protection, and not imposing on them any fresh duty.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I think it is necessary that the House should understand what exactly it is doing by this Amendment. If there is a person who says that he is practising physiotherapy and he is not a member of either of these associations, and, in the course of that practice of physiotherapy, he does something which is described as within a form of hairdressing in Clause 17 of this Bill, he will have committed a breach of the Bill.
  Mr. Paton: No, I do not think that follows. If, in fact, that situation occurs and some unqualified and unregistered physiotherapist should engage in some of the practices included in the definition Clause, it would still not follow that it was a breach of the Bill, because it would have to be proved on the facts.
  Mr. Ede: Undoubtedly, it would have to be proved on the facts, but I think the whole House should realise that my
  1678
  hon. Friend keeps talking about unqualified and unregistered physiotherapists. Physiotherapy is not a controlled occupation, and so far as I know anybody can describe himself as a physiotherapist, and, with good muscles and plenty of energy, he can make a number of his patients very uncomfortable. Whether he does them any good or not may be open to question. Such physiotherapy as I have suffered has been inflicted on me by members of the other sex, and I am bound to say that they have discovered places on my body into which they could insert their fingers which I had always regarded as solid.
  There are no qualified and registered physiotherapists so far as the law of the country is concerned. The two bodies named in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) are doubtless very reputable bodies, set up to provide means by which the public may be more or less assured that they are being treated by skilled therapists. There is really nothing more in these two associations than that. It is true that they may have their examinations and that they may even recognise examinations conducted by other people, but they have no statutory position at all, and what we are now being asked to say is that, if a person who practises physiotherapy desires, as a physiotherapist, to practice anything that comes within Clause 17 of the Bill, that person must become a member of one or other of the two associations that are named.
  Mr. Skinnard: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to ask him a question? Is it not a fact that when committees dealing with this side of medical treatment are set up by the Minister of Health, he does consult, and only consults, people representing the bodies mentioned?
  Mr. Ede: That may or may not be so. After all, I am not proposing this Amendment; my hon. Friend is. It may very well be that, in the course of time, some other body, a voluntary body like these two, may be set up, and to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health may feel it advisable to go in order to get advice in these matters, but it would mean an amendment of this Bill, if it ever becomes an Act, to ensure that persons in such an association should then be allowed to practise those parts of their own profession which they are prevented

  1679
  from practising by Clause 17. I am not offering any advice to the House, but I think the House should know what it is doing.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: If I might reply to what my right hon. Friend has said, first of all I think it is rather a pity that the Home Secretary did not intervene when the first Amendment was being dealt with, because then we might have had the advantage of what he has just said. However, advantage or not, with great respect, I doubt very much whether in practice it amounts to very much. I am now satisfied that these two organisations are responsible for physiotherapists, and that anyone outside these two bodies is probably a person with no competence at all.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. McCorquodale: Is that a fact or only the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is my opinion, and it is based upon the assurances I have received that these are the only two organisations which cater for physiotherapists. It also appears that there is a certain course which physiotherapists have to take in order to qualify, and it is very unlikely that any competent physiotherapist is to be found who is not within these two organisations. There may or may not be certain therapists outside it, but the Amendment merely says that anyone who is not a member of these organisations should not be able to practise anything which comes within the definition of hairdressing. That does not exclude them from being physiotherapists, and, therefore, with all respect, the objection of the Home Secretary is not a good one. This is confined in such a narrow compass that I do not think the fears expressed have any substance at all.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Would it not exclude massage to the scalp or arms?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: It applies to hairdressing and hairdressing only, because this is a Hairdressers Bill and not a physiotherapists Bill.
  Mr. Paget: That last remark of my hon. and learned Friend certainly seems to me to be a very remarkable one. We do not say, when we pass an Act of Par-
  1680
  liament, that, because it concerns hairdressers, the English language shall have a quite different meaning. What Clause 17 says is that the term "hairdressing" means a number of things, and included in the list is—
  "the hand or vibro massage of the scalp, face, hands or arms."
  Anybody who does not come within that definition and who massages my arm because it has a sprain will be committing an offence under this Bill.
  Mr. Hale: I am enjoying this very devastating reply of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton to the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton 10 minutes ago when he said that the Bill was so wide that it did not stop anybody doing anything. The only Amendment we are proposing to make is to give a slightly narrower definition of the physiotherapist exception, and to leave every other exception standing.
  Mr. Paget: If my hon. Friend had been listening to what I said, he would have known that I dealt with the two Amendments which were then before the House, and that I pointed out the difficulty in each. I said that if we accepted the first one, we should then make the Bill meaningless because, simply by describing himself as a physiotherapist, a man would put himself outside the Bill. If we accept the second Amendment, then we are not merely organising hairdressers, but are forcibly organising physiotherapists without any information on the subject. The hopelessness of the first Amendment has, I gather, been recognised.
  12.15 p.m.
  Mr. Hale: My hon. and learned Friend told the House—I do not know where he has acquired his information in the interim—that he did not know what the word "physiotherapy" meant. If he does not know what it means, it is surely impossible for him to argue that the word "physiotherapy" restricts a whole series of activities which, in point of fact, if he knew what it meant, he would find had nothing to do with physiotherapy.
  Mr. Paget: I hazarded a guess, but because four-fifths of my colleagues did not know what it was, I do not include myself in the majority.

  1681
  The first Clause has been dropped. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The wide words which made this Bill meaningless have been dropped, so that objection is now dealt with, and we come to the other side. What we are being asked here—and, if we are not to make the Bill meaningless, we are bound to come up against this sort of difficulty—is to regulate the physiotherapists' profession, if that be the right word, without any adequate knowledge of that profession or its organisation. We are excluding this Chartered Society and this Association because we do not think they would be injured by this Bill. We are leaving in physiotherapists who are not members of either of those associations, and, therefore, they are injured by this Bill. That being so, we are, as between physiotherapists, providing these two associations with advantages as against other people practising in this profession. We are giving the Association and the Chartered Society this great and valuable advantage.
  We have it on the opinion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) that there are not any other physiotherapists. I do not know; we may find that there are Scottish ones, that there are Northern Ireland ones, and that there are local ones, but I am quite certain we shall find that there are a great number of independent physiotherapists, or let us call them masseurs.
  Mr. Hale: They are not masseurs.
  Mr. Paget: Certainly they are; their work includes massage.
  Mr. Skinnard: I think, perhaps, that the House has been misled to a certain extent by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary because he concentrated on his own experience of purely manual massage. But, as I mentioned in an interjection when I interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) the abbreviations on the diploma of one of the sections of physiotherapists indicate that there is a considerable medical side to their practice.
  Mr. Paget: Certainly; I am merely saying that physiotherapy includes massage. It includes other things, too, There are a great number of independent people going in for massage who are not members of these societies, and who will
  1682
  be very gravely affected. There are a lot of people who have what one might call an instinct or a gift for such work. For instance, there are osteopaths who go in for massage, who have no qualifications, but who do most valuable and useful work. Here we are forbidding any of them to massage people's arms. A boxer or a workman may injure his arm and may want massage. Under this we are excluding a lot of people, and when we give this sort of special advantage to an association, we are giving a vested right to that association which is of great practical value. We shall have these associations going round finding people who are not members of their association, and who do, perhaps, sometimes massage somebody's hand, and prosecuting them.
  Mr. J. Paton: Will my hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether he objects to that special recognition and those special restrictions which provide protection for his own profession?
  Mr. Paget: Within my own profession we have associations which are recognised by the law. So have the medical profession, the dental profession, and a number of other professions. It may be that physiotherapy ought to have associations and qualifications recognised by the law. In point of fact they have not. But if we pass this Bill, they will have the advantages without the disadvantages; they will be placed in a position of having the vested right to control anybody who goes in for massage. They will, in practice—because this always happens—be going round the country prosecuting people under this Bill, when it becomes an Act, for massaging somebody's arm, in order to force them into their association and in order to get control.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Does not my hon. and learned Friend really see by now that this protection applies not to some curative process of physiotherapy, but to pure haircutting?
  Mr. Paget: That is precisely what, unfortunately, he does not see. If my hon. and learned Friend will look at Clause 17, he will find that his definition of "pure haircutting," which is all this Bill applies to, means:
  "hand or vibro massage of the scalp, face, hands or arms"—
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Which is carried out on hairdressing premises and has nothing to do with the curative treatment of physiotherapists.
  Mr. Paget: Let us see what a hairdressing establishment is. It is a place where hairdressing is carried on. Now let us see what hairdressing is. It means—according to Clause 17:
  "hand or vibro massage of the face, scalp, hands or arms,"
  and anybody who massages my thumb in my room makes that a hairdressing establishment.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: My hon. and learned Friend is splitting hairs.
  Mr. Paget: No, I am criticising incompetent draftsmanship. We have this position created by the Amendments. Anybody who goes in for massage can be prosecuted under this Measure unless he happens to belong to one of those two associations whose qualifications we do not know, whose constitution we do not know, and whose responsibility we do not know.
  Mr. Hale: As these Amendments have been under discussion for some time, and as their purpose is to create exceptions from the operation of the Bill, and further, if they are not carried it will leave the Bill without these exceptions, would my hon. and learned Friend tell us whether he is in favour of the Amendments or not?
  Mr. Paget: It is far too early, and we have got insufficient information to enable us to make up our minds about these Amendments. It may be that it will be possible to accept the Amendments by having a radical alteration of Clause 17 and by having a different definition of hairdressing. On the other hand, if we have a different definition of hairdressing these Amendments will be wholly unnecessary, because as hairdressing will not then be defined to include massage, we need not include masseurs. I submit that this Amendment creates a vested interest in two associations of which this House knows nothing. It makes liable to prosecution unless they join these associations a whole series of people throughout the country who are practising massage, and it is something which no responsible—
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am sorry to interrupt again, but would it help my hon. and learned Friend's point of view if the words which are proposed to be left out—
  "or any person engaged in or applying the process or practice of physiotherapy"
  were re-inserted?
  Mr. Paget: If those words were reinserted we should then have got over the difficulty which I am discussing, and we should be back with the other difficulty, namely, that the Bill would be entirely meaningless, because anybody could do exactly what he liked so long as he put on his notice board: "Practical physiotherapist." We should have completed the circle and we should be back where we started. Both these Amendments are impossible.
  Mr. Gage: It is time we considered this Amendment with a sense of proportion. We all know by now, because it has certainly been dinned into us long enough, that the effect of this Amendment will be that certain physiotherapists outside these two associations will not be able to practise in certain ways, and that if they do, they may be prosecuted for doing so. Are we, because of that, going to lose the whole of this Bill which is desired by a large section of the community and, as the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has said, is required by the profession itself? That is the short issue.
  Are we saying that in order to save these few people—and I do not suppose there can be many of them—from the risk of prosecution—because it is no more than that—and a fine of some 20 shillings, we are going to lose the whole of this Bill? I do not for a moment suppose that the Hairdressers' Association, who after all are a sensible body, will prosecute except in glaring cases. When the matter is put in that way, I say at once that this Amendment is admirable. It is the best Amendment that can be devised in the circumstances. It is recognised that it might make difficulties if we retained the original wording. It might make difficulties for the hairdressers. It seems to me that nobody should have any hesitation in voting for this Amendment.
  Mr. Scollan: I have listened with great interest to the

  1685
  discussion on this Amendment. It would appear to me that the discussion was intended either to befog the issue or deliberately to hold up the Bill, or to protect people whom this House, if this Bill were passed, would condemn for not becoming members of an association. We have in this proposed Amendment the words:
  "or a member of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapists or of the Physiotherapists Association of Great Britain."
  The whole burden of the complaint has been that there is, or there might be, or there probably will be, some people practising physiotherapy who are not members of either of these two associations. It would, therefore, be unjust if we passed this Measure embodying this Amendment, which would exclude from the penalties of this Bill people who are not members of these associations.
  I should like to draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to the fact that he is a member of a party which has been the champion of free associations for nearly a century. In this House this party of which he is a member has defended the rights of associations. Now we have the specious plea that the House should go out of its way to protect the individual who says that he intends to practise whatever he likes, against the association of his fellows, in a particular profession or trade.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: Is that not because we know nothing whatever about these associations?
  Mr. Scollan: My hon. Friend may speak for himself. I do not think he knows very much about associations. We are dealing with the principle of free associations and the right of a free association to ask a person to join that association for the sake of the welfare and prestige of the profession.
  Mr. Irvine Mr. Irvine rose—
  Mr. Scollan: I am sorry; I cannot give way any more. We have had a Member of the Labour Party—I would not have minded if he had been on the other side of the House—actually proposing that we should not in this Amendment extend to the associations the power to say to a person, "Before you can get protection
  1686
  from the penalties of this Measure you must join one of these two associations." I am going to vote for this Amendment.
  Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Member aware that there are other associations, and that I and other Scottish Members have been receiving letters from other people who claim to be qualified physiotherapists, seeking recognition?
  Mr. Scollan: There is something extraordinary about a body of the character which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) talks about who have known about this Bill but have never thought it worth while to write to the promoters of the Bill or to anybody else but himself. A body which professes to be of some account but which has neglected to take action to protect its interests is not worth consideration.
  It seems to me that the promoters of the Bill are hampered by two things in this House: one is the desire to stop the Analgesia Bill, on the part of some of my hon. Friends, and the other is the opposition which apparently exists in the Home Office to this Bill because of the fear that it might be extended to other professions and trades. I ask the House to dispose of this matter by passing this Amendment and I look to every hon. Member on this side of the House to support the Amendment. If not, they betray the principles of the party to which they belong.
  12.30 p.m.
  Mr. Sparks: I think the Amendment is intended to try to clear up the position. In view of the confusion which has been created, I should like to say that there is not at the present time anyone designated as a physiotherapist practising in a hairdressing establishment. This is a body of people practising, mostly but not always, in establishments controlled under enactments and by-laws of local authorities, and we provide for that in the following Clause which we shall discuss later.
  The position is that there are in hairdressing establishments persons who carry out hand and vibro-massage of the scalp, face and arms, and what we desire is to see that these persons are qualified persons. But we do realise that the massage of the scalp, face and arms is also practised by physiotherapists in

  1687
  massage establishments and establishments of their own, and we do not want to place them in the position—and this is quite true; it is no use the Under-Secretary shaking his head—of having to register; we do not want to impose upon these persons in massage or other establishments controlled by local authority by-laws the necessity not only of having to be licensed by local authorities but also of having to register under the provisions of this Bill. We are anxious to safeguard their position.
  The right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) raised the point whether there were any physiotherapists practising who were not members of these two professional organisations. I will give an undertaking to the House that I will look into this matter when the Bill reaches another place so as to make absolutely certain that, if there are any such persons who are not members of these professional societies, then we shall take steps to protect them and see that they are not worse off. I think that clears up the position and I hope, in view of that assurance, that the House will agree to accept the Amendment, on the understanding that we shall look at this matter and put it right in another place if there is anyone affected.
  Sir T. Moore: Perhaps I may clear up the doubts expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). Those doubts clearly arose from the fact that he had not read the Bill. After both the First World War and the Second World War a great number of young men, many of whom were partially disabled, set out to equip themselves as physiotherapists. They studied, they trained, they had to equip themselves and they passed their examinations as laid down by these two admirable bodies. Under this Bill they are being protected against the operations of the Bill. They have, therefore, every reason to resent any Tom, Dick or Harry calling themselves physiotherapists and getting the same protection. That is the whole thing in a nutshell.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

  Clause 13.—(SAVING FOR ENACTMENTS AS TO MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, ETC.)
  Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, after "person," to insert
  "(other than a person engaged in or applying the process of practice of physiotherapy)."
  Perhaps we may link this up with the following Amendment, for both Amendments are directed to the same point. We repeat here similar words to those which we were discussing on the previous Amendment.
  This Amendment is put down because the London County Council wish it to go down in this form, and I have in my possession a letter from the London County Council asking for this form of Amendment. As will be realised, this Clause is designed to meet the objection which was raised earlier that local authorities have powers in certain cases, particularly in the case of the London County Council, to licence and register massage establishments. As we desire to save them from the provisions of this Bill, we must save also the practising personnel in those massage establishments. The Amendment is designed precisely to meet the wishes and desires of the London County Council and all those other local authorities who have by-laws licensing and registering these establishments in which this very small part of hairdressing, like the massage of scalp, face and arms, is carried on. In view of the discussion which has taken place, I hope the House will accept this Amendment.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 5, after "hairdressing," insert "in any such establishment."—[Mr. Sparks.]
  12.38 p.m.
  Mr. Sparks: I beg to move, "That the Bill he now read the Third time."
  In doing so, I should like to place on record my thanks to all hon. Members of the House, on both sides, for the help, encouragement and co-operation which I have received in promoting this Bill. It has not been an easy task to undertake

  1689
  because I have been deprived of the benefit of Government assistance. I have, at least, done my best to bring the Bill through to Third Reading in a form which I hope is generally acceptable to all sides of the House.
  I should be the first to admit that it may not be absolutely perfect in every dot and comma, but if, as we have already said, we can adjust the main items of controversy in another place we certainly shall do so to meet the wishes of the House. I would, therefore, like to place on record my thanks to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) for the help and assistance he has given to me, to Members of the Standing Committee, on both sides, and to the Public Bill Office for the guidance and help they have given me in drafting the many Clauses and Amendments.
  The House will remember that the Bill received a unanimous Second Reading. We had six sittings of the Standing Committee and, as I have said, we were unfortunate in having the opposition of the Home Office both to the Second Reading and twice in Standing Committee. Both the House on Second Reading and the Members of the Committee felt that the view of the Home Office was wrong. There may have been criticisms against the Bill in its original form—certainly it was too pretentious. We listened to the objections of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and we decided in Committee to effect a considerable redrafting and reconstruction of the Bill to eliminate as far as possible all the objections which the Home Office had put forward.
  The Bill as it now stands is a very plain and simple Measure. It will harm no one, but it will do much public good. It will help to clear up some of the dirty establishments, unclean habits and untrained customs which now exist, and it will bring a very much higher standard of public service into this calling. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend is present this morning, but I am sorry to feel that he will ask the House to reject the Bill. I should much prefer to see him on our side, because in this matter, if he will pardon my saying so, the views of the Home Office are very old-fashioned and out of date. The Home Office ought to march with the time, especially in this
  1690
  era of progress and advancement in public health and social services. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will join with us in helping to bring about these much-needed improvements in our hairdressing establishments.
  Whilst I cannot at this stage give to the House anything like a full description of the present position in hairdressing, I should like to refer to one specific case, which is typical of many. I have received a letter from a lady who three years ago paid two and a half guineas for a permanent wave at a very high-class hairdressing establishment. At that time she had a very fine head of hair, but when, some little while afterwards, she washed her hair, it all came off in the wash basin, leaving her scalp a mass of white needles. Not only was she physically shaken, but she is disfigured to this day, the whole of her hair has been completely lost and she shuns social intercourse with other people as a result of her embarrassment. It was discovered subsequently that the person at whose hands she had had the permanent wave had no previous experience or understanding of what was required, and was untrained and incompetent.
  There are scores of these cases which I could relate. At present the public have no protection whatever against untrained, unclean and incompetent hairdressers except by resorting to court actions and claims for damages. Hon. Members may be interested to know of the extent of actions of this nature. In the three years 1946, 1947 and 1948 approximately 6,000 claims for damages were made and some £62,000 was awarded as damages.
  Let me explain plainly and simply what the Bill really means. In hairdressing establishments, particularly in towns and cities, there is an almost constant procession of patrons for treatment of all kinds; they are all kinds of men and women, clean as well as dirty, and people whose health may be good or bad. I wonder what any Member of this House would say if, on sitting in the hairdresser's chair to receive treatment, he knew that the instruments about to be used upon him were used previously on the head of an unclean person or someone suffering from eczema, impetigo or some other form of skin disease, and that the same instru-

  1691
  ments were about to be used upon his own head? He would feel very uncomfortable, to say the least.
  That kind of thing is happening today because there are persons practising who do not understand the elementary principles of hygiene. It may be said that one needs to be a doctor to be able to detect eczema or impetigo. That may be so, but that is no reason why these people should not be properly trained, as they can be and as many of them, in fact, are. Trained people are better able to detect the risk of infection in the ordinary course of treatment and can take steps to sterilise their instruments or do what is necessary to prevent infection passing from one head to another.
  It is extremely difficult to trace the cause of infection when it has been transferred in this way from one person to another. Diseases such as eczema and impetigo do not reveal themselves overnight. Very often infection is not discovered until a fortnight or three weeks afterwards. When, in consequence, its source is unknown, it is a very difficult matter to prove that it came from a hairdressing establishment. Nevertheless, that is what happens. The Bill ensures trained standards for hairdressing establishments so that those engaged in the profession shall be better able to recognise the risks of infection.
  The Bill penalises no-one already practising in the craft. One of the complaints, for which there was some justification, against the original Bill was that it would put many hairdressers out of business with the result that they would lose their livelihood. Whilst we realise the limitations which are involved, we are very anxious that no one now practising in a hairdressing establishment shall lose his livelihood or be penalised by the Bill.
  We say, therefore, that existing hairdressers shall have the right to be registered under the Bill when it becomes an Act. On stating the nature of the work upon which they have been engaged they will be registered as persons authorised to carry out the same form of hairdressing. If, however, they need additional qualifications, they will be required to make further applications and to satisfy the Council that they are competent to undertake such added duties; but no one at present engaged in the craft is
  1692
  penalised and everyone so engaged will be allowed to register.
  There is an escape from the Bill by persons who practise only spasmodically. We had to meet a very formidable objection from hairdressers in rural areas. Perhaps I should not call them hairdressers, because they are not really hairdressers. In very small villages of a hundred or a couple of hundred inhabitants there is obviously not sufficient scope for full-time hairdressing, and the grocer, the blacksmith, or somebody else usually does a bit of hairdressing on the side. We do not propose to impose upon such persons the necessity of registering under this Bill. Indeed, it would be ridiculous to do so.
  We therefore say that the Bill shall be confined to establishments in which hairdressing is regularly practised. That will cover the large towns and cities, where hairdressing is carried on as a proper business, while allowing the man in the rural area to carry on spasmodically as he has done before. It must, however, be made clear that if such a person wants to take up hairdressing as a profession and come into a larger establishment in a town or city, he must become qualified under the terms of the Bill, in the same way as anybody else.
  It is intended that after the passage of this Bill new entrants to the craft shall demonstrate to the Council a reasonable and sufficient standard to qualify them to carry on the process of hairdressing. How can that reasonable and sufficient standard be attained? It can be attained, and is attained very largely now, by those who desire to be competent, by way of apprenticeship. That method is taken advantage of mostly by young men and women of 16 and upwards. The new machinery recently set up for this trade by the Ministry of Labour allows a period of at least three years' apprenticeship, after which adult rates shall be paid. We do not say in the Bill that anyone wishing to become apprenticed must wait three years before he is competent for registration. He may be competent in 12 months, and we have provided for that in the Bill. In 12 months' apprenticeship to the craft competence can be obtained.
  Local education authorities throughout the country are extending considerably the provision of evening classes. Even in

  1693
  some of the remote rural schools here and there, there is growing up a system of evening tuition for those who wish to enter this trade. I do not, of course, say that in a rural area an evening class in hairdressing can be run to train one person. But the facilities now provided by local education authorities and in technical colleges will enable most of those who want to obtain knowledge of what hairdressing really means and what it involves to do so. The Ministry of Labour also have training establishments for hairdressing, advantage of which was originally taken by ex-Service men in rehabilitating themselves into private life. These establishments are now taking civilians as well as ex-Service men, and they will be available to members of the public who wish to become competent in the craft. They can get through that course in nine months; and if they take that line of entry into the craft the Bill provides for their acceptance.
  Let me now deal with the Council. The original Bill established a board composed wholly of representatives of the craft—employers and employees. The Secretary of State raised substantial objection to that, which upon consideration we saw was valid. It would be quite wrong to hand over to the trade the complete control of the administration of this Bill. We therefore went out of our way to meet that objection, and to make quite clear that this was not to be a closed shop operated by those in the trade. We said, in effect: "We will have a Council, upon which there shall be nine persons nominated by the Secretary of State. Those persons shall have no financial interest in hairdressing, and will be there to represent the consumer and the public interest. We will also take four from the trade—two employers and two employees."
  There cannot be any shadow of doubt that the Council set up under the Bill will be weighted in the public interest. I now understand from my right hon. Friend that the objection is that the Council is now composed of people who do not understand the trade. It seems to be a case of "Heads I win; tails you lose." Although we try to meet my right hon. Friend's objections we are always wrong. Despite that objection, I believe that the Council as constituted in the Bill is right. It is absolutely right that the public interest should predomin-
  1694
  ate, and we take that safeguarding stand so that this cannot be said to be an attempt to create a closed shop controlled by the trade itself.
  The Bill also allows a right of appeal to an appeal tribunal against the Council by an individual whose application for registration is refused for one reason or another. My right hon. Friend appoints the personnel of that appeal tribunal, so that it is up to him to ensure that all interests are safeguarded. Not only can a man appeal to the tribunal against refusal of the Council to register him, but if he is removed from the register by the Council—and he can only be removed by failing to pay his annual fee—he can ask the appeal tribunal to reconsider the matter.
  The financing of the Council is dependent upon the registration fee. The Bill says that a maximum registration fee of 10s. shall be paid, with an annual fee of 5s. thereafter. We give my right hon. Friend power to do just as he likes about that. If he thinks the fee is too much he can reduce it; if he thinks it is not enough he can increase it. We do not want this body to accumulate a lot of funds; it is not there for that purpose. It needs only sufficient income to carry out the duties laid upon it by the Bill. My right hon. Friend also has to approve the auditors who are to audit the accounts of the Council. There has been some complaint that we are giving my right hon. Friend far too much power over the functions of the Council. I do not think we are, because we want to make quite sure that this body is properly run, and we want to give the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, power to effect any adjustment that he considers necessary.
  I want the House to realise that many other countries have statutory regulations in force for controlling the hairdressing craft. I cannot obviously give every country, but I shall content myself by saying that in the United States 46 out of the 48 States have statutory regulations governing the craft, which cover the personal element as well as the establishments. There are nine European countries which have statutory regulations, and Victoria and Australia, which are parts of the great British Commonwealth, have seen the wisdom of having

  1695
  a system of registration such as that proposed in this Bill.
  I hope the House will agree that we in this country should be brought into line with all these progressive movements in other countries, where legislation has, beyond a shadow of doubt, considerably improved the standard of public service in the hairdressing craft. Not one of them as far as I can gather has any intention whatever of repealing existing legislation, because it works very well.
  This Bill will achieve a better standard of public service for the people of our country. It will improve the status of the craft itself, and it will bring greater competence to those who participate in hairdressing as well as a higher personal standard of cleanliness and hygiene to the establishments. It will help to root out some of the dirty, filthy holes, where there are untrained, unclean and dirty people practising the craft. Who wants that to continue? Those who oppose the Bill apparently do, because there is no other remedy except by this Bill.
  Local authorities have not power over the personal cleanliness of the individual who operates in the establishment, and that fact should be made clear. Out of 1,500 local authorities not 10 per cent. have by-laws or have taken power to control hairdressing establishments as establishments apart from personnel. The powers even of that 10 per cent., are really a dead letter. I have letters here from the hairdressing trade in places where the local authorities have by-laws, and where they have never received a visit from a representative of the local authority to inspect their premises for as long in some cases as 20 years. Therefore, except for a few isolated cases, the existing power of local authorities to see that there is a certain standard of hygiene and cleanliness in establishments is going by the board, because they are not operating and in a vast majority of cases there are no bylaws. The local authorities are not interested in the matter. Let me emphasise again, there is no power whatsoever over incompetent, unskilled, dirty and unclean individuals who might have to carry out the work.
  This Bill will clean up that position, and it will see that those people who go
  1696
  into the hairdressing trade have some knowledge of elementary hygiene and that the personnel in the establishments will conduct themselves in a clean and decent way. I know that the passing of the Bill will not ensure that the whole lot of them are automatically raised to the best standard. Even amongst professional people there are black as well as white sheep. Nevertheless, it does endeavour to create that higher standdards by knowledge and training rather than that present conditions should continue because of ignorance on the part of the individual who has never been trained.
  In moving the Third Reading of this Bill I am afraid that I have been rather long, but I feel there is much to be said for that which the Bill provides. I hope that the House will see fit today, after all the discussion, consideration and examination that we have given to this Bill, to give it a Third Reading. It is generally acceptable to both sides of the House. I hope my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, after three attempts by his Department to prevent the Bill going any further, will realise that it has been generally supported, and will recognise that it is the wish and desire of the House that this Bill should have the opportunity of tidying up the trade and bringing a better standard of service to the public.
  1.8 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day three months."
  In moving this Motion I want to pay my sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) and the other sponsors of this Bill for the work they have put into it and for the manner in which their case has been presented. When I first saw the provisions of this Bill, it appeared to me that in general they could not be objected to. It seemed to have certain positive merits and advantages. But I have come to the conclusion that, as the Bill has proceeded through the Committee stage, it has been whittled down until it has got extremely few effectual provisions in it, and those provisions which are left and which are effectual, are extremely undesirable.
  In its amended form this Bill is nothing more than a Bill for the registration of

  1697
  hairdressers. The Register is to be maintained by a Council, and it is of primary importance to consider, first, what are the defects, if there are any defects, in the constitution and membership of this council. Straight away one comes across very serious objections to the constitution of the Council. It may be that the disadvantages, to which I now propose to address myself, have arisen as a result of concessions made by the sponsors of this Bill to meet the criticisms and objections that were made to the Council as originally it was to be constituted. Be that as it may, we have to deal with the Bill as it is now as amended.
  The Council has to consist of 13 persons, an independent chairman, two employers, two employees and eight representatives of the public, who are not directly engaged in the hairdressing craft. In succeeding Councils, employers' representatives are to be appointed by the employers' associations and the workers' representatives are to be appointed by the trade unions. There is no suggestion or indication anywhere in the Bill who are the unions concerned.
  Mr. Leslie: There is only one union.
  Mr. Irvine: There is no word in the Bill as to who are the employers' organisations concerned.
  Mr. J. Paton: That is a pettifogging objection.
  Mr. Irvine: My hon. Friend describes that as a pettifogging objection, but it seems to me to be an important objection. What is admittedly a more serious objection—
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Suppose there were cogency in the point which the hon. Member makes, that is a matter which can be put right. Does he nevertheless say that because of that small matter the Bill ought to be rejected?
  Mr. Irvine: I would not dream of establishing a case for the rejection of the Bill entirely on that single point. None the less, it is a point of criticism of the Bill, and it stands. There is a far more important consideration. The quorum of the Council, according to the provisions of the Bill, is to be five. That is a very significant figure, because it means that a quorum of the Council
  1698
  may sit without any of the lay members being present. The converse is also true, that there is a quorum when there are only lay members present at the Council meeting. That last objection may, in certain circumstances, be very important indeed. It is one of the activities of the Council to ensure that persons shall only be registered as practitioners who have achieved certain standards of cleanliness in their craft. It is not very satisfactory that that standard may have to be determined by a Council sitting with a quorum of lay members representing the public, not one of them having any knowledge of the craft. Is not that a very real and important objection? That is one of the consequences of the provisions as they stand.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: That was really put into the Bill out of respect for the Home Office, who felt that if we had a preponderance of consumer interest we should eliminate all prejudice.
  Mr. Irvine: That may have been the reason why it was done, but I am not for one moment concerned with that. I am entitled to point out that the provision as it stands is open to grave objection. I would go the length of saying that the consequences of that provision might be quite farcial. In practice it might well be that entrance to this restricted craft would be confined to certain individuals, and that the determination how it should be confined would be in the power of a legally and properly constituted meeting of the Council, without a single hairdresser present or any representative of the craft.
  It makes one reflect that it is a good thing that it is provided that the hairdressing of an actor or actress in connection with a theatrical or cinematograph performance, does not come within the scope of the Bill. This is the century of the common man. But the result is curious here. If the Bill is to go through, the consequence will be that after the Council is constituted, a hairdresser who does not reach a certain standard of capacity will not be permitted to get anywhere near the heads of John Smith or Jack Robinson, but such a person can get at the heads of film stars or leaders of the theatrical profession.
  We have been told of the danger which exists if this craft is carried out by per-

  1699
  sons of unhygienic habits. I attach great importance to that matter, which is manifestly very serious, but when one looks to see what kind of protection is proposed in this Bill one discovers how entirely unsatisfactory that protection is. It appears that all present practising hairdressers automatically become registered by the mere fact that they are practising now. I understand that this again was a concession by the sponsors of the Bill to certain representations that were made. None the less, how can the public be said to be protected effectively by this Measure, at any rate for many years to come, if all present practitioners, clean or dirty, automatically become registered members?
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is very misleading. The provisions of the Bill certainly admit to registration all hairdressers who are at present practising, but it specially stipulates that they shall be registered in the form of hairdressing that they have formerly been doing.
  Mr. Irvine: It seems to be taken for granted that they have been behaving cleanly and in accordance with the rules of hygiene, and they go automatically upon the register. It is a practical and real objection that the Bill cannot give effective protection to the public in that way. One can go further on this point. One would have expected explicit power in the Bill for the Council to ensure immediately that registration should be withdrawn from any hairdresser failing to observe the correct standard of cleanliness in the execution of his craft. It is a curious feature of the Bill that no such express power exists.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is implicit.
  Mr. Irvine: I am quite prepared to concede that it may be argued to be implicit that the Council has the power to cancel the registration of any hairdresser who does not observe the standard, but, whether it is or is not so, it is an objection to the Bill that it does not contain any express provision whatever to empower the Council to withdraw from registration such a practitioner or to bring his activities to an end. It is not as if the Bill does not mention certain positive powers which the Council has. There is express provision in Clause 7 for the Council to withdraw registration in the
  1700
  event of a member failing to pay the registration fee. That is the one positive misdeed of a registered person which the Bill mentions. The Bill expressly sets out to empower the Council to see that he ceases to be a member.
  Mr. Sparks: That is entirely wrong.
  Mr. Irvine: In that case, perhaps the hon. Member will explain in what respect it is wrong.
  Mr. Sparks: The provision in the Bill about fees is that a person can be removed from the register for non-payment of fees but we did not want to give the Council arbitrary powers. All sorts of circumstances might arise. A man might be ill or unemployed and he should not be removed from the register for that. The discretion would apply in the case of a person who could not practise through illness, unemployment or similar reasons. Therefore, it is not possible to evade the provisions of the Bill and remain a registered person and avoid the payment of fees.
  Mr. Irvine: I fail to see how I am wrong by reason of what my hon. Friend the Member for Acton says. Clause 7 says:
  "The Council shall from time to time cause to be removed from the register any person not observing the provisions of section ten."
  Clause 10 refers to the payment of fees. Surely it is a defect of the Bill that this is the only express and explicit provision about the circumstances which shall entitle the Council to cause persons to be removed from the register.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: What else does my hon. Friend want to do?
  Mr. Irvine: I would have much greater regard for the Bill if it contained powers for the Council at any rate to set in motion proceedings whereby persons on the register who were failing to observe certain standards of professional cleanliness or competence could be removed from the register. I stress this point because the sponsors of the Bill have all the time been pointing out the dangers which might arise through persons adopting unclean habits or dangerous methods, such as the use of dangerous chemicals without proper knowledge. How can they base the case for the Bill on such acknow-

  1701
  ledged dangers if the Bill does not contain even the commencement of a system to protect the public from those dangers? I should take a totally different view of the Bill if it contained positive measures of that kind.
  There are strong and substantial objections in principle to the Bill. The fact remains that the general effect of the Bill will be to make it more difficult in due course for a person to start a business as a hairdresser than it has been in the past. That is the purpose of the Bill.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: It has nothing to do with that.
  Mr. Irvine: It introduces an obstacle.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: It has nothing to do with starting a business.
  Mr. Irvine: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) keeps up a running commentary. The Bill already possesses sufficient difficulties without his adding complications.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: Do be accurate.
  Mr. Irvine: My hon. and learned Friend achieved prodigies of confusion in dealing with an Amendment which was considered earlier today on the matter of physiotherapy. I wish he would now allow the matter to be considered in a clear and reasonable manner. It is an undoubted feature of the Bill that it is designed to make it more difficult for any person to start up as a hairdresser. He has to attain the standard which is regarded as essential and necessary by this Council, a Council which incidentally—this must be borne in mind—may act with a quorum of members without a single representative of the hair-dressing craft being present. It is a ridiculous proposition. It is within the powers of this Council to limit the number of persons entering the craft for other reasons than their relative incapacity or want of training in the craft. When a situation develops in which we want persons to have every opportunity of finding useful work, we might find considerable pressure to enter this craft by persons wanting to make a decent livelihood out of it. The Council will have power arbitrarily to refuse such applicants.
  1702
  I object to the Bill on grounds of detail and grounds of principle. I recommend that the proper course is for the House to reject the Bill. Originally I acknowledged that it appeared to have many satisfactory features and that at first sight it seemed it might achieve a useful purpose. On examination, however, I am convinced that it suffers from very great and important defects.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to second the Amendment.
  1.26 p.m.
  Sir T. Moore: With all due respect, I cannot congratulate the Government on their choice of a spokesman in the person of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine). For one thing, he had not a very full acquaintance with the Bill.
  Mr. Ede: I do not know what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) means in his reference to a spokesman. My hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) is a private Member. He is not a nominee of the Government.
  Sir T. Moore: The hon. Member for Edge Hill gave every indication of being one. I am sorry if I have misjudged the Government or the right hon. Gentleman, but as the hon. Member for Edge Hill was not on the Standing Committee—
  Mr. Irvine: I understand that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) is that I set out to give every impression of being a nominee of the Government in this matter. It seems to me at first sight to be a most unsatisfactory and undesirable suggestion to make, and I ask him to withdraw it.
  Sir T. Moore: Oh, no, I cannot withdraw my opinion. My opinion is that the hon. Member was, possibly properly, selected or requested by the Government to oppose this Bill, and I am entitled to hold that opinion. If I am wrong, no one is responsible but myself. In any case, the hon. Member for Edge Hill should have studied the Bill more carefully and more meticulously before he took on the job of objecting to it or of inviting the House to register an opinion against it.

  1703
  The Bill has had a rather strange history. On Second Reading it received a very lukewarm reception from the Government, but nevertheless the House decided to send it to a Standing Committee to examine it and to report its decision about the Bill in due course. At the first meeting of the Committee a representative of the Home Office appeared but offered no assistance—it was indeed rather resistance—to the Bill, and he then washed his hands completely of the Measure from that date to now. The Committee decided that as it was a Standing Committee of the House of Commons and as the House had reposed a trust and an obligation in it, that it must fulfil its obligation to the House. It did so, and in due course it returned the Bill to the House, which is now considering the Third Reading.
  There is something wrong about this business. This was one of the first Private Member's Bills we have had for 10 years and I feel the Government must have forgotten how to handle Private Member's Bills. In the old days when a Bill was passed by the House of Commons, no matter how unpopular it was to the Government, they sent a representative to all our Committees so as to ensure that the Committee should be advised on how to make the Bill as useful or as innocuous as it could be. On this occasion the Government have taken the bit between their teeth and are almost opposing the will of the people as represented by this House. That is a queer constitutional position that we have reached, and it is one that the Home Secretary will at some period of the Debate have to justify, though I do not see how he will be able to do it.
  Candidly my hon. Friends and I do not like this Bill as it stands. We sought during the Committee stage to make it a good, useful and workable Bill, and also a democratic one. We failed and, speaking personally—and possibly my view will be shared by a number of my hon. colleagues—I shall not vote, for two reasons. One is because, although the Bill is a bad Bill, it is the best that we can produce. Secondly, I believe that a number of those in the hairdressing craft want the Bill, limited though it is and ineffective though it may be. Therefore, I cannot do anything that will outrage
  1704
  or hurt the well-meaning, decent practitioners of this craft throughout the country.
  The Bill is deficient in one vital respect. It is autocratic and dictatorial and it is not democratic in that it insists that registration must be compulsory. We sought to make registration voluntary. We sought to create two forms of hairdresser—one a registered hairdresser whose name was on the register, and the other an unregistered person. The voluntary hairdresser was not registered and, therefore, did not enjoy either the benefits of registration or, possibly, its defects. In any case the decision was open to the hairdressers themselves. According to the Bill, everyone has to be registered or else his livelihood is taken away from him.
  We did not insist on that in the Architects Registration Measure. If an architect wanted to come on to the register, he could, but after that he had to call himself a "registered architect." If he did not want to come on to the register, but to remain free, he could call himself an "architect," and it was up to the public to decide whether they wanted to go to a registered architect, knowing that he would have all the qualifications, training and knowledge that is expected of a good architect. If they wanted cheaper architecture or did not feel inclined to go to a registered architect, they could go to an architect and possibly pay less, possibly even get as good a job done, but it was the right of the public to decide and the right of the architect to join or not. The great trades unions of this country do not insist upon compulsory joining of their unions—at least, not on paper. Therefore, why should we not give that same freedom in this Bill to the hairdressers as we have given to the vast millions of our decent trade unionists, and also to every other professional body for which a registration Act has been passed?
  For that reason we cannot give the support to the Bill, certainly in the Lobby, that no doubt the promoters would like. We had hoped to see a competent instrument to protect the interests of the craft and of the public, but that is not now before this House. Although I wish the Bill well and hope that it will perform the job which its promoters hope it will,

  1705
  speaking for myself and many of my colleagues, we cannot lend our support to the Bill in the Lobby.
  1.35 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie: I regret that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) will not support us on this Bill because he took an active part in the Committee stage and I had hoped that he would carry that out here and see that the Bill was eventually put on the Statute Book. I regret very much that the hon. Member for Edgehill (Mr. Irvine) should have moved the rejection of this Bill. As he dealt with the constitution and was anxious to know what unions there are, I will tell him that there is only one union, of which I am a member. I had the pleasure and privilege 44 years ago of organising the hairdressers, and ever since then I have taken an interest in them.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs was anxious that everyone should be free to start business if he so desired. Has he no idea of what happened after the First World War? Men were cajoled into entering businesses of which they had no experience. They took over a tobacconists' shop, and used the back as a hairdresser's, with one soap bowl and one brush, and the result was often a foul shave. We want to prevent that sort of thing happening, and so we say that people should be properly trained. This Bill seeks, to a limited extent, to carry out what the best elements in the hairdressing trade have long sought to bring about. Tonsorial artists, whether they be employers or employees, take a pride in their profession and they have seen with some dismay the ill effects of untrained men undertaking jobs for which they are unfitted. Hairdressing is a skilled profession and should be practised by skilled persons. This Bill provides for proper training. It is significant—and the mover mentioned it—that almost every civilised country in the world has stringent laws with respect to the registration of hairdressers. In 46 States in America, and recently in France, the sale to the public of home kits is prohibited.
  It has been said by many that if this Bill becomes law other occupations like butchers and grocers may demand a similar law. But there is no analogy with that of hairdressing. Customers are protected by law against a trader selling dirty
  1706
  meat or using untrue weights and measures. Public prosecution follows if that happens, but there is no public safeguard against the foul shave or, in the case of ladies, a burned scalp or loss of hair. We have seen a few cases recently in the Press of actions taken because of loss of hair in certain hairdressing establishments. But those are civil actions by the individual. There is no public safeguard in this respect. What happens is that the hairdressing profession pays a high rate of insurance to cover against that, and in order to safeguard their business the companies tell the individual, when a case arises, "Well you had better pay; otherwise it is likely to ruin your business." My contention is that the public ought to be safeguarded against that, just as they are safeguarded against the sale of tainted meat or wrong measure.
  It is said that hygienic conditions in hairdressing rooms are a matter for local authorities, but all local authorities do not carry out their responsibilities properly in that respect. Usually an inspector has a variety of duties. He is the Shops Act inspector, inspector of weights and measures and inspector in connection with sanitation and so forth. A lot of jobs are put on one man and the result is that he cannot do them all properly. When I first organised the hairdressers 44 years ago I was surprised to find that in one branch there were no fewer than seven nationalities. Knowing the restrictions in other countries, I became suspicious, and I found that while they could not find work in their own countries, they had plenty of licence here. Employers and workers are united in support of registration as they were for registration in connection with the Sunday Trading Act, and today they are united over wage rates. If the Government want to do anything affecting this Bill they should allow it to be sent to another place.
  1.41 p.m.
  Mr. McKie: Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) said that he objected to the Bill in principle. As I listened to him, I gained the impression that he was objecting to it in detail. I am sorry that he saw fit to object to the Bill in principle. He assured us in one passage of his speech that he fully appreciated the dangers to which the public are put by unskilled hairdressers and the kind of barber whose instruments do not come

  1707
  up to the necessary standard of hygiene. Nonetheless, he says that the Bill is conceived on wrong principles and does not think that the Council which is proposed will safeguard the public in any way from the evils which beset it. Surely the hon. Member would agree that we have to make a start. Although I cannot think that the kind of hairdresser stigmatised by him will still be able to ply his trade, we have to make a start and it is reasonable to assume that that kind of person will become continually a diminishing factor—
  Mr. Irvine: Assuming we start in the right direction. I think we are making a start in the wrong direction.
  Mr. McKie: The hon. Member and I must be allowed to differ. It gives me pleasure on this occasion to support the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) in his Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill. Like the hon. Member for Edge Hill and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), I do not consider it a perfect Measure—far from it. But I am so impressed by the evils which it seeks to remedy that I am prepared to vote for the Measure because I think it is going in the right direction and not in the wrong direction, as the hon. Member for Edge Hill seems to think.
  The hon. Member for Acton chided the Home Secretary for opposing the Bill and said that he thought the views of the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Office also were somewhat old fashioned. He did not use the words, but they were implicit in the speech, that the Home Secretary was merely sitting back and allowing things to continue because, from a pedantic point of view, he did not think the Bill a suitable Measure designed to protect the public in this regard and must, therefore, oppose it. On Second Reading the Government did not see fit to oppose the Measure. I was not present on that Friday afternoon; I am rarely able to be here on Friday afternoons as I have to be in Scotland. The Government were so short of supply as regards Members, that they were not able to risk opposing the Bill and it went through to the Standing Committee by the unanimous will of the House.
  No one can deny that the Bill did not undergo very severe mangling and, as a
  1708
  result, it has emerged not the Measure many of us would like to see. I fully agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs that as it leaves us, the Bill is somewhat arbitrary, but nonetheless, I think it will go a considerable way to safeguard the public. The hon. Member for Acton said that we must have progress. The hon. Member and I would not always agree on what progress is. He probably thinks all change is progress and I would certainly not agree with that. But, in regard to the hairdressing profession or craft, a good deal of change is necessary in order that they and the public may make progress.
  The Home Secretary should be deeply impressed by the case which the hon. Member for Acton made about a lady who had a permanent wave and in two or three days found her head completely denuded of hair, so that it was impossible for her to take part in any social functions. That is one case, and it can be multiplied many fold not only in regard to women but also in regard to men. Stamping out that kind of thing is the primary objective of this Bill. I am glad that nothing will be done as a result of this Bill to prevent persons in remote rural areas carrying on hairdressing which they have done with cleanliness and considerable satisfaction to their clients for years. It would have been disastrous if they were prevented from carrying on their lawful enterprise beneficially to themselves, no doubt, by augmenting their incomes and beneficially to the people living there.
  I do not know how the hon. Member for Edge Hill, assuring us that he is fully aware of the dangers to which the public are subject, can take it upon his conscience to make the kind of speech he made. It is a matter for him to decide. I see him shaking his head, but I do not know what that indicates.
  Mr. Irvine: I would ask the hon. Member to indicate what he regards as the protection afforded to the public by this Bill from the kind of danger he described, having regard to the fact that there is no power conferred on the council to have withdrawn from the register persons who adopt dangerous methods.
  Mr. McKie: In referring to that matter I said that this Bill does nothing

  1709
  but, as the hon. Member said, it was implicit—and he used the word—that as time went on protection would come and that kind of hairdresser would be eliminated. I have no doubt that when he reads his speech in HANSARD he will see that that is what he said, or something very near to it.
  There is one other important matter, namely, that a large majority of the members of the hairdressing profession want this Bill. It is an ancient profession, which in this country has been a long time in receiving any recognition, and if the Home Secretary can prevent it today nothing is to be done in that respect. It is an honourable calling. The medical profession and the dental profession have for many years been protected. Why should we not make a start in the protection of this one? In the Middle Ages and afterwards the hairdresser often pulled people's teeth. I am not saying that it was done in a skilful manner but I mention that to show what an old profession it is and the many activities which have in the past been connected with it.
  If we examine the position in the British Empire we find that in South Australia, Victoria or New South Wales recognition has for a long time been given. If that is the position in a Dominion it is about time we did something about the matter in this country. In the United States recognition has for a long time being given in 46 out of the 48 States.
  I do not regard the Bill as perfect, far from it. I was, however, a Member of the Standing Committee which considered it, and I was at every meeting except when I was prevented from attending by the pressure put upon me by the Government through having to be a Member of more than one Standing Committee. I had an opportunity of listening to the cogent arguments put forward in trying to improve the Bill. As a result of that experience, the futher we went the more impressed I was so that although the Bill is not all that I should have liked, I consider that we should, irrespective of party, give it a Third Reading. Accordlingy, if there is a Division, I shall take part in it and support the Bill.
  1.53 p.m.
  Mr. J. Paton: I wish at the outset to join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) on
  1710
  having brought his Bill safely so far in its passage through this House. I wish to pay that tribute because I shall probably say things about his Bill in a moment or two which he will find extremely distasteful. I am extremely critical of this Measure. I do, however, recognise the great amount of time and hard work which he and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) have put into this Bill. Even though I think it is an extremely badly-drafted Bill—is is a very feeble instrument for the purposes for which it is designed—I wish to pay that tribute to them.
  It will be within the recognition of this House that when this Measure was before us and received a unanimous Second Reading, there was one general reason given by everyone who took part in the Debate as to why that support should be given. The overwhelming reason given for supporting the Bill as it then stood, was that it was completely and wholly necessary in the public interest and for the protection of the public. It is essential that we should look at this Bill today as it now emerges on Third Reading, and ask ourselves whether it now gives any effective measure of protection to the public against the malpractices with which this craft and trade is now ridden. That is the test which must be applied, and which I wish to apply, to the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) was perfectly correct in drawing attention first to the provisions of Clause 4, by which, in paragraph (a) every single person in this country today who can claim to have been engaged in the practice of any branch of hairdressing must, on application to the Council that it is proposed should be set up, be admitted to the register. There is no power whatever in any part of the Bill, so far as I can see, which would allow the Council to investigate in any thorough way the claims and pretensions of people who claim to be exercising the craft, or some part of the craft, of hairdressing today. They are entitled, on application, to be admitted to the register and to continue to practise in the particular branch of the craft in which they are now engaged.
  The Bill goes further. So far as I can see neither in Clause 4 nor in any other

  1711
  part of the Bill is there anything to prevent John Smith, who up to now may have been shaving chins for a livelihood, and very occasionally cutting the hair of small girls, from saying to the Council once it is established, "I desire to be registered as a men's hairdresser and a women's hairdresser since I have been practising both." As I interpret the Bill, the Council will be compelled so to register him, and he will then be permitted to be turned loose on the public. That means all the people responsible for the more than 6,000 cases a year which my hon. Friend the Member for Acton told the House were now being settled by insurance companies on hairdressers' claims. Also, all the other cases which do not reach the insurance companies, which are hurriedly settled and hushed up by hairdressers who do not want even that limited publicity.
  All those people responsible for malpractices which all of us know about, and about which the House has been told, and about which we sometimes see rather grim evidence in our newspapers—there was a case reported a few weeks ago of a woman who was electrocuted in a hairdresser's shop because of the use of faulty apparatus—all the people responsible for all those cases which have so worried the House, will be left free to continue their malpractices without a single provision in this Bill being applied to them to prevent them from continuing. Worse than that, surely, is that in future they will do these things under the shield and protection of a registration certificate issued by the central Council, as it must be issued to these people.
  I said in Committee that this was quite indefensible, but the arguments which I adduced were not accepted by my colleagues. We are here faced with the result of that. We have first to make it perfectly plain to the public in this country that this Bill does not give them the measure of protection and security from malpractice which they are entitled to and which they have been led to expect. It is true that in future the Bill may do good in regard to new entrants, but on that point I would say that anyone who is familiar with this trade must surely realise that the provisions included in Clause 4 (b) are not likely to be very effective. It is laid down that new entrants shall satisfy the Council
  1712
  that they have "attained a reasonable and sufficient standard" in their craft, but a little further down it provides that a minimum period of 12 months' training will be required to acquire the necessary standard for registration. I know that in the old days in this craft, or at least in one section of it, there was a seven years' apprenticeship, and, at the end of that time, the man or woman who had gone through it, was an improver for an additional number of years before becoming really efficient and practising in some sections of this extremely complex craft.
  If hon. Members will look at the definition given in Clause 17, they will see that this is no matter of mere manual dexterity that may be acquired to a sufficient extent in six, nine or 12 months, but that, in many branches of this trade, the people who are engaged in it, if they are to work under proper safeguards for the public, ought to have an extensive knowledge of chemistry before they know what they are doing. They ought also to have a fairly extensive knowledge of the electrical apparatus which they so freely employ, in order to avoid some of the tragic mishaps that occur. Indeed, if we look at the figures, we will see that the suggestion that a minimum period of 12 months is in any way an adequate and sufficient training is purely ludicrous. I agree that the provision regarding future entrants may over a number of years make an improvement in the quality of practitioners in the trade, and that is in my view the one matter of solid advantage that is contained in the Bill.
  Let me now pass on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgehill, who pointed out, amidst the objections of certain hon. Members who do not seem to understand their own Bill, that the only sanction which the Council can employ in order to regulate the conduct of people who are allowed to appear on the register is the sanction with regard to fees. Once a person, man or woman, is registered, that is, anybody who claims to be practising now, he or she can do anything they like; they can even commit murder, and their names cannot be removed from the register of the Council: but, if they commit the heinous offence of forgetting to pay their 5s. annual subscription, their names may be removed from the register.

  1713
  About 200 years ago in this country, there was a very famous, even notorious, hairdresser in practice; one by the name of Sweeney Todd, who afterwards became known as "The Demon Barber of Fleet Street." Sweeney Todd would have satisfied all the requirements for admission to the hairdressers' register. He was in practice as a practising hairdresser, he conducted an establishment mainly for the business of hairdressing. Sweeney Todd would have been admitted to the register, and, once admitted, Sweeney Todd could then have gone on for the rest of his life, not only shaving throats but cutting them, and the hairdressers' Council could do nothing about it, provided that Sweeney Todd always remembered to pay his 5s. annual subscription. Well, that illustration is purely derisory, but, in fact, it not only applies to this matter of expulsion from the register, but to other Clauses of the Bill in which any attempt is made to give sanctions which this National Council can operate.
  Let us look at Clause 11. Here we have a Clause dealing with the offences and penalties, and, in the middle of that Clause, there is this phrase:
  "any person engages or purports to engage in or to practise any class of hairdressing other than that specified in the said registration."
  and so on. What that means is that the forms of registration will be at least a minimum of six, and I doubt if six different forms for different kinds of hairdressing will cover all those employed in the definition Clause, but, for the practical operation of the Bill, there will be at least six. We are laying it down in this Clause that any person engaging or purporting to engage in any class other than the class for which he is registered will be subject to certain pains and penalties, but there is nowhere in the Clause or in the Bill any right of inspection or entry by any public authority or representative of the Council. What goes on behind the closed doors of that place in regard to any person engaged in this business can only be known if somebody within discloses it. This is making a mockery of the purpose of the Bill.
  The pains and penalties Clause seems to me to be really inoperable, and, for a similar reason, Clause 15 is also inoperable and unenforceable. This applies to establishments where hairdressing is carried on, and it lays down a requirement which seems to me to be incredible in
  1714
  an Act of Parliament. It lays down, not only, of course, that all the employees in the place shall be registered in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, but that the proprietor of the establishment must exhibit a notice stating that fact. This seems to me to be a matter on which the proprietor can fulfil the provisions of the Bill merely by writing out a card in pencil stating that his shop is under the provisions of the Act. All this Bill says is that that notice shall be displayed in some conspicuous part of the establishment.
  There may be, and will be in practice, some dangerous establishments, and by dangerous I mean establishments where all the fancier side of the industry is carried on. Those are the really dangerous ones. It is not the fellow in the back street who may very occasionally be accused of giving somebody a foul shave, and, nine times out of 10, wrongly accused. He is not the gravest danger. It is the fellow in the main street, with the beautifully designed establishment, fitted up by the most expensive shop-fitters, with yards of glass cases and all the latest appliances which give his shop an extremely impressive appearance. It is there we have the greatest danger, because that is where people will employ dangerous apparatus which they do not understand and highly poisonous drugs which, in the hands of the inexpert, often have the effects of a lethal weapon. It is in the plate-glass establishments that the dangers really arise.
  What happens under Clause 15? The proprietor is required to engage only people who are registered for one or other of the specified forms of hairdressing which are laid down by the Council, and he thereupon exhibits a card to that effect. He will probably have it nicely printed and engraved and will stick it up, so that anybody passing by will say, "Ah, here is a shop properly registered under the Act and under the control of the Council, and therefore it is a perfectly safe shop to enter." But will it be? There may be a dozen people engaged, possessing all kinds of registrations for different forms of hairdressing, some elementary, some advanced. Who is to say that the less advanced people in the shop are not in fact allowed to carry out the prohibited forms? The Council has no right of inspection, no power to appoint anybody to investigate.

  1715
  It has no right to enter to find out what is really happening in that particular place. So, again, we get a Clause which has every appearance of doing something but does very little.
  It was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton, in moving the Third Reading, that the original Bill was pretentious. It is true that it was, and it was accepted as such by every hon. Member. But it was also strong, whereas this Bill is both pretentious and feeble, which seems to me to be a far worse combination. Therefore, although there is that very tiny nugget of good in paragraph (b) of Clause 4, it must be made perfectly clear to the public of this country that if this Bill is given a Third Reading today, there is nothing in it that will in any sense add to their protection for an indefinite period of time to come.
  Having said all that, I want to tell the House that I am going to vote for the Bill.
  Mr. Paget: I have been under this difficulty about Clause 4 because if, as it seems, it accepts every person engaged in hairdressing before the passing of this Bill, why does that not include everybody who has brushed his own hair or shaved himself?
  Mr. Paton: That is the kind of conundrum that my hon. and learned Friend can thresh out with the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) after the Bill has received its Third Reading.
  I propose to vote for the Bill despite the very destructive criticism which I felt it necessary, as a public duty, to make. I propose to do so because there is a tiny element of good in paragraph (b) of Clause 4 which in an indefinite period of time may be expected to make, perhaps, an appreciable improvement in the general conditions and practice of the trade. My second reason for supporting the Bill is that I believe that if it were passed it would very speedily be necessary to amend it. I think its drafting is incredibly bad, and I have no doubt that it could be suitably amended in another place which would give an opportunity for removing the worst of the objections I have been making today.
  But my third and most important reason is that I have a very old associa-
  1716
  tion with this craft, and I feel that if I did not support the Bill, in view of all the criticism which I have felt compelled to make about it, and give the men engaged in the profession my own personal support and help, I would be letting down a body of people who deserve a little better than that of me. I know how for many years now they have struggled and fought for this recognition, for this right to do something to clear up the mess in their own industry. While, as I say, I had the public duty to speak of the weaknesses of the Bill, I feel, at the same time, that I must, notwithstanding what I have said and in view of the small amount of good in the Bill, give it my support on Third Reading.
  2.14 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I will only detain the House for a few minutes to explain why, although I have taken no previous part in the discussion of this Measure, I am unable to support it on Third Reading. I should not have intervened at all had it not been for some inaccurate remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). I was in favour of this Bill receiving a Second Reading, though I was not present. I appreciate the trouble that many hon. Members have taken on the Committee stage, and I also appreciate the genuine aim of many hon. Members to improve the conduct and the status of an honourable profession.
  The reason why I am unable to support this Bill on Third Reading is that it has been considered necessary to put in the criminal sanction in Clause 11, and here I want to deal for a moment with the inaccurate remarks made by my hon. and gallant Friend concerning the Architects Registration Act and this Measure, though he had a genuine difference between the two in mind. There was nothing in the Architects Registration Act which made it a criminal offence to carry on the profession of architect; there was only a limitation on the achitects' description of themselves. If this Bill had set up new standards for the profession and had said that unless they satisfied those standards they must not describe themselves in a particular way, I should have had great sympathy with it. But because the Bill goes on to say that it is a

  1717
  criminal offence to carry on the business unless the hairdresser is registered, and all the rest of it, I find it impossible to support it.
  I know, of course, how anxious the House is to get on to other business, but I believe it is very desirable that every hon. Member should study what are, and have been held by the deepest thinkers on the subject to be, the conditions which ought to be satisfied before we make anything whatever a criminal offence. Those conditions are set out in the second chapter of what is still a very well-known work, "The Outlines of Criminal Law" by Kenny. There are six requirements. I will only bother the House with one of them, but I suggest that that requirement was not satisfied before the criminal sanctions were inserted in this Bill. Having set out four previous requirements, Kenny proceeds as follows with the fifth:
  "And even if an offence is found to satisfy all these intrinsic conditions of illegality, the lawgiver should not prohibit it, until he has ascertained to what extent it is reprobated by the current feelings of the community."
  It is quite fantastic to suggest that the "current feelings of the community" suggest that it ought to be a criminal offence for a man to cut hair unless he is registered in this manner. For these reasons, I find myself unable to support this Bill, though that does not mean that I have not great sympathy and admiration for those who seek to improve the status of this profession. I think that they should do it in the way it is done in the Architects Registration Act, or in other ways, without making it a criminal offence to carry on the business.
  2.18 p.m.
  Mr. Symonds: It must be pretty obvious to every hon. Member that I personally have very little interest to declare in the subject of hairdressing. I can approach this problem purely from the point of view of the public interest. When I find myself in opposition to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I always think twice, because I have the greatest respect for his judgment. In fact, since I came to this House, I can only remember two subjects on which I differed from him. One was the future status and powers of certain large non-county boroughs, and the other is this Bill.
  1718
  As I see it, this Bill has been from the beginning a very well-meaning attempt to raise the standards in this trade, not only from the point of view of the public with regard to questions of hygiene, but also from the point of view of the status of the people engaged in the trade. As I understand it, my right hon. Friend's objection is based mainly on the grounds that, at any rate as regards public health questions, local authorities already have the necessary powers to enforce standards of hygiene; that as regards the status of the trade, were this particular trade to be given statutory recognition in this particular way, everyone else would want it, too and there would be a whole series of trades clamouring for such recognition.
  I am not sure that my right hon. Friend is right from either point of view. I am not sure that it would necessarily be bad if other trades did try to organise themselves with a view to raising their standards both from their own point of view and that of the public. But as regards the powers of local authorities, even if they have statutory powers, it is perfectly obvious from things which we read in the papers from time to time that many local authorities are simply not using those powers. That being the position, I very much deplore what appears to have been a completely negative attitude on the part of the Home Office.
  One knows that this Bill, when first introduced, was very pretentious, but surely it was perfectly open to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to try to cut out that pretentiousness and to make the Bill into a reasonable and workmanlike Measure, particularly as all those with any direct concern in the trade are anxious for some Measure of this kind. I would like to stress that they cannot be accused of having a personal or selfish interest, in view of Clause 2. That Clause describes the powers of a Council proposed to be set up under this Bill, and it makes it clear that the Council shall have no powers as regards prices, wages, conditions of employment and so on. In other words, it is not concerned with the financial position of those engaged in the trade, either as employers in regard to prices, or employees as affecting wages. In other words, it is fair to say that those responsible for this Bill have made a genuine attempt to do something in the public interest.

  1719
  I have listened to practically every word in this Debate, and it struck me as rather curious that all the critics should now be denouncing the Bill as ineffective. If it is now ineffective—and I think it is much less effective than it might have been—that is not the fault of the promoters. That is the result of the efforts of Members of this House upstairs in Committee who not only cut out the pretentious parts of the original Bill but considerably reduced its provisions; in fact, I think they reduced them far too much. It is claimed that the Bill is ineffective because everyone now engaged in the trade can have the automatic right to register, and therefore there is no protection to the public. But that in itself is simply an indication of the very modest aims of the promoters in not wishing to prejudice those engaged in the trade up to this point.
  If it is said that the powers of the Bill are ineffective except as regards the collection of fees, I need only remind the House that as originally conceived, the Bill contained a provision for a board, and that board would have had power to make regulations
  "for prescribing the standard of hygiene and sanitation to be preserved in hairdressing establishments and schools, colleges and centres of training aproved by the board."
  In other words, this Bill which is now criticised for its ineffectiveness was really effective when it first came to this House, and the diminution of its powers has been brought about entirely by hon. Members here.
  A further criticism of the Bill was that it is designed to prevent anyone from coming into the trade in future except on certain conditions as laid down in Clause 4 (b). It is objected that that is a limitation of freedom of entry into the trade. The question of penalties was raised by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). I do not shy at that at all. I think that where questions of public health and hygiene are involved, it is perfectly in order and, in fact, is the practice to restrict entry into a trade and to impose penalties for infringement of regulations. Look at any of the food trades. There is no freedom simply to become a purveyor of meat and to observe no standards. There are very strict regulations controlling not only
  1720
  entry into but the carrying on of all sorts of occupations particularly in connection with food. Where we have, in that aspect of public health, controls and penalties, I see no objection whatever to having controls and penalties, if necessary, to safeguard public hygiene and public health in matters of this kind.
  I said that the Bill has been cut down rather too much compared with its original form, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) said, it still contains that element of good which appears in Clause 4 (b), in that with regard to future entrants to this trade it will be possible to lay down standards. For that reason, and as there is still in the Bill, despite the mutilation which the Bill has had, an element which serves the public good. I propose to support its Third Reading.
  2.27 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: The House has had an interesting and informed Debate on the Third Reading of this Bill, and will shortly have to give its views on the Measure. The views about this Measure which I hold were most clearly and vehemently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton). By what process of mental gymnastics he is going to justify the complete somersault he turned in the last two or three sentences of his speech I must leave him to decide and justify with his own conscience, for I am bound to say that I have never heard so tremendous a bombardment of heavy artillery delivered against any private Member's Bill as he delivered against this Bill until the last minute of his speech.
  I also object to the Bill for the reason which was given by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). If I were asked which profession in this country is really most powerful, I should say it was the doctors, but the doctors have not got the protection which this Bill gives to hairdressers. Anybody can practise medicine as long as he does not hold himself out as a registered medical practitioner. Once he does that, of course, he becomes subject to very severe penalties. There are all kinds of faith healers and others who undertake to cure all the bodily ills, and who are not registered medical practitioners, yet who seem to make a fair

  1721
  livelihood out of it; indeed, I believe on occasions they are even more successful than the registered medical practitioners. At any rate, they produce written testimonials from persons who claim to have benefited from their ministrations. This Bill will give to the hairdressers a more complete protection than is enjoyed by the doctors. As one who has no great appreciation of the professional skill of doctors, having studied science with them in my undergraduate days, I am bound to say that I think that is a great condemnation of this Bill.
  All the practices which the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) quite rightly denounced in his speech, in moving the Third Reading of the Bill, are not affected at all by the provisions of this Measure. They still go on and nothing in this Bill protects a single person from them. All this Bill does is to say that only persons who are registered shall be allowed to practise as hairdressers. It is the practice and not the claim to be a skilled hairdresser that will bring people within the jeopardy which is created by this Bill. As far as I know, that is a protection which we have given in none of the registration Bills that have been passed within the last generation or so by this House. The Bill is giving to a calling which has no representative body inside the trade itself to set standards, a protection which no other trade in this country enjoys.
  That cannot be right. If there had been, in the last 10 or 20 years, the creation of a trade organisation representative of the best practitioners in the trade, who gave a standard of professional and scientific conduct to the trade, there might be something to be said for it. There was such a body as the Institute of British Architects which had long been recognised as a body which set a very high standard for the profession, and registration with that body and one or two other architectural bodies clearly would give a man standing, for they had established through their organisation and methods in the years that had preceded the architects' registration Measure a claim to be recognised as effectively setting a standard for the calling.
  I am told that there is no organisation among hairdressers which represents more than 40 per cent. of the people
  1722
  engaged in the trade. There is no organisation which even represents a bare majority. It is, therefore, quite impossible to accept the view that there is any recognised standard set by this calling itself which entitles it to the kind of recognition as a calling that this Bill would give to it. There is nothing in this Bill which secures hygienic conditions. That has been made quite clear by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich. All that this Bill does is to say that unless a person is registered and has paid the 10s. registration fee and the annual fee of 5s. for the continuance of the registration, he shall not be allowed to practise this particular craft.
  I think that if that were all that could be said against this Bill it would be quite enough, but the Bill is quite a futile Measure when one comes to examine its wording. I shall give one example. Clause 16 applies the Bill to Scotland. The only thing it does is to say that the Secretary of State means the Secretary of State for Scotland. But the Secretary of State for the Home Department apparently has to appoint a Council; there is no provision for two councils, one for England and one for Scotland. There will be one Council and there is no power to appoint a second. As far as I can see, this Bill will give me such powers inside Scotland as would, I should have thought, have evoked the most vehement opposition of every Scottish Member and of every Scotsman representing an English constituency.
  The Bill also says that after two years the trade associations and the trade unions concerned are to nominate the four professional members of the Council. It does not say what the associations are. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) said only one trade union was concerned, and let us hope that is so because it might save us from several complications that might otherwise occur, but there is certainly no indication as to what the trade associations are, as to where they are to be looked for or how they are to be selected.
  There is no control—and this is a very important failing of the Bill—over a person once he has got his place on the register. Once he has been placed on the register he is immune from all control either by the Council, or by anyone else

  1723
  for that matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich suggested, I gather, that Sweeney Todd might almost have become one of the representative members of the trade and of the Council had he been alive at the time this Measure was introduced. Without carrying it to that length, I suggest that it is quite clear that, once a person is registered, no matter what malpractices he may engage in, whether they be malpractices that bring him within the criminal law or merely a refusal to conform to good professional standards, he can claim still to continue on the register and no one can remove him.
  The Council, on which some store is set by the promoters, is, according to the Schedule, a body whose powers are nowhere clearly set out. They will apparently have the power of deciding which are the different forms of hairdressing that any particular applicant shall be allowed to practise. There is no clear indication as to how their powers in that respect are limited. Apparently they will have some connection—but it is not defined—with the apprenticeship Clauses. It is clearly desirable that if this calling is to get any kind of recognition such as this Bill implies, then the period of apprenticeship and the standard to be attained by the apprentice should be clearly defined.
  I should have thought that it would have been far better in this matter to have attempted, through the calling itself and through some such body as the City and Guilds of London Institute, to establish a standard of competence, proved by examination at the end of the apprenticeship, which would entitle the person to recognition. I think that is a more hopeful line of approach than that of the Bill.
  I do not want it to be thought that the Government are unmindful of the dangers which have been so eloquently described both on Second Reading and today by the supporters of this Measure. But we suggest that as far as hygienic conditions are concerned, the most appropriate way would be to place in the next Public Health (Amendment) Act a duty on local authorities to ensure that these places shall be appropriately inspected for cleanliness and safety. That would be far more appropriate than relying on the
  1724
  powers which, I am bound to say, I do not see in this Measure to secure those ends.
  Mr. Sparks: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that local authorities should be entrusted with the control over personnel or merely over the establishments?
  Mr. Ede: I was dealing with the standard of cleanliness and hygienic conditions in the establishments and the safety of the apparatus. Two points which have to be considered in a Measure of this kind are the hygienic condition of the establishment and the safety of the apparatus, and the personal qualifications of the people who work in the establishment and more or less control the apparatus.
  I suggested with regard to the second of these two points that there should be some recognised examination, which should be recognised by the trade from now onwards as being an appropriate one, and that we should set a standard which will be recognised, just as architects and other people have set standards, and that the trade could then come to the House and and say, "Now recognise us, because the members of our craft are willing to submit themselves to this standard if they are to be regarded as registered members of our profession." With regard to the condition of the establishment, that is a matter that can be far more effectively dealt with by the public health authorities than by any council of the kind which is proposed by the Bill. I suggest to the House that this matter has had adequate ventilation through the discussion we have had, both on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading.
  Some hon. Members have objected to the course pursued by the Government in the passage of this Measure through the House on the ground that the Government has not asserted itself sufficiently. That is a very unusual complaint to make against any Government. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary intimated to the House on Second Reading that this was not a Measure that we thought was capable of being made into a good Measure. We gave our minds to its consideration. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton and his hon. and learned legal adviser the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) have

  1725
  been to my Department more than once and have discussed this matter with us. I do not think that at any stage they received from the officers of my Department or from myself any indications other than those I have given this afternoon.
  For the reasons I have given, I cannot advise the House to accept this Measure. It would lull the public into a quite false sense of security if it were passed, and that, I should have thought, was a very great condemnation of any Measure. Any Measure that I could commend to the House on behalf of this calling would have to be far less drastic in the powers it claimed for the prevention of people practising than this Measure. I could not assent to a doctrine that might lead to the prosecution of some person who was well qualified and carried on some one branch of this calling, merely because he had not registered with the Council.
  There is a body of people who are, apparently, not considered by this Measure at all. I have received a very strong document from the Stroud and District Hairdressers' Trade Association, in which they say:
  "We the undersigned members of the Stroud and District H.T.A., who are owners of one-man businesses, wish to protest most strongly against the proposal to exclude us from representation on the Council (Schedule I). The hairdressers' representation there consists of two employers and two assistants. We are neither employers nor assistants, and our needs are not necessarily identical with either."
  It must be common knowledge to all of us that throughout the country there are numerous people who are engaged in one-man hairdressing businesses who give quite efficient service—people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich said, work in shops in back streets, where they give quite good service—who are self-employed people, and yet, apparently, have been excluded from the considerations of the people who promoted the Bill. That gives it the appearance of being a Measure for the quite illegitimate protection of the people who are engaged in bigger businesses of this trade.
  I hope the House will be sympathetic to the suggestion that hygiene in these establishments needs consideration and that the standard of qualification needs to be considered, and will feel that this Measure does not provide for either of those things in a way that is workable.
  1726
  I hope that the House will reject the Measure but will expect that something shall be done through the Public Health Act to deal with hygiene and, through the trade itself, to set such a standard of admission as will entitle it in the not distant future to come back to us and to say that in the light of the experience they have had and the standards they have achieved, they are entitled to some registration measure not carrying the severe penalties and exclusions that this one does. I therefore, very reluctantly, after the time that my hon. Friends have given to this Measure, recommend the House not to give the Bill a Third Reading.
  Mr. Leslie: My right hon. Friend has referred to the case of Stroud and the question of one-man businesses. They are already represented through their associations and on all the trade boards and wages councils.
  Mr. Ede: I am reluctant to intervene again, but my hon. Friend must recollect that Clause 2 excludes all those matters from the consideration of the Council. This is a question as to whether these men are to be allowed to ply their craft at all.
  2.49 p.m.
  Mr. Kinley: I am not surprised at the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, for the attitude of his Department was made clear right from the beginning. I hope he will pardon me if I, as one who until quite recently was one of those to whom he referred in his final remarks—the one-man business hairdressers—take up the cudgels and point out to him that from beginning to end, his speech had no real bearing upon what is left of this Measure. His criticism might have been valid of the original Bill, but it is not valid of the present Bill, and in many respects what is left of the original Bill is the most important part. More than one aspect of this Measure has attracted the attention of the House. Hygiene, to which the Home Secretary referred, ought not to be controlled by the members of the profession, but should have been, and should be in future, controlled by the local health authorities.
  I should like to explain why I say that what remains of the original Bill constitutes one of the most important prin-

  1727
  ciples. Until the passing of this Bill anyone can set up in business or may be employed as a "gents' hairdresser," and can undertake the cutting of hair and shaving. Generations of men have made their livings in that way; swarms of the completely untrained have come into the profession and made some sort of a living in that way, or used it as a part-time occupation. There are many of those still in business, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) said, served from five to seven years as apprentices. The purpose of such apprenticeships was largely exploitation or the obtaining of cheap labour. Nevertheless, during that lengthy apprenticeship they received training which enabled them to start in business and work as skilled men.
  Hon. Members will find in hairdressing saloons in the City a standard of skill and experience that is eminently desirable. But at the other end of the scale there are thousands of humbler saloons conducted under conditions which can only be described as disgraceful and disgusting. Neither statute law nor by-law can interfere with those places at the moment; neither statute law nor by-law can prevent the unskilled proprietor of those little dens taking, as they do, apprentices, maybe for three or four years, who can then leave and start in business for themselves. Having scraped together some kind of business they, in turn, can take on apprentices. For those apprentices there is no future, because the untrained employer cannot teach his apprentices what he himself does not know. That is a blind alley occupation which operates at the moment, and which will continue to operate indefinitely if this Measure is rejected. If it were only for stopping that, this Bill will be a benefit, not only to those who are so employed and so exploited, but to the whole of the public they serve. It is on those grounds that I hope the House will give this Measure a Third Reading.
  2.55 p.m.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: The House has listened to this Debate with patience, and I am anxious that that patience should not be tried by me. However, a number of speeches have been made, some favourable and some hostile, and I think it is my duty, within reasonable bounds,
  1728
  to meet the arguments raised against the passing of the Bill. I shall have to confine myself largely to what was said by the Secretary of State, upon whose intervention I must first make this comment. I do not disagree with quite a number of things that he said, but I cannot help feeling that all the arguments he put forward could have been crystallised, and even perhaps met, in the Standing Committee. I do not think it is right to the promoters, fair to the House, or the function of Government to tell us, at a time when it is too late to do anything, what could be done and what is wrong with the Bill, when it was in their power to come forward in due season and put it right. Even so, that does not necessarily condemn this Bill.
  Let us keep some sense of proportion about this Measure. When we have examined all the criticism—a good deal of which was, I am bound to say, carping—let us see whether the result is such that the Bill deserves the support of this House. For myself it would be sufficient to point out that even the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton), after the furious attack he made upon the Bill, found enough good in it at the end of his speech to give it his support. The Secretary of State first of all complains that he has received a letter from Stroud, from a certain hairdressers' association, complaining that under the conditions that would prevail with this Bill they will not be allowed to be either members of or represented on the Council. I tell the Home Secretary at once that it is not intended that organisations of that kind should be covered in this Bill. This Bill makes no provision for any such thing. These traders are the people who supply the hairdressers; they supply the trade—
  Mr. H. Strauss: Nonsense.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: —and they are miles outside anything this Bill seeks to achieve.
  Mr. Ede: The people I refer to are the small men who conduct businesses in the back streets, and in a small town like Stroud may very well conduct the businesses on the main streets as well. They are not the suppliers of the concoctions.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is as may be. I understand that the only objections

  1729
  that have been raised to this Bill are by the manufacturers, and even that opposition is not very strong. If the Secretary of State says there is a small body of people who are unorganised and who should be in this Council, they can join the trade organisations which by the provisions of the Bill will have representation. That applies throughout industrial organisation. It is no use my right hon. Friend raising this point in this way. He should look at the pattern of the industrial system in this country, where he will find that employers and employees' organisations are the only people who get representation for the purpose of negotiating machinery. Therefore, no exception can or should be made in this matter. His argument does not seem to be a very substantial one at all against the Bill.
  The Home Secretary said that he objected to Clause 11 for the reason that was given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). I should be intensely sorry for the Home Secretary if he rested his case solely on some argument made by the hon. and learned Gentleman on this point, because he is quite wrong on it. The Home Secretary said that even the doctors had not the protection that was to be afforded by this Clause. I cannot understand his attempt to draw an analogy between hairdressing under this Clause and the doctors under the B.M.A. organisation. First of all, it is perfectly true that once a person is a doctor he can practise in the medical profession. It is equally true, of course, that once a person becomes a hairdresser he is limited to practising in that form in which he registered. This may be different from the British Medical Association, but there there is statutory provision, which enables that body to discipline its members and to decide what is right and wrong in the practice of that profession. It is an entirely different matter with regard to hairdressing.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: Is not my hon. and learned Friend referring to the General Medical Council rather than the British Medical Association? I think he could make the matter clear.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. That is the body I was referring to. It is merely a
  1730
  mistake in description. The position of doctors, as they are disciplined and regulated, and that of hairdressers as they are going to be registered under this particular statute, cannot be compared. Then the Home Secretary argued—and I was surprised to hear this from him—that while there are bad practices in the hairdressing trade, those bad practices are still to go on. If that is so, and if bad practices are there or are to continue, why do the Government not bring in a Bill to stop them? This Bill has nothing to do with that aspect at all.
  This Measure lays down that certain people in the craft should be registered, but it has nothing to do with hygiene; that is the business of the Ministry of Health. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State mentioned that we had been to the Home Office, and, therefore, I am at liberty to say that one of the things we were told was that it was not desirable to legislate for that under this Bill, because it was a matter provided for and under the responsibility of the Ministry of Health. It is not good enough to come along now in those circumstances and condemn the Bill on that particular ground.
  With regard to the question of Scotland, it may very well be that the Clause which is left from the original Bill may cause some slight confusion with regard to the duties of the Secretary of State for Scotland as against the duties of my right hon. Friend. Is that a reason for condemning the Bill? That is a simple matter that could be righted in another place if necessary? Certainly it is no argument against the Bill. Then it was said that once a person is registered there is no control over him at all. That is not accurate. Clause 11 provides that after hairdressers are registered they are not allowed to practise in any form of hairdressing other than that for which they are registered, and if they do so they make themselves liable to the sanction of Clause 11, which imposes certain penalties in such a case. Therefore it is not correct to say that there is no control.
  I would now like to deal with the point whether the trade wants the Bill. It would be a great drawback to the Measure if it were not wanted by a substantial portion of the trade. There are three organisations representing the employers: the National Hairdressers'

  1731
  Federation, the Incorporated Guild of Hairdressers, the London and Provincial Hairdressers. They all want it. They are the collective voice of the trade on the employers' side. They all support the Bill. With regard to the employees there is the U.S.D.A.W. which strongly supports the Bill and says that the Bill is necessary in the public interest.
  There is also the organisation which represents both the employers and the employed, known as the Hairdressers' Registration Council. It accounts for no fewer than 45,000 out of the 100,000 people in the industry. That is a considerable number. It is no argument to say that 55,000 are not registered. It is truer to say that there are 55,000 hairdressers at large who may be competent or incompetent. The reason for the Bill is that this Registration Council have no proper control and they cannot make all those who are competent for registration do what the 45,000 have done.
  There is also an educational committee, which has affiliated to it all the organisations which I have mentioned, and which is in favour of the Bill. It has a syllabus and curriculum for those who are learning the trade. The City and Guilds of London Institute make regulations to try to regulate the trade, but their action is defeated, because regulations without registration are ineffective. It has been said that the Bill will establish a close monopoly by limiting entry into the trade. It will do nothing of the sort. All the Bill seeks to do is to set up a reasonable test. If that test cannot be satisfied by any persons it is in the public interest that that person should not be registered, or allowed to practise hairdressing.
  I now come to the question of the Council. There will be 13 members of the Council, consisting of an independent chairman, two members representing employers, two representing employees and eight consumers' representatives who are not in the hairdressing profession. A body of that kind is bound to be reliable because the eight who represent the consumers have no interest other than the public interest of seeing that what is done is just. Further, there will be a right of appeal. The three persons who are to hear the appeals will be appointed by the Secretary of State, and they will be independent people. Therefore, registration is bound to be fair and in no way restrictive. There is no limit to the number of registrations. As long as the test is satisfactorily undertaken and as long as there is proficiency, an applicant is entitled to be registered.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has already dealt with the question of safeguards. As regards the powers of the Council these are set out in Clauses 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10, and the exceptions to these are also given in the Bill, and the position is therefore made quite explicit. Public health and sanitation are matters, as I have said, for the Ministry of Health, and it would not be desirable, proper or practicable to include them in the present Bill. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton), the Bill has good in it, and it is because of this that I hope the House will give it a Third Reading.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 67.

  Division No. 197.]

  AYES

  [3.15 p.m.

  Acland, Sir R.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Lipson, D. L.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Barton, C.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Teeling, William

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Bruce, Major D. W. T.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Viant, S. P.

  Cooper, G.

  Mellish, R. J.

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

  Daines, P.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Weitzman, D.

  De la Bère, R.

  Rankin, J.

  Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Guy, W. H.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

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

  Hale, Leslie

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Haughton, Colonel S. G. (Antrim)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Mr. Awbery and Mr. Kinley.

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

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

  NOES

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Snow, J. W.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Holman, P.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

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

  Houghton, A. L. N. D. (Sowerby)

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. (Lambeth, N.)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Champion, A. J.

  Jenkins, R. H.

  Thorp, Brigadier, R. A. F.

  Cove, W. G.

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

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  McAdam, W.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Mack, J. D.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  MacLeod, J.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Morley, R.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

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

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

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Moyle, A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

  Mr. Irvine and

  Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.

  Parker, J.

  Mr. Frederick Lee.

  Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Third Reading put off for three months.

ANALGESIA IN CHILDBIRTH BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

Clause 1.—(DUTY OF CENTRAL MIDWIVES BOARD TO SECURE INSTRUCTION OF MIDWIVES IN ADMINISTRATION OF ANALGESIA TO WOMEN IN CHILD- BIRTH.)
3.19 p.m.
Mr. Bing: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out "of framing rules."
I have to apologise for the absence of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) who is one of the backers of this Bill and has asked me to express to the House his great regret that he is not here himself to put his point of view.
Perhaps it might be convenient to deal also with the following Amendments: In page 1, leave out lines 13 to 19; and page 2, line 28, leave out from beginning, to "by," in line 29, and insert "the manner approved." These three Amendments fall together, and deal with the question as to whether or not one should proceed by means of rules or by means of exercising powers.
Mr. Speaker: It would be more convenient to take them together if that is convenient to the House.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Perhaps it might assist the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) if I said that as far as the principle is concerned I am prepared to accept it and I am prepared to accept the first and third of the Amendments which it is proposed to take together. I wanted to resist the middle Amendment, for reasons not connected with the principle the hon. Member has in mind.
Mr. Bing: It may be for the convenience of the House if I put the point of view I have on this matter, because the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) and I have the Ministry to deal with and, although we may reach agreement, we may not convince the Ministry with regard to the points we have in mind. The difficulty which the hon. Member for Monmouth is in is that midwives, like lawyers, are qualified in two ways. First, like solicitors, they obtain a certificate to practise but, obviously, not all midwives, nor all solicitors, who possess a certificate to practise actually indulge in practice. When he had to decide which midwives must be trained in analgesia the hon. Member had to devise some means to enforce this point of view, not on all midwives, but only on those who came forward to practise.
The method he chose was to take Section 10 of the 1902 Act, and to say that for any midwife who came forward and applied for a certificate under that Act, rules must be framed in such a way by the Central Midwives Board as would

1735
ensure that the midwife in this connection was possessed of the qualifications which enabled her to practise. This is a matter on which perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Health can help us later on. The difficulty is that it is not possible for the Midwives Board to frame rules which will bind the local authorities in the way in which they are to deal with the people who come forward and offer themselves as midwives. We propose by this Amendment simply to remove the words, "of framing rules."
The difficulty I am in, and I hope the hon. Member for Monmouth will deal with this matter later in the Debate, is that, once we have removed from the Bill the reference to the rules, it is impossible to leave in a Clause in which we say,
"Any rules framed by the Board and approved by the Minister for the purpose of subsection (1)."
I do not know whether the hon. Member wishes to interrupt and deal with the point at this stage. At the moment I cannot see how, if one accepts one Amendment, one can depart from that and insist on leaving in subsection (2). That seem a quite illogical approach.
The third point concerns Clause 3. When we reach that Clause there will be other Amendments to be moved, but the effect which the Amendment which I am discussing has on that Clause consists in leaving out from the beginning of line 28 to "by," in line 29, and of inserting "the manner approved." That would make the Clause read:
"Any certified midwife who has received instruction in the manner approved by the Board in the administration of analgesia to women in childbirth shall be entitled to administer analgesia.…"
Then we intend to propose a further Amendment which I should perhaps mention. It is consequential on the other one. I refer to the Amendment in page 2, line 31, to leave out from "accordance," to the end of line 33, and to insert "therewith."
If these Amendments are not made we shall be put in a grave difficulty in connection with Clause 3 because the rules are continually varied and if a midwife has been trained in accordance with the rules of 1906 she might be entitled, as the matter stands, to administer analgesia by quite a different method. That is not what the hon. Member sought to
1736
achieve. He sought to achieve that a midwife should be entitled to administer analgesia in accordance with the method in which she had been trained. No one wishes to allow a midwife, because she has received one course of training, to administer analgesia for a purpose for which she has not been trained. I hope that what we propose will be a comparatively simple method of getting over that very real difficulty. The Clause will then read:
"Any certified midwife who has received instruction in the manner approved by the Board in the administration of analgesia to women in childbirth is entitled to administer analgesia in accordance therewith."
That is, she is entitled only to administer analgesia in accordance with the training which she has received and not in accordance with some rules which may have been subsequently passed but in accordance with which she has not been trained.
I am sorry to take a little time, but this is a matter of some importance. If we are writing into the law—there may be a good reason or there may not be a good reason for doing it—authority for someone to administer analgesia to someone else, it is important that we should make quite certain that we do not give them authority to do something for which they are entirely untrained. The difficulty about this Bill, and I do not blame the hon. Member for it, is that there have been so many hands in it and so many alterations, that there are left in the Bill vestigial phrases which previously referred to various matters, and which now, by merely being left in, are linked with matters with which they are in no way connected. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment and that the Parliamentary Secretary will have a look at these points and do his utmost to accept the Amendment.
Mrs. Jean Mann: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think and hope that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) can easily accept this Amendment. We have already discussed this upstairs, but we still seem to carry the weakness in regard to the framing of rules and training in analgesia. The whole field of analgesia is changing; in fact, the whole field, even at the moment is not very static or confined to one particular type, although I believe the Board is training

1737
midwives in one particular type. Very soon, there may be agreement that the particular analgesic which is in use at the moment can be superseded, and there have been a great many complaints about types in which midwives are being trained now. I have had a good number of letters about the ineffectiveness of many courses.
3.30 p.m.
It would be altogether wrong to allow midwives who have had this training to start on something else which may be more intricate and may be fraught with danger to their patients. As research is still going on in newer methods, and particularly in that of trilene, it would be dangerous to allow this Clause to go through without our Amendment. I think the promoters of the Bill are already aware of the much greater advantages of trilene, and know the dangers to patients who are under the care of a midwife who has not had a professional training like a doctor and who does not know whether a patient may be subject to high blood pressure. There is a real danger in such a case in permitting her to use any method of analgesia if she has only been trained in one particular method. I think the hon. Member for Monmouth probably sees the difficulty and agrees with me, and I hope he will agree to the Amendment.
Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I think it might shorten our discussion if I say that I am prepared to accept the first Amendment—page 1, line 6. I am obliged to the hon. Members opposite for putting it forward, and I think it is an improvement to the Clause and that it merely widens the powers of the Central Midwives Board. I am also prepared to accept the last Amendment, that to Clause 3, page 2, line 28, so that I hope we need not discuss these matters further.
In regard to the other Amendment, there is a short point to put to the hon. Gentleman opposite. The purposes of subsection (2) is to make provision for a very small class of older midwives whom it may not be possible to train or who perhaps could not qualify. It was felt that they should not be thrown completely out of work, but that they should be reduced to an absolute minimum who would act in few cases, particularly in the remote parts of Scotland, where some of these midwives have brought hundreds
1738
of children into the world. It was felt that we should not rule out all these people. We made provision for exemption in these cases, and that was a suggestion of one of the hon. Ladies opposite, and I put it in on the advice of the Ministry, the Central Midwives Board and the Royal College of Midwives. I hope that, in these circumstances, since I am accepting the first and third Amendments, the hon. Gentleman will not see fit to press the middle one.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I think it will be useful if I say a word or two now. First of all, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), it is true that the Ministry did feel that, if we were to go on the procedure laid down in the original draft, it would have been necessary to have the subsection included, but, with wider powers now granted to the Minister to extend the period of operation of the training, it is not so necessary as it was before.
Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman assures me that is so, I will, of course, take the advice of the Ministry on the subject and accept all three Amendments, which will speed up the matter still more.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I think this illustrates the difficulty we are in when dealing with this truncated Bill, because it makes all the clearer the impossibility of dealing with it on its present footing. It is perfectly true, for example with reference to this first Amendment, that if we were to leave in the framing of rules it would obviously place the Board in a very difficult position, as has been made clear, because, first of all, under the requirements of the Midwives Act, 1902, dealing with midwives being trained for the first time, it lays down that
"the duties and powers of the Board shall be as follows:—
To frame rules

(a) regulating their own proceedings;

(b) regulating the issue of certificates and the conditions of admission to the roll of Midwives;

(c) regulating the course of training and the conduct of examinations, and the remuneration of the examiners."

That deals purely with those midwives.
Mr. Thorneycroft: I feel that, as I have said that the case for this Amendment was put very clearly by the hon.

1739
Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), and that I will, on the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary, be glad to accept all three Amendments, and as the Minister knows the position with regard to time as well as I do, it is unnecessary for him to repeat all the arguments again.
Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Member who is himself insisting on going forward with this Bill, which bears so little relation to the Bill that originally came before the House, must give the House the opportunity of considering the completely different position in which we are placed. Unless we have the opportunity of considering the Amendments put forward, it will be quite impossible for the House to reach any decision on them.
Mr. McCorquodale: I should like to place on record our entire disapproval of a Member of the Government trying to waste time in this way.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I must say that I take that very badly.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of hon. Members on future occasions, whether it is in Order for an hon. Member to intervene during a speech by another hon. Member—which has called for no remark from you—to say that the speech is merely being made for the sake of wasting time. To my mind, that is a suggestion of irrelevance and one which is not merely out of Order, but which is also a reflection on the Chair.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a matter for me. If the right hon. Gentleman interrupts, it is his responsibility. If he chooses to say that the Minister is wasting time, one knows that that is not out of Order.
Mr. Blenkinsop: My point is that it is only right that hon. Members who are being asked to consider this Bill on the Report stage should be given the opportunity of doing so. I see no reason why we should not be fully conversant with the facts of the matter.
I have referred to the position of midwives who have come before the Board for training prior to the coming into force of this Bill. Under the Midwives Act,
1740
1936, as has been made clear, the power is laid down that the Board may frame rules under Section 3 of the principal Act
"requiring midwives to attend from time to time, in accordance with the provisions of the rules, a course of instruction approved by the Board."
But that also lays down that
"Every authority shall provide or arrange for the provision of such courses of instruction for midwives practising in its area as may be necessary to enable those midwives to comply with the rules under subsection (1) of this section."
That means that it should be the duty of the local authority to provide the instruction, and, indeed, raises the question of whether that would not, in fact, make a charge upon the Exchequer which is expressly excluded by a later Clause in this Bill.
Therefore, from that point of view it would be reasonable to accept this Amendment, but I suggest that if this Amendment is accepted, then indeed it weakens the whole powers of this Clause and makes one want to know precisely what the promoters expect to obtain from the Clause itself. Before taking the matter further, one would wish to hear from the promoters precisely what they think can be achieved by the Clause as amended which cannot be achieved in the existing circumstances. That is something which the House ought to have before it is called upon to reach a decision on this or subsequent Amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Bing: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out lines 13 to 19.
Like the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), I want to get on. I quite appreciate his views, with his eye on the clock, but I think we ought to have some indication of whether it is desired to retain this Clause or not. I have dealt with this matter generally before, and I do not wish to detain the House except to say that once we have accepted the removal of the rules I cannot possibly see how there can be any legal framework upon which this Clause can hang.
Mr. P. Thorneyeroft: I am accepting the Amendment.
Mr. Bing: In that case I shall resume my seat.
Mrs. Mann: I beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. S. Silverman: I want to protest against the way in which the House is being treated in the handling of these Amendments. I understand from an interjection made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) that he proposes to accept this Amendment. He appears to think that because an Amendment has been moved on one side of the House and accepted by the promoters on the other side, that disposes of the matter and that any further speeches, explanation or argument are a waste of time. There are other Members in the House who have a duty and a responsibility to discharge besides my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Amendment and the hon. Member for Monmouth.
Before I cast a vote or indicate an opinion when the collection of voices is taken, I should like to know a great deal more about what we are doing. If I understand the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) correctly, it is that the adoption of the Amendment would have the result of making the whole of Clause 1 entirely purposeless, so that it achieves little or nothing. If that is so, I should like to know, before we part with the matter, whether the next Amendment is going to be a proposal to delete Clause 1 altogether, and whether the hon. Member for Monmouth will then accept that, and if he does so what purpose there will be in proceeding with the matter at all.
We have not all been on the Standing Committee, and I think the House is entitled to know what is going on. We are entitled to have proper explanations of what is proposed, and we should not be asked to act as a kind of rubber stamp merely because an Amendment has been moved on one side and has been accepted on the other. Personally, I do not know anything at all about this Amendment; I do not know what the effect of it is on the Clause, or what the effect of the Clause so amended would be on the Bill. Until the matter is properly explained the House has no right to dispose of it.
3.45 p.m.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I ask the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) to give some explanation of his views
1742
on the value of this Clause after this Amendment has been made. I think it is only right that we should insist that we ought to know from the promoters of the Bill what they feel can be done under the Clause after these Amendments have been carried. I think the House has a right to that.
Mr. Thorneycroft: We all agreed that the discussion on the three Amendments should be taken together. That has taken place and I do not think anything further need be said.
Mr. Pargiter: I should like to know whether we cannot have an explanation. It is perfectly reasonable that we should have an explanation purely in the interest of the Bill. It seems to me obvious that this Bill cannot go through today. Without an explanation one has no option but to vote against the Amendment. Only one vote, one Division, and the Bill has gone for today. It would be better to have a reasoned explanation of what is intended, as hon. Gentlemen have asked, rather than that we should be in the position of having to divide because we do not know what the Amendment does.
Mr. Scholefield Allen: As one who was not a Member of the Standing Committee, I should like to add my protest to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Pargiter). I came here at a great deal of inconvenience in order to make up my mind on this issue. If we are not to have explanations, and if the matter is to be dealt with by nodding from one side of the House to the other, how can any hon. Member who has not been a member of the Committee make up his mind as to the attitude to adopt? I find myself quite unable to appreciate what I am being asked to do on this occasion.
Mr. Thorneycroft: I am most anxious not to seem discourteous in any way, but the reason was quite clearly given by the Parliamentary Secretary. The original subsection was asked for by the Ministry and the Central Midwives Board, but in their opinion it is no longer necessary owing to the wide powers of postponement given in subsection (3).
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(RIGHT OF MIDWIVES TO ADMINISTER ANALGESIA.)
Mr. Bing: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, at the beginning, to insert:
"In order to remove doubts it is hereby declared that."
Perhaps it would be convenient if, at the same time, we were to discuss the Amendment in page 2, line 30, to leave out "shall be," and to insert "is."
In the first place, I think I ought to make this apology to the House. I think, from the way in which the last Amendment was dealt with, Members felt, and very justifiably felt, perhaps, that they did not have an adequate opportunity of hearing the reasons for the points of view put forward. I blame myself, in part, for that in that I did not put down these Amendments earlier, and I think we also owe an apology to you, Mr. Speaker.
The Bill itself came out only on the Wednesday afternoon and some of us, with other activities, were rather tired by that time. There was no possibility whatever of having those various consultations which were necessary before we framed these Amendments. Therefore, the Amendments which stand on the Order Paper are just a day old and hon. Members were first presented with them when they came in this morning. My hon. Friends and I owe an apology to the House for that, but it is one of those things which cannot be helped and perhaps one of those things which resulted from the rather unfortunate and undue hurrying forward of this Measure. It might have been better had the matter been left with the possibility of further discussion. There are all sorts of questions involved and it is rather unfortunate to have to deal with them at this very late stage.
Mrs. Leah Manning: Is this the explanation of the Clause which the hon. Member is making?
Mr. Bing: I am sorry; perhaps I ought to apologise to the hon. Lady. I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, but in view of what has been said I thought it would shorten the time if I made an apology and explanation first instead of waiting for hon. Members to ask for it one after the other. I am very sorry, indeed, and now I see I am caught between two fires because I have to
1744
attempt to make an apology to the hon. Lady while I am on my feet. If any other hon. Member wants to interrupt, perhaps he will do so at this point.
The principal objects and matters involved in the Clause are of some considerable importance, because, although I do not think that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) or my hon. Friend realises it, what they have done is to put in peril every single midwife in the country. What they are inviting us to do is to say now that it is legal for midwives to administer analgesia. Up to now there has never been any suggestion that it was illegal.
Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am sure that the hon. Member wants to expedite our proceedings. If it would help him to do so, I should like to say that I am prepared to accept all his Amendments which appear on the Order Paper.
Mr. Bing: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say so, but in view of what has been said we ought not to let the House part with the Bill simply like that. This is by no means the last day for the consideration of Private Members' Bills. Other Private Members and I have for a long time seen the titles of our Bills appear on the Paper day after day, which gives one great encouragement to know that the matter is still alive.
The difficulty which we are in really ought to be canvassed, because a quite unfair attack has been made on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. It has been suggested from time to time that he has allowed proposals for the analgesia service to go forward without ever doing anything about it; that whilst the whole of this Bill has been urgently needed the Minister of Health has sat still and done nothing at all. The most instructive thing one can do is to look at the Reports of the discussions in Committee of the Clauses dealing with analgesia in the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill. On that Committee sat the noble Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Tweedsmuir). At that time it was actually said—
Mr. Speaker: If that Committee is still upstairs, we have no knowledge of it and it cannot be quoted here.
Mr. Bing: You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of my difficulties in referring to

1745
Committees upstairs, but that one, fortunately, has reported. On that Committee the hon. Gentleman—I am in some difficulty about exactly how to describe him, for the Scottish Universities have so well chosen their Members that if I refer to one by the title of hon. and gallant I refer automatically to another; by referring to a Member by a title of chivalry I include also another; and if I refer to somebody as a Privy Councillor, yet another is involved. I cannot refer to the "Senior" or "Junior" Member because in this case there are three. If the House will excuse me, therefore, I will refer to the hon. Gentleman as the intermediate Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Graham Kerr.)
During the Debate in Committee on these very Clauses dealing with midwives, and when the noble Lady the Member for South Aberdeen was present, the hon. Gentleman said that this was a matter in which the Minister had complete power to do whatever he liked; and nobody interfered. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) dealt later with the whole question of analgesia. We have now reached the position on the Clause where we are taking a point of view that up to now everything the midwives have done to help suffering mothers has been a matter of legal doubt, and we are graciously saying that new midwives, who have received instruction, are from the passing of this Measure entitled to administer analgesia. Obviously, that must be wrong and is a grave slur on midwives as a whole and might have serious consequences. An action of some sort might arise because of the administration of analgesia on some occasion in the past, and this Bill, when it becomes an Act, could be quoted by saying that until it was passed the midwife had no authority to administer it.
Nobody more than myself pays tribute to the motives of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth, the noble Lady the Member for South Aberdeen, and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), who have put forward the Bill. But I honestly think that this House ought to be careful in the legislation that it passes to ensure that in its desire to provide for midwives it does not do something to put them in a worse position. We cannot now discuss
1746
Clause 2, and I refer to it only by way of illustration. Clause 2 provides, in effect, that every home for clergymen shall be fitted with analgesic apparatus. Now that is not the best method of securing its distribution throughout the country. Clause 3, which I am sure is put forward with equally good motives and with an equal desire to help, seems to be as misconceived as Clause 2, which would provide that homes for the aged and childrens' hospitals should be equipped with analgesic apparatus of a type approved by the Minister, which should also always be ready for use.
I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I must explain very shortly the object of this Amendment. We propose, if the House agrees, to insert the words:
"In order to remove doubts it is hereby declared that."
I should be in difficulty if I tried to refer to anything now going on in a Standing Committee, and all I can say is that our proposed wording is in line with impending legislation. I leave it at that. With the addition of these words the Clause would read:
"In order to remove doubts it is hereby declared that any certified midwife who has received instruction"—
in the manner approved by the board—
"in the administration of analgesia … shall be entitled to administer analgesia."
in accordance therewith. Our object is to ensure that we give, as it were, a clean bill of health to the midwife, who has done a very good job in administering analgesia. In my own county of Essex, in the six months following the National Health Act, midwives administered more analgesia than was administered in the whole country in 1939. We do not want to put those people in peril; we do not want to have to tell them that, although in Essex alone the midwives in the six months I referred to did more than was done in the whole country in 1939 they have all the time been doing something illegal, and that we are thoughtful people who are coming to their rescue by passing this Bill. I hope the House will accept this Amendment and say that midwives may be assured that they have always been entitled to do what they have been doing in administering analgesia.
Mrs. Mann: I beg to second the Amendment.

1747
It is clear from our experience in Committee that we must try to remove any ambiguity from the Bill, and this Amendment is an attempt to make everything clear. I recall that in Committee we spent a considerable time on quotations from counsel's opinion, which was that the Minister had no power to order local authorities to provide analgesia. Well, as we have learned after listening to the Debate this afternoon on the Hairdressers (Registration) Bill, counsel, like doctors, differ in their opinions. I cannot follow my hon. Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) in his experiences—
It being Four o'Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday next.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Bowden.]

RAILWAY WORKERS (DISPUTE)
4.1 p.m.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a further statement regarding the position on the railways.
In discussion on Wednesday night last, representatives of the Executive of the National Union of Railwaymen informed officers of my Department that the decision of the special delegate meeting of the previous day was not intended to break off negotiations with the Railway Executive, and further that the executive of the union would be able to suspend the decision if they felt in certain circumstances that that course was justified, having regard to the views of their members.
At a further discussion last night, following the deadlock in the negotiations between the Railway Executive and the unions, it was pointed out on my behalf to the representatives of the executive of the National Union of Railwaymen that that part of the resolution that required the operation of the decision as from midnight 3rd-4th July constituted an immediate threat of action and while it remained I could not consider lending
1748
the services of my Department to assist the parties in reaching a mutually satisfactory settlement. I have now received from the executive of the National Union of Railwaymen the following resolutions:
"That having heard the report of our representatives who attended the meeting with representatives of the Ministry of Labour, we decide to suspend the decision of the Special General Meeting of 28th June, 1949, to facilitate consideration by the Minister of the present situation.
"The General Secretary to inform Sir Robert Gould of our decision and that since no terms of reference can be agreed by us for submission of our claim to the Railway Staff National Tribunal, we express the hope that the Minister will find himself able to take very early action to assist in resolving this dispute. Further, every effort to be made by this Executive Committee to secure an early settlement and a formal report to be given to the Annual General Meeting on Monday, 4th July, 1949."
In the circumstances I have consulted the Railway Executive and the other unions and also Sir John Forster, Chairman of the Railway Staff National Tribunal, as to the constitutional procedure provided for under the agreements in the industry. It is now clear that there is no provision in the agreements that compels the parties to arbitration, and both the Railway Executive and the National Union of Railwaymen consider that the machinery has now been exhausted.
Accordingly, I have come to the conclusion that there is no constitutional obstacle to my intervention in the present dispute and I am sure the House will wish me to use to the full the powers that Parliament has given me to enable me to take such action as seems necessary and desirable to assist the parties towards a settlement.
May I add a word on another matter in which the House is interested, namely, the question of food supplies becoming endangered as a result of the stoppage of work in the London Docks. I have just been informed that on it being discovered in the Royal Docks that a consignment of fruit in one of the sheds was in danger of deteriorating, four gangs of volunteers were immediately forthcoming in order that it could be handled without delay. The House will, I am sure, appreciate the regard for the public interest which this incident demonstrates.
Mr. McCorquodale: I am sure the whole House will be glad to

1749
know that the serious threat of trouble, which has been lying over the country from the railwaymen, has for the time being disappeared, and we wish the Minister every success in his handling of this matter. I trust we shall not have any recurrence.
Mr. Champion: I feel sure that this announcement will be received with profound relief by the men concerned. They would have had to put this decision of the union into operation. While they are extremely anxious to put right what occurs to them to be an injustice, and are prepared to take the measures indicated in the union's decision, nevertheless, they have no desire to place this country in jeopardy, as indeed that decision might do. I am hoping that the Minister's efforts will lead to a settlement, which will bring justice and prevent the difficulties which would be consequent upon the carrying out of the decision of the union.

AFRICAN TERRITORIES (TUBERCULOSIS)
4.5 p.m.
Dr. Barnett Stross: The subject which I wish to bring to the notice of the House on this Adjournment is that of tuberculosis in our African territories, and I want to urge upon the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies that the problem can be dealt with without the expenditure of a large sum of money, in spite of the difficulties that we have in obtaining sufficient staff and suitable equipment.
I would invite hon. Members to look at the Report entitled "The Colonial Territories" issued a few days ago. The principles I have in mind, and which I want to have accepted, are clearly laid down in that report. On page 91, under the heading "Medical and Health Services" it is clearly stated that there is now recognition of the importance of the preventive approach to medical problems. Over the page, in paragraph 456, there is a description of a conference held last year in London where a paper was read setting forth views as to the most effective methods of raising health standards in Africa. It is clear that the emphasis was laid on the importance of preventive and social measures in a balanced medical
1750
policy and, what is perhaps more important, upon the important part which locally-recruited staff and the population itself must play in making such measures fully effective.
I think that it is accepted by everyone who has studied the subject that the medical and the ancillary medical staff throughout the Colonies have played a magnificent and vital part in assisting the Colonial Office throughout the world. On the other hand, it is fair to say that the problem I am now discussing is so vast that there has been a temptation to neglect it. It is true that one will be told that surveys are being made as, for example, on the Gold Coast, and that a tuberculosis officer is to go to Nigeria. Surveys of this type in territories where we know full well that tuberculosis is a major killing disease, tend to be a waste of time. It is far better to institute the work immediately. In the process of doing the work itself we are bound to gain as much information as we can get by a series of tuberculin tests or any other kind of survey.
The Colonial Office medical services have shown in other parts of the world outside Africa that much can be done quickly and well. Areas are either fully or partly under control in Cyprus, Aden, British Guiana, Trinidad, Jamaica, Fiji and Singapore. I know from a recent report from the medical officer in charge of Singapore, and the report of the General Hospital, there has been over the past nine years an increase in the number of beds available for the treatment of tuberculosis from 72 to 326. That is only the first stage, for it is proposed to fit out and supply a further 500 beds immediately at Tan Tock Seng Hospital in Singapore. The Secretary of State told me the other day in answer to a Question that in Aden the number of beds now available is 100. I understand that four or five years ago there were 10 or 15. Those beds have been prepared very quickly at a cost of only £90 each. There is nothing to prevent our doing in Africa what is now being done so well in other territories.
If staffs are sent out to Africa who are trained in and used to British standards and conditions, it is not surprising that they feel overwhelmed by the size of the problem which they meet and the difficulties with which they are faced. There

1751
is sometimes a tendency for the almost impossible environmental conditions in Africa to be used as an excuse for saying that nothing can be done in the way of combating tuberculosis unless and until the other environmental problems are solved. I am referring to the housing situation and the extent of malnutrition.
My point today—I hope the Under-Secretary will agree with me—is that on no account can we allow it to be said that a vigorous anti-tuberculosis campaign should not be instituted at once irrespective of what may be going on in other directions. The Africans cannot really wait, for they are the most susceptible of all peoples to tuberculosis infection, and, once infected, they have the least chance of recovery unless every care is taken.
The difficulties in getting statistical information are very great, and what information one can get is poor and incomplete. Where such information is available, it tends to support the view that surveys are incomplete, that most of the cases which are notified are notified at hospitals, that there is no follow-up afterwards, and that the great majority of cases go back to the towns and villages to die and, in so doing, infect other groups of people over and over again. That makes it all the more important that we should at once institute a very widely spread network of therapeutic measures throughout Africa.
If I suggested a remedy, it would be that from every point of view the answer to the problem is to train African medical men in Africa itself. Through its medical section, the Colonial Office has the personnel available to do it. A number of people in the service have had experience of tuberculosis in the tropics, and only such a man could possibly be a director of a training school for teaching the therapeutic measures to be used in Africa. European tuberculosis officers sent out from Britain do not go in order to live there for the rest of their lives—they are birds of passage—and it ought to be accepted that nothing could be wiser than employing men and women who will spend all their lives in the same territory.
I ask the Under-Secretary to accept the principle that it is time that we instituted a teaching centre in either East Africa
1752
or West Africa to combat tuberculosis and that at that centre African medical men and women from all the African Colonies should be trained, probably by means of an intensive six months' course, under a director with experience of T.B. in the tropics. The kind of unit I have in mind would be based upon a large town having a circle of villages within reasonable distance of it. It would be a type of demonstration area. In view of our experience and of the trends here in Britain, where we are departing from the procedure of having bigger and better sanatoria with more and more chromium plating, the main thing to remember is that we do not have to wait to build an expensive sanatorium before starting work. The evidence from Aden alone is sufficient to show that by improvisation one can rapidly use huts and temporary equipment in order to start work.
I think, too, that we should not consider the more advanced surgical technique, such as thoracoplasty, as being an absolute essential. If there be any real meaning in the views given in the report from which I have read, it is prevention we must think of in the first place, and in the second and in the third too. Not that treatment of every kind should not be given but, until a few years ago, we were content and did well in this country with the time-honoured method of treating tuberculosis by means of rest, good food, pneumothorax and the proper use of antibiotics which we now have available.
The Under-Secretary may ask where will the money come from to do this? I assert that it may not need a great deal of money, and I think my hon. Friend would agree with me. However, he has the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund to draw upon, and this should be used. No legislation is required. Already during these past few years it is fair to say that the Colonial Office has increased its reputation beyond all recognition. I think it is recognised all over the world, except in quarters not very friendly to us, that with all sincerity we intend to care for our people in the Colonial territories of the world wherever their care falls upon our shoulders. We are most anxious that they should be able to rely upon themselves. It is part of their general education for life, and I ask that we should train Africans in

1753
Africa at once in a great centre of the type I have envisaged, so that within three years we can turn out a steady flow of fully trained people. This would indeed enhance our reputation and be a beginning in solving this dreadful problem.
4.18 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) for raising this subject because it is a most important one, and I am grateful to him also for his interest in this matter, an interest which is enhanced by his professional standing and knowledge. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall take carefully into account the speech he has made, and we shall try to carry out so far as is practicable some of the suggestions he has put to us. I know that he will not expect me today, in 11 minutes, to try to deal exhaustively with the important speech he has made.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I myself and the officials both in the Colonial Office and in Africa, have this matter much in mind, and we sympathise with the point of view which the hon. Gentleman has put. In my own case I remember only too clearly 20 years ago speaking to a man who was coughing out his life with tuberculosis in a street in a British Colony where the air was so thick with copra dust that it did not seem to me to be the right sort of atmosphere for anybody, let alone a man suffering from tuberculosis. At that time it appeared that our precautions with regard to tuberculosis were rudimentary.
As my hon. Friend said, we have made strides since that time. He has mentioned Singapore and various other places where considerable work has been done. Only this morning I was reading an account of the change in Cyprus, where the death rate is one of the lowest in the world, in fact I think it is lower than in this country. In Aden much good work has been done and in Singapore the tuberculosis service is developing. But these are comparatively small territories and when we consider the vast territories in Africa, differing enormously from one another with scattered populations, poor communications, and low productivity, my hon. Friend will see that the problem,
1754
at all events in extent, is far greater than in the comparatively small territories he has mentioned.
The problem we have to face is one of control of tuberculosis which, fundamentally, is the same everywhere. It is based on established scientific knowledge but circumstances must vary in individual territories with different cultures, different types of social life, varying economic resources and the like. Our approach therefore must vary, and generalisations are dangerous. We have spent a good deal in money and resources in combating the great killing diseases in the last few years. For example, we have had an all out attack on malaria, and entirely cleared Cyprus of malaria. I wish those Cypriot patriots who are continually inveighing against the British would occasionally give us some credit for some of the things we do. Yellow Fever is nowhere near the peril it was owing to the preventive measures taken and we have attacked sleeping sickness. To some extent the funds and resources available for anti-tuberculosis measures have been made smaller than they might have been, owing to these all out attacks and I think my hon. Friend will agree that that was the proper course to take in the circumstances which presented themselves in these postwar years.
There are three main heads to the problem, the statistical—verification of age, sex, racial and geographical distribution—therapeutic and preventive. To deal with this statistical head first, my hon. Friend has said that he thinks surveys are a waste of time in the circumstances. A very elaborate survey might be a waste of time, but there are some surveys, I am informed by the experts in the Colonial Office, which are necessary. Some information is definitely desired and required. Before the campaign can be started, research must be put in hand into the type of disease and into the resistance of the population. I agree with my hon. Friend that, generally speaking, the African is particularly susceptible to tuberculosis infection. It is especially so, of course, in the urban areas.
As to the therapeutic side of the question, all methods of treatment known to science are applicable and we shall apply them to the limit of our resources. We believe that the greatest possible contribution to this problem would be in

1755
increasing the standard of living—better hygiene, better housing, better nutrition and more education. All this is being put in hand, but the leeway to be made up is very great indeed. Our policy is that we should do everything possible within our resources to make an all out attack on this disease, especially since we have had considerable success in dealing with the killing diseases.
We are under difficulties and it is no use my trying to disguise them. First, we cannot recruit members for the specialist staff in the United Kingdom because they are not to be had. We find the greatest difficulty in obtaining from the United Kingdom the trained officers, research workers and the like who have a great knowledge of T.B. But as and when they become available we shall try to secure the services of specialist staff for the Colonial territories. To a large extent, therefore, we have been forced to do what my hon. Friend has suggested we should do, namely to depend upon the Colonial medical service itself and to develop the knowledge and skill of certain members of the service so that they become specialists in the treatment of this disease. That applies to African as well as European doctors. They are brought to this country and put through a specialist course here.
Dr. Stross: It is on this point that we are a little at variance. The view which I take is that to bring them over and to teach them here gives them an education and environment which is essentially false for them when they go back. Because that is so, my plea is that they should be taught in Africa by the best people we can get.
Mr. Rees-Williams: I was not alluding to the vast number of people who will be taught in Africa—the various medical assistants, nurses, and so forth, who have to be taught. I was alluding to the people who will be the specialists in this disease in Africa. I am here in some difficulty. I am not a medical man and I bow to the knowledge of my hon. Friend in that respect, but it has up to now been the opinion of the medical advisers of the Secretary of State that these key men, if I might call them such, should have their training reinforced, so to speak, in this country. I will put my hon. Friend's point to them and see whether they are likely to change their minds.
I do not think I can do more at the moment than assure my hon. Friend that we are not at all satisfied with the present position. We blame no one, we know all the difficulties. Owing to the various reasons which I have given the situation is what it is. In this field as in many others we are not satisfied. Therefore, our feeling in this matter is that we must do everything we possible can to improve the position. In doing that we shall take into account all the relevant circumstances—the speech made by my hon. Friend, the interest which this Debate will undoubtedly arouse in the professional papers, and so on. We shall be only too anxious to put into effect at the earliest possible moment the campaign against tuberculosis, which I hope will have the same success as the campaigns against the killing diseases have already had.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Four o'Clock.