HC Deb 01 May 1952 vol 499 cc1753-85
Mr. Baird

I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, to leave out paragraph (b).

I shall detain the House only for a short time as this Amendment has been put down only in order to seek an explanation. The position, as I see it, is that today, before this Measure comes into operation, if anyone in poor circumstances, in receipt of National Assistance, should require emergency dental treatment, and goes to the dentist and has that treatment carried out, it is done under the dental service. By the terms of the Bill a charge is being made. The National Assistance patient will go to the dentist, who will treat him or her outside the Health Scheme, and charge any fee he wishes up to £1. The patient can recover that charge from the National Assistance Board.

If that is the position, it seems to me to be completely wrong because, while the charges under the National Health Service are limited to 7s. 6d. for emergency treatment, the dentist will, under the Bill, be able to charge a Public Assistance patient up to 19s. 6d. for the same treatment and recover that amount from the National Assistance Board. If that is so, something should be done to put the matter right. This Amendment is put down to secure an explanation from the Minister of what this provision really means.

Mr. Frederick Lee (Newton)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Crookshank

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), is quite correct. Under the present law, if emergency work was done by private arrangement with the dentist, the National Assistance Board could not make a grant. This provision in the Bill is to make quite sure they can meet the charge if, in the case of a National Assistance patient, the dentist says, "I want a small sum for doing this work," and does not do it under the National Health Service. I dare say that might happen in many other cases in order to save the dentist trouble. We want to make it clear that if he does that—although it is rather unlikely—the National Assistance patient can recover the charge from the Board. That is the purpose of this paragraph.

Mr. Baird

But this will happen every day in every dentist's practice. In the case of anyone in receipt of Public Assistance requiring teeth to be extracted, the dentist will be able to charge up to £1 and recover the amount from the National Assistance Board. There should be some limit to the amount which the dentist is allowed to charge a patient. I am trying to save the right hon. Gentleman from getting into a mess.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

The hon. Member cannot make a second speech.

Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)

In that case, may I put the point once more to the right hon. Gentleman, as I think he has missed the point put by my right hon. Friend? It was that, in the circumstances envisaged, the dentist could charge anything up to £1, whereas in the ordinary way he might charge less than 10s. To that extent the dentist might, if he is so minded, be getting far more than is his due, and the Public Assistance Board will be paying more than it should. What safeguard have the Government provided to prevent that kind of thing from happening?

Mr. Awbery

Are we to understand that there is no scale of charges, that the dentist can charge what he likes and that there is no inquiry, in that kind of work, as to what has been done?

Mr. Crookshank

If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I would say that the point I had in mind was to make quite clear that if anyone receives private treatment and is a recipient of National Assistance there should be no question whether the charge should be paid by the National Assistance Board. If there is a possibility of any kind of leakage I will look at the matter again; but I do not like to make the assumption for the purposes of the argument that the dentists are necessarily going to overcharge National Assistance patients because they can get more than the proper charge from the National Assistance Board. It is a profession, an honourable profession, and I am not prepared to make that assumption about any professional people.

As, however, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), who is a member of that profession, has expressed the opinion that there may be something in the point he is making, I shall make it my business to look at it, making it quite clear that it is his suggestion. I am not casting any aspersions or suggesting that any dentist is likely to do this thing, but the hon. Member has told me that there is a possible loophole, and it is my business to see that there are no loopholes.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Marquand

I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, to leave out from "instrument," to the end of line 15, and to insert: and no statutory instrument shall be made under and in pursuance of this Act unless it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. During the course of the debates on this Bill the right hon. Gentleman has made many promises about what he will or will not put in the Regulations he proposes to draft under the powers given to him under the Bill, but he has given us very few guarantees in the Bill itself. The possibility is open either to himself or his successors to make remarkable changes—for example, the levying of a charge on other appliances on which there is to be no charge and for which the right hon. Gentleman says he has no intention of charging—and these changes can be made under the terms of the Bill by the making of Regulations.

It is true that if regulations are made this House would, under the proviso contained in the Bill, have the right to pray against them. That, however, as we all know, never gives the House of Commons a full opportunity to discuss thoroughly and publicly, as we should like to do, any important change. Prayers are apt to come before the House late at night or early in the morning, after other business, and to receive little notice in the Press.

Yet here we are dealing with the National Health Service, to which 95 per cent. of our citizens resort and in which probably an even greater percentage of our citizens are vitally and keenly interested. If important changes should be made in future by means of regulations, those regulations should be brought before the House, explained and an affirmative resolution should be sought from this House and in the other place.

It is surely right that if important changes, indeed any change, are to be made under this Bill in the National Health Service, the public and Parliament should be made fully aware of them and Parliament should be given the opportunity formally to approve them. It will cost the right hon. Gentleman nothing to agree to this Amendment. I hope that he will feel that what is proposed is a right and proper practice to pursue where the National Health Service is concerned.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Janner

It is a pity there is so little time left for the Third Reading. I wish that hon. Members would realise that this is an extremely important matter. I call upon hon. Members opposite to carry out the policy they consistently adopted in the last six years of urging that Regulations should be made by the method suggested in the Amendment They cannot get out of that. In all the debates we had there was not one single occasion, so far as I can remember, on which they did not urge the principle that we must not have this kind of legislation unless the House was in the position to be able to discuss it fully.

On some occasions I did not agree with them. But this is a Bill which deals with charges which many hon. Members will want to examine carefully. Their own constituents are involved. There may be changes which will affect the charges themselves, or the likelihood of the charges being of any value. I submit that if ever there was a Bill which required the possibility of the Regulations made under it to be examined this is the Bill.

We have had Prayers time after time from hon. Members opposite who constantly said it was their duty to move Prayers for annulment. We know the ineffective manner in which such Prayers are considered, because they are brought forward at times when little interest is taken in them. These matters are of such importance that they should be dealt with when the House has the opportunity of considering the proposals and of giving the benefit of their constituency and professional experiences to the Minister.

I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary would be delighted to hear the views of hon. Members, if not from this side of the House, at least from their side. I appeal to him to concede us this point, because this is a case in which the lives of men and women are affected. The health of the community is something which has to be safeguarded and which may be impaired owing to the inadvertence or lack of knowledge on the part of the Minister or his advisers, and the assistance we can give him is something of value.

Mr. Crookshank

The argument as to whether in any particular case Regulations should be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure is one which comes up with great frequency and is argued very fervently on one side or the other. There is really no end to that argument. I feel that one ought to look at each case as it comes up; that we should not necessarily be bound by precedent, but should try to see what is the commonsense answer.

If we apply that test to this Amendment, there is no doubt that it should not be carried. Look at what happens. Under the Act of 1949, power was taken by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to impose a charge on the prescriptions made by general practitioners. In that case they have said, to quote the words of the hon. Gentleman, that the proper practice to pursue is the negative procedure. He asks us here to put in the affirmative procedure. The great bulk of the prescriptions charged are on the general practitioner side. Here the charge is merely on the hospital out-patient.

What a queer result it would be if the general practitioner charge was, under the Act of 1949, to be dealt with on a Prayer for annulment, whereas the much smaller section, the charge in outpatients departments, could be dealt with under the Affirmative Resolution by a Bill passed by this Government. I am sure that that cannot appeal to the logic of hon. Members opposite. It is ridiculous to envisage a situation in which, say, seven-eighths of a subject is discussed and argued in this House under one kind of procedure and one-eighth—if that is the right proportion—under another.

That knocks the bottom out of the argument straight away, quite irrespective of the question which is the better way. We have the Act of 1949 which was introduced and passed by hon. Members opposite, and of which presumably they approved. In the same way—

Mr. Janner

And which the right hon. Gentleman opposed.

Mr. Crookshank

I am not discussing that. I am talking about what the situation is now, not what it might have been. I do not know what all the excitement is being engendered about. I am dealing with what the situation is now—

Mr. Janner

The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly argue this way now, when he has a chance to remedy the situation. How can he argue in this way now?

Mr. Crookshank

Anyway, I am arguing this way now, and in the situation in which we have the 1949 Act on the Statute Book it seems to me a sensible way of doing it, in view of the fact that that Act covers a far wider field than we do here.

That is my answer to the hon. Member. He may not like it. But in the same way the Act of 1951 had the Negative procedure in the case of the charges for dentures and spectacles and, therefore, here again any Regulations which may arise dealing with the dentists' side should be dealt with in the same way. But to take the hon. Gentleman perhaps a little more seriously than when he was pulling my leg just now—

Mr. Janner

I was not pulling the hon. Gentleman's leg.

Mr. Crookshank

Well, he hides—I was trying to think of the line— Behind a frowning providence He hides a smiling face. We must judge these things as they come up in the different circumstances. I do not mean by that the political circumstances of one side or the other. I think that what has been done in the past in a particular field is relevant when we are amending and extending legislation in that same field, but it would be perfectly ridiculous to have one set of Regulations dealing with the same topic under the negative procedure and another set under the affirmative procedure.

I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman, after having had his "dig" at those of us on these benches, will now allow us to get on.

Amendment negatived.

8.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I should like to make plain, on behalf of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, that we did not introduce this Measure, as was so frequently suggested by hon. Members of the Opposition, for the sheer delight of taking the National Health Service to pieces, but because we had to take a realistic view of the country's present financial difficulties, and had to face up, as hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite had to face up last year and the previous year, to the self-same problems of rising expenditure and rising costs and not least to the fact that the original Health Service Estimates were wildly out, and that the bills which the nation was called upon to pay proved to be more than double the original Estimates.

We on this side of the House do not like making cuts, and hon. Members opposite know very well in their hearts, even if they refuse to credit us with any human kindness, that no Government would lightly introduce politically unpopular Measures unless they were convinced that it was absolutely essential as a contribution to the greater over-all needs of the nation.

All my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side deeply regret the necessity for this Measure, but we are called upon to cure the financial fever of our predecessors. Our discussions during the earlier stages of this Bill, and in the Committee stage particularly, tended to range over a very wide field indeed, and many of the speeches were based more on conjecture and what might be than upon what my right hon. Friend stated quite plainly in the Second Reading debate to be our intention. I think, therefore, that it might be helpful at this stage if I were to remind hon. Members of the main ingredients of the Bill, for the simple reason that even this afternoon we have heard hon. Members opposite referring to appliances upon which they were inferring that there would be a charge when, in point of fact, no charge would be imposed.

The Government having decided to implement the 1949 Act in respect of the 1s. 0d. prescription charge, for the same reasons and dictated by the same premises of financial need as were outlined by hon. Members opposite when that particular Measure was before the House, have introduced this tidying-up Measure in order that there should be no anomaly between patients obtaining prescriptions from their general medical practitioners and taking them to chemists, and other patients going to the out-patient and dispensing departments of hospitals. We do not consider that people who are receiving medicines from hospitals should be advantageously treated as compared with those who may take their general medical practitioner's prescription to a chemist. Such an anomaly would cause increased pressure on the out-patient departments of hospitals by people seeking to evade the 1s. 0d. charge.

We were pressed on the Committee stage to make exemptions from these payments for various classes and for various types of ailments and patients. Those who need drugs or medicines in respect of venereal disease have been exempted by an Amendment put forward by my right hon. Friend and agreed to by the House this afternoon. In this instance, the group of patients are clearly defined, and the centres where they are treated are easily and well known. We are also bound by an international obligation under the Brussels Agreement.

Beyond this specific exemption, we do not feel that we can make exemptions for specific ailments since, if exemptions were made according to the nature of the ailment, each individual group exempted would make it increasingly difficult for hospitals to administer the scheme.

We have therefore felt that the only other exemptions from the hospital prescription charge with which we are dealing in this Bill must be on a basis of need. Two such groups will be exempted in the Regulations; those already drawing National Assistance benefit and war pensioners in respect of their disabilities. Where there is hardship beyond these two groups, the National Assistance Board will be empowered to help. We believe it is fairer that the uniform assessment of the National Assistance Board should operate on a basis of need rather than that specific ailments should be singled out for exemption.

Mr. George Porter (Leeds, Central)

Is the hon. Lady in a position to say what machinery will be created to enable that section of the population to which she is now referring to get their 1s. back?

Miss Hornsby-Smith

I think that has been previously explained. If persons in need not already in receipt of National Assistance feel that they have a case which they can present to the National Assistance Board, they would take their prescription, receipt or if it were a case of an appliance supplied through a hospital, they would adopt the same method as is now followed in the case of teeth and spectacles. They would sign the appropriate form, obtained from the hospital and then take it to the National Assistance Board, who could then make a refund by cheque in the case of an appliance or by cash in the case of a prescription.

Clause 1 also gives us power to make charges for appliances. During the Committee stage of the Bill and again this afternoon, there were many eloquent speeches inferring that we were intending to place a charge on every type and kind of appliance. This, as hon. Members know, is not so, and I think it only fair to reiterate the statement made by my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading that we propose to make charges on four specific items.

We are proposing to make a charge for the supply and repair of surgical boots and shoes. The £3 charge is a fairly average price for a pair of ordinary boots or shoes which a patient would otherwise buy and is one-third of the cost of a pair of surgical boots. The charges for repair are also proportions of the actual cost. We propose further to make a charge of £1 for surgical belts, which is approximately between one-third and one-sixth of the actual cost to the National Health Service. So far as women are concerned, this belt frequently takes the place of a generally worn garment by which they endeavour to conceal their inches and hold up their stockings, and to many this £1 will be far less than they would pay for the non-surgical garment. The many special spinal, leg and abdominal appliances which have been mentioned in this debate will bear no charge at all.

We propose to make a charge of £2 10s. for wigs, which is one-fifth of their cost. I think it is fair to point out that those who wear wigs are not called upon to pay normal charges for having their hair cut and dressed. One cannot estimate precisely the expenditure because as hon. Members will know their need varies according to the paucity or luxury of their crop of hair, but it would not be difficult to spend £2 10s. a year. I believe that if hon. Members went regularly to the shop downstairs they would find they would certainly spend that sum.

A charge of 5s. to 10s. will be made for elastic stockings according to length, and those charges vary between half and one-fifth of the actual cost, which I do not think can fairly be considered excessive. So in many cases we shall not be asking patients to incur expenditure beyond that which ordinary members of the public will have to pay. We are determined to safeguard people against faulty or defective appliances and so we have written into this Bill, in an Amendment which has been accepted by the House today, a provision for the return of any faulty appliances.

Mr. Janner

Is the hon. Lady prepared to give an undertaking that the items to which she is now referring are the only items on which charges are to be made and that if an attempt is made to introduce other charges, she will oppose them?

Miss Hornsby-Smith

This Bill covers only these charges. The hon. Member knows that, apart from Regulations based upon this Bill, any further Regulations will have to be brought before the House, and any Government of the day that committed themselves for all time to circumstances which they could not predict would be both unwise and unworthy of holding office.

My right hon. Friend has also established that we shall make no charge at all for appliances for children under 16 or for those who are receiving full-time education. This, too, has been written into the amended Bill.

As so many right hon. Members and hon. Members opposite waxed wrathful and some indeed abusive at my expense a fortnight ago when I made a slip and erroneously referred to this item as being in the Bill instead of to be provided in the Regulations, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the former Home Secretary will exonerate me from the near-criminal charge he made against me and regard the comments I then made as prophetic.

Clause 2 of the Bill deals with proposals for charges in the dental service. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), the former Minister, when dealing with the 1951 Measure, pointed out that when considering how to keep the Health Service within the ceiling which the Government of that day considered essential it would have been possible to have reduced expenditure in other kinds of ways. He gave as an example that it would have been possible to cut the hospital service, but he obviously felt, as we now do, that people who are in need of dental treatment, although they may be in some temporary pain, cannot be compared with those who require in-patient treatment in hospitals, and, generally speaking, people who seek dental treatment are in regular employment.

We agree with him that it would be wrong to reduce the hospital service. In 1951 the expenditure was £285 million—£25 million over the previous year's expenditure, or £15½ million over the previous Estimate. This financial year we expect to spend £306 million, which is an increase of £21 million over last year's Estimate on the hospital service. Most of the increased expenditure is due to higher costs, but there have also been increased hospital facilities—over 8,300 more beds, and during 1951 3,800 more full-time nurses and midwives and 775 more part-time nurses and midwives.

It is estimated that the general dental services, which do not include hospital dentistry and the special priority service run by the local authorities for school children, expectant mothers and young children, will still cost about £27 million a year, including Scotland. Given that there must be some limit—and hon. Members opposite have accepted in the past that there must be some limit—this seemed to be the service in which savings could best be made; not only are the patients generally active and able to share the burden of their treatment with the Exchequer, but we hope that the way that we have made these charges will increase the attention given to the priority classes of children, adolescents and expectant mothers whose needs are accepted and recognised on both sides of the House.

To this end, during the passage of this Bill we have done our best to lessen the effect of the charges where there seemed special reason for doing so as, for example, in these priority classes. The exemption from charges for certain priority classes has been extended by an Amendment to those under 21, and it has been decided not to charge for the initial examination and report. We hope that this will encourage people to go to their dentists regularly so that dental decay can be located and stopped in the early stages. We are anxious that no deterrent should be put in the way of adolescents who, as hon. Members have been quick to point out, are particularly susceptible to dental caries. In addition, a number of minor improvements have been made since the Bill was first introduce. One of these provides that treatment for bleeding from whatever cause shall be exempt from any charge

One item which did not draw quite as wide a debate as other parts of the Bill was that concerning day nurseries. May I make it clear that the Bill does not oblige local authorities to make any specified charges for attendance at day nurseries. What it does is to give them power to make reasonable charges having regard to the patients' means and subject to the approval of the Minister. Up till now they have been able to charge the cost of meals, with the result—and hon. Members opposite know very well that it is true—that with increasing costs many local authorities have found it necessary to close down large numbers of their day nurseries.

It has been suggested that these charges are going to make it necessary for those mothers who need to put their children in nurseries, either through being divorced, unmarried or deserted, or who for other reasons are the sole supporters of their families, to take their children away. I am sure that this is not so. I believe that the reverse will be the effect, because even now, with limited charges, local authorities lower or cut out altogether from their charges in cases of special financial hardship where they do not believe the income is sufficient to meet the ordinary standard charge which they impose upon other users of the nurseries. I am sure this measure will not be used against such cases. On the contrary I think the power to make charges proportionate to the very heavy costs may very well benefit all users of the day nurseries.

One of the reasons that local authorities are deciding to limit the number of nursery places has been the very heavy cost on the ratepayer. The county of Kent was cited by two hon. Members opposite, but neither of them mentioned that the cost per child per day last year was 14s. 10d. and that the amount recovered from the parent was 2s. I believe that by this provision allowing a greater charge it will be possible for borderline cases—which at the moment are being refused because local authorities are so limiting their places—to be accepted when it is possible to pay a larger proportion of the overall charge. On this I was glad to have the support of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) whose experience on the London County Council in these matters is very extensive indeed. Local authorities cannot go on providing places in an unlimited fashion unless they have some scope to recover, where it is fair and proper to recover, a little more in their charges.

The genuine social cases for whom any rate of payment would be a hardship will be treated as sympathetically as ever. This Measure has the support of the local authority associations, who have wanted it in order to enable them to allow those people who use nurseries and could perfectly well pay more than 7s. 6d. or 10s., or whatever the charge is, to pay a slightly higher charge. I do not believe that we can justify preferential subsidies for families who are not those of extreme social need whose incomes may be substantially greater than those of some of the ratepayers who are paying for the nurseries.

This year we are proposing to spend on the National Health Service approximately the same sum as was spent last year but, mainly because of rising costs, we have had to consider where we could save money in order to keep within the level of expenditure established by previous Governments in easier times and to make that expenditure reasonable in relation to our general economic situation. The charges imposed by the Labour Government for dentures and spectacles were estimated to save about £25 million. Our proposals are estimated to save around £20 million.

If the incidence of charges in the Health Service is to be opposed all along the line by hon. Members opposite, will the Opposition say whether they now repudiate all charges, including their own? If so, what would they tax to make up the deficit in the Estimates? If they can offer no alternative sources of revenue other than taxation, are they prepared to allow the expenditure on this Service to rise without limit of any kind?

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Hastings

There are many counts on which, had time permitted, I should have liked to state my opposition to this Bill. I shall deal with only one in the short time for which I want to detain the House. It is that I regard this Bill as an attack upon the health of children. In its legislation this House has always been inclined to put the children first. That has been especially so in relation to health. We had legislation in connection with the inspection and treatment of school children before Lloyd George's great Bill providing National Health Insurance.

I can see some argument—though I do not agree with it—for making some effort necessary before an adult can secure treatment, because an adult ought to know the value of early medical treatment, but with children it is an entirely different matter. They cannot realise the importance of symptoms and the need for the early treatment of disease. Children think only for the moment. In many cases, and perhaps quite rightly, they have a rooted objection to doctors, and that rooted objection, particularly evident when they are ill, makes it difficult for their parents to take them to the doctor or hospital. It is difficult to get children to hospital where treatment is necessary, and I suggest that such difficulty may be somewhat increased by even the small fee which has to be paid when they get to hospital.

I do not want to detain the House in showing how, especially in the case of children, early treatment is essential, but I should like to give one or two examples. A child may have a discharge from his nose and it may be nasal diphtheria—I had it myself and I know something about it. If that child is taken to hospital early in the illness and is given anti-toxin, he will probably rapidly recover, but if he is left for four or five days, then in such cases there may be a 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. mortality.

A child may get a pain in the abdomen, and whether it is through eating sour apples or appendicitis the parents may not know. If he is taken to hospital and the appendicitis is recognised, and his appendix is removed in time, he will very quickly get well. If, on the other hand, he is left until an appendix abscess forms, then, at best, recovery will be slow and convalescence prolonged.

When he was Minister of Education, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer brought before Parliament an admirable Bill, which imposed on local authorities the duty of making such arrangements—and here I quote from the 1944 Education Act: … as are necessary for securing that comprehensive facilities for free medical treatment are available to them. And by "them" is meant the children. Local authorities provide clinics for minor ailments and for other conditions, and also provide medicaments and nutrients and dressings. But if something more serious is recognised and the child has to be taken to hospital and treated as an out-patient, a fee will have to be paid if this Bill becomes law. It seems to me a disaster that we should now be proposing to go back on the beneficent provisions of the Education Act, 1944, and to make a charge for the treatment of children.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett (Reading, North)

Although I have not spoken during the preceding stages, except for a couple of brief interjections, I think hon. Members opposite will agree that at least I have shared their vigils fairly constantly by day and night during the consideration of the Bill. Before I pass to the main burden of my short speech this evening, I want to make three points for the consideration of the Minister.

When the Bill was first published, I admit that my personal sympathies were rather in favour of the exemption of groups of selected people, such as old-age pensioners, as was done in the original Act of 1949. I have been completely convinced by listening throughout the debate that a far better and fairer way of meeting cases of hardship is by meeting all classes in need through National Assistance. I am more than ever convinced in that respect since the National Assistance scales were raised; but I hope the Minister will pay particular attention to the marginal cases which may well arise, which may be just over the limit given in the Regulations when they are made. I further hope that many people now entitled to National Assistance will be able to get the benefit from the exemptions in this Bill, and will note that it is available and ready and welcome for them to take advantage of.

Second, I should like to mention the question of the chronic sick. I feel, here again, that Regulations should be made to make sure that those who need medical prescriptions most, the permanently and genuinely chronically sick, can get a number of prescriptions on one certificate, so that they do not have to go again and again to pay shillings.

Third, I am not quite clear about the date at which appliances ordered before this Bill comes in. On charging, I confess I am not quite clear from the interchanges that have taken place today what the position is, but I do feel that there is a case for not charging for appliances ordered before the Bill was published, and I do think that there is a distinction there, as compared with those ordered since. In this country we are presumed to know the law, and if appliances have been ordered since the publication of the Bill, that is another matter; nevertheless, there is a case for saving those who ordered their appliances before the Bill was published.

Apparently, I have gained a certain amount of concord from the benches opposite, but I am afraid that I am going to effect a change of atmosphere now, at least so far as some hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned. Whereas I have heard many extremely sincere and sympathetic speeches from the other side of the Chamber, yet, during my short stay in this House, apart from those genuine speeches, I have seldom if ever heard more hypocritical and synthetic passion emanating from people responsible for putting almost exactly similar Measures into effect when they were in office.

Mr. Speaker

I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the word "hypocritical" is not a Parliamentary expression.

Mr. Bennett

I plead in excuse my inexperience, and I redouble the use of the word "synthetic," and I withdraw the use of the word "hypocritical." I have heard a number of excuses made again and again about the question of the system of charges in the 1949 Act—about how, although admittedly the Act was passed in this House through the instance of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, yet it was never put into effect; but the whole burden of their speeches has not been about whether it was administratively possible to put into effect or not, but of a moral issue. They have called us mean, contemptible, hard hearted, and so on. Yet, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) failed to put it into effect administratively or not has nothing to do with the moral issue. If anything, indeed, the failure to put that Act into effect must be attributed to Ministerial ineptitude.

We have heard a great deal today of how a future Labour Government—if such a misfortune were to come upon us that we were to have one—would repeal this Measure. I should particularly like to have some authoritative speaker from the opposite side of the House tell us authoritatively exactly which Measure they would repeal—this or their own Measures of 1949 and 1951 or all of them? We are always being pressed for answers on the spot. Perhaps, some right hon. Gentleman opposite can answer this on the spot. Or perhaps we cannot he told by the Opposition?

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale is not here, for I want to refer to him. I should certainly have told him, in accordance with the usual courtesy of hon. Members, that I was going to refer to him, but that I thought it reasonable to believe that, after all the passion he has engendered during the course of this Bill, he would have been present here at the Third Reading. In my referring to the right hon. Gentleman, hon. Gentlemen opposite may think that, in view of my present new position in the House, I am overbold in being, if not a Jack the Giant-Killer, at least a jack-the-giant attacker, but, nevertheless, I venture to assert that the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale is the worst of all of hon. Members opposite.

The right hon. Gentleman himself spoke in favour of a 1s. prescription charge, of a broad extent to which we have made only a small addition, comparatively with the rest. He himself, in his time, accepted the whole theory of a ceiling for the National Health Service. He was a member of the Cabinet and shared collective responsibility in 1951 when the late Sir Stafford Cripps spoke about this ceiling. I do not wish to take up the time of hon. Members opposite, but, if I am challenged, I have here no less an authority than the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), himself, who succeeded him at the Ministry of Health, and who, on 24th April, 1951, alluded specifically to the fact that the theory of a ceiling was accepted in 1951, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale was a Member of the Cabinet and did then share collective Cabinet responsibility. I could proceed further by showing those details in HANSARD.

Above all, we have heard again and again from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale the most abusive terms about our conduct which altogether ignores his own part of having played a very similar role in the past. I say, with all sincerity, that when I was a candidate before entering this House I once had the temerity, and received a certain amount of publicity for it, of saying that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was a "utility Lloyd George." Since entering this House, I now realise that I was then insulting both the utility scheme and the late lamented distinguished Liberal statesman.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Marquand

I think that I ought to begin by thanking the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary for the tribute she paid to the extension of the National Health Service during the time that I and my right hon. Friend, who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, were responsible for it. I was glad, indeed, to hear the latest figures of the increase in the number of beds and nurses which took place in the Service during the time for which we were responsible.

I may also perhaps congratulate the hon. Lady for the careful and accurate way in which she expounded the contents of the Bill. She did so—I do not wish to be unpleasant at all—with greater knowledge tonight than she has exhibited once or twice during the course of our other proceedings. I was glad that she went through it so accurately, standing at the side of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, who may also be supposed to know something about the Bill now that he has listened to her exposition of it.

It is true—I wish to continue to be fair—that some improvements have been made in the Bill during the course of its passage through the House. They are all minor improvements. There has been, for example, the raising of the age of exemption of charge for dental treatment from 16 to 21, and one or two other similar Amendments to which the hon. Lady alluded, which we welcomed and accepted. It remains true, however, that all the positive proposals and intentions of the chief Clauses of the Bill remain thoroughly objectionable.

The Minister of Health and his friends have not sought to defend their Measure on the grounds that it is carrying out their election policy to provide a better service for the same money. They have made no attempt to do that. They did originally, in the early stages of the Bill, make a half-hearted and very lukewarm suggestion that the Bill might prevent certain abuses which were alleged to have occurred in the National Health Service, but they very quickly came off that argument. When they were asked to produce positive evidence, they completely failed to do so and they withdrew their other suggestion that the consultants and assistants of the general hospital service were guilty of abusing the general Health Service.

On the whole the defence has been, and it has been repeated tonight by the hon. Lady and by the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett), that, "We do not like the Bill. It is no pleasure whatever to us to do this, but we need to save the money." But far more than the money that to be saved by the Bill is being distributed in bonus gifts to income taxpayers.

When the hon. Lady asked us where we would find the money, there is the answer. It was completely unnecessary in these circumstances to have made so generous gifts to those who pay Income Tax and to have sought to make savings of this kind at the expense of the sick, of chronic sufferers from distressing maladies and diseases, and of the disabled and afflicted.

Clause 1 imposes charges on the supply through the hospital services of drugs, medicines and appliances.

Mr. Iain MacLeod

The right hon. Gentleman said that, faced with this decision, he would have found the money from, say, the rich or from Income Tax, or wherever you like. That is for the first time an official statement from the Opposition Front Bench that the conception of a ceiling on the National Health Service has gone. May we have that confirmed, because it is of the first importance?

Mr. Speaker

The discussion is becoming a little disorderly. We are limited on Third Reading to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Marquand

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.] I advise hon. Members opposite to enjoy their laughter while they may. Without wishing to abuse the rules of order, it may be possible to indicate an answer even to that question within the framework of the Bill. As I was about to say, Clause 1 imposes charges on the supply through the hospitals of drugs, medicines and appliances.

It is true, no doubt, that some people who obtain drugs, medicines and appliances through the hospital services can afford to pay something towards their cost, but it is quite untrue to suggest, as, I think, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland attempted to do, that the vast majority of the people obtaining these appliances through the hospital service can afford to pay for them. The majority cannot afford to pay. They need these things because they are sick or disabled, and because they are sick or disabled their earning power is impaired. There is naturally found among these people a much higher proportion of utterly poor people than obtains in the population at large.

These charges are utterly unfair, because they fall, and fall repeatedly, with peculiar severity on retirement pensioners, on war pensioners, on widows drawing pensions, upon parents of large families, the parents of ailing, diseased and crippled children, upon the chronically sick, and upon large numbers of classes. It was scarcely possible to listen this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) without feeling horrified at the effects that the charges were bound to have upon some of the most unfortunate classes in the community.

Clause 2 imposes a charge for dental treatment. As I have said before, this is a cardinal error, flying in the face of all the advice given to successive Governments by successive commissions of experts who have examined the subject. I have quoted before from the report which was signed by the noble Lord who is still, I think, the head of the National Liberal Party. I will not repeat that quotation. Let me go even further back, to the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance as long ago as 1926. Lord Waverley and the late Sir Andrew Duncan were both members of that Royal Commission, and the conclusion to which the Commission came was this: The evidence as a whole leaves no doubt in our minds that any system of public medical services cannot be regarded as complete until it includes the provision of adequate dental treatment in a generally available form. It was from that and the subsequent recommendation that the decision was taken to establish a comprehensive dental service as part of the National Health Service. Some risk was thereby taken, because the number of dentists was not sufficient for our total needs, but, looking back, I am certain that it was better to take that risk at that time than to run the risk of waiting again for some unknown period before a recommendation made as long ago as 1926 could be implemented.

It took a long time to bring this about, and now it has been thrown away by the decision embodied in the Clause. I hardly know which of the Clauses to call the worst, but, at any rate, this Clause has received no defence of any merit during our proceedings. No one has sought to say that it is better to charge in the early stages of dental decay than to charge at later stages. Nobody has attempted to controvert the argument that this gives an incentive for neglecting the nation's teeth.

As a result of introducing an administratively cumbersome scheme to effect savings in the National Health Service by making charges, the right hon. Gentleman has for the first time in the history of the National Health Service introduced penalties for false statements. There was no need for this before, because there were no charges in respect of which there could be false statements.

A short time ago we voted against that charge, not so much because we quarrelled about the size of the penalty—though we certainly thought it very severe—but because we wanted to demonstrate our detestation of a system of charges which has resulted in the introduction into the National Health Service of this blemish upon the whole system. The sooner it disappears the better.

I have left any reference to Clause 3 to the end of the few remarks which I thought it reasonable to address to the House at this late stage in our proceedings, when so little time is left. I said earlier in our debates that, though there were many objectionable features in the Bill, the most objectionable of all was the deliberate introduction of an amendment to the 1951 Bill which removes the provision that it should come to an end in 1954.

On two occasions we have attempted to persuade the Minister of the evil of that decision. We put down two Amendments—we debated them both—endeavouring to persuade him to insert in the Bill a terminal date, but he has absolutely refused to do so. That raises a fundamental cleavage of opinion between us.

We believe that this difference of opinion between us and the refusal of the Minister to contemplate our proposals that this Bill, like our Act of 1951, should come to an end in 1954, dramatically illustrate the contrasting attitudes of the two sides of the House towards the ideal of a comprehensive National Health Service.

We introduced those charges in the Bill of 1951 because of Budget difficulties during the period of re-armament. We did not intend them to be permanent; I said so when I introduced the Bill. So we put a time limit to them in the Bill, a time limit that we sought to extend to this Bill also. We regret deeply that the Minister has refused to insert a similar time limit in this Bill. We deplore his action in removing the time limit from our Act. We adhere to our opinion that there should be a time limit to the operation of the charges which we imposed. We hold that there should be a time limit to the charges imposed by this Bill.

We hold precisely the same opinion about the prescription charges which may be imposed under the 1949 Act. That Act was justified in part at the time by the existence of certain abuses in prescribing. We are satisfied that administrative measures already taken, which I described to the House on a previous occasion, such as the work of the Joint Committee on Prescribing, the regional service of prescribing and the like, have substantially reduced, if not removed, any abuses of prescribing and that any further abuses which may exist can be removed by similar administrative action, if taken vigorously in the future.

So, looking at all these Measures together, the 1949 Act, the 1951 Act and this Bill of 1952, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I say that when we are returned to power we shall take steps, as soon as Parliamentary opportunity permits, to bring all these charges—charges for drugs, medicines, appliances, dentures, dental treatment and spectacles—to an end.

Since his first burst of enthusiasm at the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Health has shown no pride in his Bill. Many of his own supporters have spoken as if they were ashamed of it. But apparently, he is determined to force it through with the aid of his majority. He will be unable to defend it in the country. When the time comes for the country to pass its verdict on the Bill, it will get rid of the Government and the Bill together. When that verdict has been rendered, we shall take advantage of the opportunity as I have indicated tonight is our firm intention.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Powell

No one who had listened to the last speech, indeed no one who had attended the whole of the proceedings upon this Bill, would imagine, unless he had knowledge of the facts, upon what a degree of general agreement rest the main propositions on which this Bill is based. There is a very significant and symbolical sentence towards the end of the Bill which no attempt has been made to amend. It is in Clause 9: This Act … and the National Health Service Acts may be cited together as the National Health Service Acts 1946 to 1952: These Acts form a connected and to a certain extent a logical whole. They are the product of Governments of both colours and of the views of Members in all parts of the House. Since they seem to have slipped the memory of hon. Members opposite, what are the basic grounds upon which this Bill rests?

During the almost four years in which the National Health Service has been in operation, defects in it as it affects the public have revealed themselves not to one party but to all who are in any way concerned with that Service. Amongst those defects one which stands out is the excessive pressure both upon general practitioners and upon the out-patient departments of our hospitals. That fact, the existence of that excessive pressure, is not seriously denied by anyone who has knowledge of the facts.

It was reported upon last Session by this House's own Committee on Estimates, and in order to—

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

rose—

Mr. Powell

If the hon. Member will permit me, I am about to substantiate that fact by calling one of the cloud of witnesses by whom I am encompassed in this matter, namely, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). He said: if we could in some way reduce the queues at the surgeries … it would be a good thing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2263.] He recognised that this pressure did constitute one of the problems and one of the challenges to the success of this Service.

Mr. McNeil

The hon. Member will surely admit to the House, if he finishes it, that the quotation which he has just read referred to general practitioners, whereas this Bill is dealing with those people who are directed to the consultants and out-patient departments. It is quite a fallacious comparison and verges on the dishonest.

Mr. Powell

The consideration I have mentioned is on two grounds strictly relevant. The first is that Clause 1 of the Bill is necessitated, if for no other reason, by the impossibility of implementing the 1949 Act if we did not also provide by Clause 1 of this Bill that the patient cannot obtain free from the out-patient department what he must pay for on a doctor's prescription.

The second ground is that the queues at the surgery and at the out-patient department are to a large extent, part of the same queue. Both are from the same reservoir of need for medical attention. So much for one of the major problems which has emerged in the last four years.

I turn to another one, the virtual breakdown which had occurred, and was admitted, in the school dental service. The danger of the attack which was developing upon the dental health of the nation at its earliest and most vital stage was recognised, again by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in his speech when introducing the principal Act in 1946, when he specifically alluded to the necessity of securing priority for schoolchildren and for nursing and expectant mothers.

So we are, in all parts of the House, in agreement as to the existence of these problems and their seriousness. The idea that they can be assuaged and dealt with by the imposition, within the framework of the Service, of certain charges is not peculiar to this side of the House. Indeed the imposition of charges was justified from the other side of the House both in 1949 and 1951 by precisely these considerations. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), was saying that he would be interested to see the effect upon the school dental service of the charges he was imposing in that Bill. Two years ago or more the Leader of the Opposition was relating the charges then proposed to the queues at the surgery.

There is common ground in believing that the imposition of moderate charges in the right places is the proper way of dealing with the problem at this stage of the evolution of the Service.

Mr. Fernyhough

I am shocked.

Mr. Powell

If the hon. Gentleman is shocked, his reactions are extremely slow, because the occasion for being shocked occurred over two years ago. So I say there is nothing in the principle of this Bill which departs from views held and put into practice on both sides of the House.

Indeed, within the original Act, the Act of 1946, although we refer to it broadly and generally as providing a free medical service, there is provision for charges being levied by local health authorities for the provision of health services. The idea of an absolutely free provision of all services within the Bill is not only heretical, and contrary to the facts, but it is a most damaging misconception.

It is by no means inconsistent with the view that I have just put forward to draw attention to the grave financial necessities not only of the nation but of the National Health Service. Tonight this brief debate has been memorable if for no other reason, than because it has marked the victory of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale over his own Front Bench. For the first time tonight the right hon. Member for Middles- brough, East threw overboard the contention to which he has hitherto held fast that there had to be a limit upon the amount of money voted for the National Health Service. Only at this stage has he given way and thrown overboard his reputation for responsibility in these matters.

We have been reminded many times in the course of these debates that an additional bill—a bill which must be paid—has been served on the National Health Service in the last few months to the amount of £10 million a year.

Mr. James Carmichael (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

On a point of order. Are we dealing with the Third Reading of this Bill, or are we discussing a sum of money allocated recently in a report?

Mr. Speaker

We are discussing the Third Reading of the Bill, and again I remind the House that on Third Reading the House is confined to the contents of the Bill. At the same time, it is difficult to prevent answers to observations which have been made from one side of the House to the other, and the only remedy is for both sides of the House to adhere strictly to the rules of order.

Mr. Powell

I am contending for the principle on which the Bill is based, and which, until 20 minutes ago, was common ground between the two Front Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—the principle that there must be a limit to the total amount of money that can be voted for this Service.

Mr. Marquand

I do not want to take up the hon. Gentleman's time, but he must, if he wants to be fair, remember that nobody ever said that any particular ceiling was to last for all time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) in 1951 said that this was a ceiling for the time being, and those were his words.

Mr. Powell

It would have been perfectly easy for the right hon. Gentleman in criticising this Bill, and it would have been the most potent and complete criticism, to deny from the outset that the ceiling ought to be maintained. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He has left it until this eleventh hour to make that recantation.

Mr. McNeil

rose—

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor of the House does not give way, the right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Powell

The argument has been put forward that the money which is required for the expansion of other parts of the Service could be found by economies within the Service itself. That was argued on Second Reading at length both by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East, and by other hon. Members.

I do not contend that there is no room for administrative economy in the whole scope of the National Health Service. Indeed, the progressive administrative reform of that Service, not in two or three years but over a generation, is one of the great tasks for those who are alive today. But the administrative economies could not have been obtained in the space of time within which they were necessary. If he thought that by these administrative economies he could save £20 million or £25 million, why, then, did the right hon. Gentleman a year ago have to come to the House with a Bill to impose charges? The party opposite were in power up to six months ago. Why were not these economies of £20 million then made?

I do not really believe that, apart from a minority of the party on the benches opposite, anyone seriously holds the view that a limit has not got to be kept to the total expenditure upon the National Health Service. I also believe it is generally recognised that, if we are to have expansion in those branches of the Service where it is most urgent—and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to expansion in the hospital service—then that money has got to be found by other means within the Service. No other practicable method of securing it and of securing that expansion within the Service has been put forward or suggested during the whole course of the debate on this Bill.

I want to end with another point upon which there has been substantial agreement between both sides of the House. It is not only on that side of the House that the hardships attendant upon sickness, and those which may arise from the operation of a previous National Health Service Bill and this one are recognised. Every hon. Member has a personal experience of the working of the National Health Service as it affects the lives of our people. There is basic agreement upon the method by which that problem is dealt with in this Bill The relief of hardship, of financial hardship, where it can be shown to exist, as the result of previous legislation or this legislation, has been provided in the same way by the late Government as by this Government.

The right hon. Gentleman came to this House a year ago to invoke the National Assistance Board as the means of dealing with charges for prescriptions where patients could not afford to pay for them. A year ago the right hon. Gentleman used the National Assistance Board as the means of refunding the cost of dentures and spectacles where that exceeded the reasonable means of the patient. There is broad agreement again

between both sides of the House upon this matter, and so, despite all our debates and all our Guillotines, this is substantially, as indeed anything affecting the vitals of the National Health Service ought to be, an agreed Measure.

It being Nine Minutes to Ten o'Clock (consideration of the Bill having been entered upon at nine minutes to Four o'clock), Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [23rd April] to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring to a conclusion the proceedings on the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 266.

Division No. 113.] AYES [9.52 p.m
Aitken, W. T. Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Cooper-Key, E. M. Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Alport, C. J. M. Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Cranborne, Viscount Hay, John
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Anstruther-Gay, Major, W. J. Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Heald, Sir Lionel
Arbuthnot, John Crouch, R. F. Heath, Edward
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Crowder, John E. (Finchley) Higgs, J. M. C.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton) Cuthbert, W. N. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe) Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Hirst, Geoffrey
Baker, P. A. D. Davidson, Viscountess Holland-Martin, C. J.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Digby, S. Wingfield Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Baldwin, A. E. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Hopkinson, Henry
Banks, Col. C. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Barber, A. P. L. Donner, P. W. Horobin, I. M.
Baxter, A. B. Doughty, C. J. A. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Beach, Maj. Hicks Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Drayson, G. B. Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Drewe, C. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond) Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Duthie, W. S. Hurd, A. R.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Bishop, F. P. Erroll, F. J. Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Black, C. W. Fell, A. Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Boothby, R. J. G. Finlay, Graeme Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Bossom, A. C. Fisher, Nigel Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Boyle, Sir Edward Fletcher, Walter (Bury) Jennings, R.
Braine, B. R. Fletcher-Cooke, C. Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Fort, R. Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.) Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Kaberry, D.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W. H. Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Lambert, Hon. G.
Brooman-White, R. C. Gage, C. H. Lambton, Viscount
Browne, Jack (Govan) Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Langford-Holt, J. A.
Bullard, D. G. Gammans, L. D. Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Bullock, Capt. M. Garner-Evans, E. H. Leather, E. H. C.
Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E. George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Burden, F. F. A. Godber, J. B. Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Gough, C. F. H. Lindsay, Martin
Carson, Hon. E. Gower, H. R. Linstead, H. N.
Cary, Sir Robert Graham, Sir Fergus Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Channon, H. Gridley, Sir Arnold Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Atbans) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Hare, Hon. J. H. Longden, Gilbert (Hefts, S.W.)
Cole, Norman Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.) Low, A. R. W.
Colegate, W. A. Harris, Reader (Heston) Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Partridge, E. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
McAdden, S. J. Peake, Rt. Hon. D. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Perkins, W. R. D. Storey, S.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight) Pete, Brig. C. H. M. Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
McKibbin, A. J. Peyton, J. W. W. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Studholme, H. G.
Maclean, Fitzroy Pitman, I. J. Sutcliffe, H.
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.) Powell, J. Enoch Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries) Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L. Teeling, W.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Profumo, J. D. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Raikes, H. V. Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E. Rayner, Brig. R. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Markham, Major S. F. Redmayne, E. Thompson, Lt-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Marlowe, A. A. H. Remnant, Hon. P. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Marples, A. E. Renton, D. L. M. Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Roberts, Peter (Heeley) Tilney, John
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton) Robertson, Sir David Turner, H. F. L.
Maude, Angus Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) Turton, F. H.
Maudling, R. Robson-Brown, W. Vane, W. M. F.
Hayden, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Medlicott, Brig. F. Roper, Sir Harold Vosper, D. F.
Mellor, Sir John Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Molson, A. H. E. Russell, R. S. Wakefield, Sir Woven (Marylebone)
Monokton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Walker-Smith, D. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Morrison, John (Salisbury) Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N. Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale) Watkinson, H. A.
Nicholls, Harmar Scott, R. Donald Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Wellwood, W.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Shepherd, William White, Baker (Canterbury)
Nield, Basil (Chester) Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Williams, Gerald (Tunbridge)
Nugent, G. R. H. Smithers, Peter (Winchester) Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Nutting, Anthony Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood) Wills, G..
Oakshott, H. D. Snadden, W. McN. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Odey, G. W. Soames, Capt. C. Wood, Hon. R.
O'Neil, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.) Spearman, A. C. M. York, C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard Brigadier Mackeson and
Osborne, C. Stevens, G. P. Mr. Butcher.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard Chetwynd, G. R. Follick, M.
Adams, Richard Clunie, J. Forman, J. C.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Cooks, F. S. Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven) Coldrick, W. Freeman, John (Watford)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Collick, P. H. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Awbery, S. S. Cook, T. F. Gibson, C. W.
Ayles, W. H. Corbet, Mrs. Freda Glanville, James
Bacon, Miss Alice Cove, W. G. Gooch, E. G.
Baird, J. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Balfour, A. Crosland, C. A. R. Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Crossman, R. H. S. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Bartley, P. Cullen, Mrs. A. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Daines, P. Grey, C. F.
Bence, C. R. Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Benn, Wedgwood Darling, George (Hillsborough) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Benson, G. Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Beswick, F. Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.) Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Davies, Harold (Leek) Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Calne Valley)
Bing, G. H. C. Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Blackburn, F. Deer, G. Hamilton, W. W.
Blyton, W. R. Delargy, H. J. Hannan, W.
Boardman, H. Dodds, N. N. Hardy, E. A.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Donnelly, D. L. Hargreaves, A.
Bowden, H. W. Driberg, T. E. N. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Bowles, F. G. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Hastings, S.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Hayman, F. H.
Brockway, A. F. Edelman, M. Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Edwards, John (Brighouse) Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Hewitson, Capt. M.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Hobson, C. R.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Holman, P.
Burke, W. A. Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Holt, A. F.
Burton, Miss F. E. Evans, Stanley (Wodnesbury) Houghton, Douglas
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) Ewart, R. Hoy, J. H.
Callaghan, L. J. Fernyhough, E. Hubbard, T. F.
Carmichael, J. Field, W. J. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Fienburgh, W. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Champion, A. J. Finch, H. J. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Chapman, W. D. Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) O'Brien, T. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green) Oldfield, W. H. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Orbach, M. Swingler, S. T.
Janner, B. Oswald, T. Sylvester, G. O.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Padley, W. E. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Jeger, George (Goole) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Johnson, James (Rugby) Pannell, Charles Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley) Pargiter, G. A. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Jones, David (Hartlepool) Parker, J. Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Paton, J. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Peart, T. F. Thurtle, Ernest
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Plummer, Sir Leslie Tomney, F.
Keenan, W. Poole, C. C. Turner-Samuels, M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Porter, G. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
King, Dr. H. M. Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) Usborne, H. C.
Kinley, J. Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) Viant, S. P.
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Proctor, W. T. Wade, D. W.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook) Pryde, D. J. Wallace, H. W.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Pursey, Cmdr. H. Watkins, T. E.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Rankin, John Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Lindgren, G. S. Reeves, J. Weitzman, D.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Raid, Thomas (Swindon) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Logan, D. G. Reid, William (Camlachie) Wells, William (Walsall)
McGhee, H. G. Rhodes, H. West, D. G.
McInnes, J. Richards, R. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
McKay, John (Wallsend) Robens, Rt. Hon. A. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
McLeavy, F. Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Wigg, George
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Wilcook, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Mainwaring, W. H. Ross, William Wilkins, W. A.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Royle, C. Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Schofield, S. (Barnsley) Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)
Manuel, A. C. Shackleton, E. A. A. Williams, David (Neath)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Mayhew, C. P. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Mellish, R. J. Short, E. W. Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Messer, F. Shurmer, P. L. E. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Mikardo, Ian Silverman, Julius (Erdinglon) Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Mitchison, G. R. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Winterbottem, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Monslow, W. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Winterbottom, Riohard (Brightside)
Moody, A. S. Slater, J. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Morgan, Dr. H.. B. W. Smith, Ellis (Stoke S.) Wyatt, W. L.
Morley, R. Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.) Yates, V. F.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Snow, J. W. Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Serensen, R. W.
Moyle, A. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mulley, F. W. Sparks, J. A. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.
Murray, J. D. Steele, T.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.