§ 7.30 p.m
§ The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew)
I suggest that it would he convenient to discuss together all the Amendments to the Schedule.
§ Mr. Houghton
I am sure that that will meet the convenience of the Committee.
This is the Opposition's last despairing fling at this Bill. I will not say that if the Committee carries this Amendment the Bill will be completely wrecked, but I will say that it would be seriously damaged. The Amendment proposes to reduce the weekly rate of contribution in the First Schedule from the figures shown to about half of the proposed new contribution. What we propose is to put in the First Schedule, the contributions which are shown in the Second Schedule. The broad effect would be to reduce by half the proposed total contribution to the Health Service and to leave the Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution as the new contribution to the National Health Service.
The Minister in his Second Reading speech explained the existing Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution and the proposed new National Health contribution. He said: 942The existing National Health Service elements—those paid at present in the weekly National Insurance contribution—are as follow: For a man 10d.; for a woman 8d.; and for a juvenile 6d.Of those, the employer, in the case of employed persons, was assumed to pay l½d. The new contributions in the First Schedule are to be ls. 8d. for a man, Is. 4d. for a woman, and Is. for a juvenile, and the employer is to pay 3½d. of the new and increased contribution. That is how the figures in the First Schedule are arrived at. The Minister continued:Broadly, therefore, the National Health Service contributions have been doubled with, however, an adjustment between the employers' and employees' shares to ensure that, for administrative convenience, halfpennies do not occur in the combined employers' and employees' contributions.Then he said that the:…ed contributions will provide roughly £80 million a year compared with the present £40 million a year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 994–5]Our Amendment would certainly damage the Bill, though it would still leave the Minister with something. It would leave him with a National Health Service contribution, and that is what he wants. Although many of us are opposed in principle to a National Health Service contribution, for the purpose of this Amendment we are prepared to let him have it —but not as big a contribution as he wants.
He said a few moments ago that one of the points of importance was to establish the principle of a contribution to the Health Service, to remove the 943 doubts and uncertainties and the ignorance of many people who think that they are contributing to the Health Service more than they are; so, he said, let the National Health Service contribution be seen for what it is. Large or small, let it be seen for what it is. This Amendment will let it be seen for what it is.
The Minister said he wanted to make people aware of it. Very well. Our Amendment will enable people to be aware of it. He even went so far as to suggest that it was desirable for the public to realise how small a contribution they were making directly in proportion to the total cost. Our Amendment will make it smaller, and that ought to satisfy the Minister's requirement in that connection rather more than he is seeking.
I do not know what the Minister can possibly be complaining about. We have given him everything except the money. We want the money to be reduced, because we think this will be a hardship on many people. Of course, in connection with the introduction of the National Health Service contribution, the Minister or his colleagues have indulged in a little jiggery-pokery. They have juggled about with the Income Tax, and if anything pains me it is to see Ministers juggling about with the Income Tax.
What they have done is to say that the new National Health Service contribution shall not rank as a deduction from tax liability, whereas at present the National Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution does rank for tax relief. That, of course, is an additional burden upon those who are to pay the National Health Service contribution who are taxpayers.
What has the Minister done? He has reduced the National Insurance contribution for the employed person by approximately 36s. a year. He has taken that 36s. and put it into the National Health Service contribution. Then, having thought of a number, he has doubled it, and this will not rank for tax relief. Therefore those who pay the National Health contribution—twice as much as the National Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution—will pay tax on the double contribution; whereas at the moment, they get tax relief on half of it. That is what I call jiggery-pokery, because the result is that 944 contributors who are taxpayers will pay several shillings a year more, in all, as a result of the change.
It is true that the extra shillings will not go to the National Health Service directly. They will go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will finance the National Health Service indirectly, so that this is a hidden additional contribution to the National Health Service. I realise that contributors who are not liable to Income Tax are not the victims of this little trick, but to them the additional contribution will represent a net increase in their outgoings.
On the employer's side, things are different. The employer can charge against his taxable profits, if he is in trade or business, the contributions that he has to make on behalf of his workers, both to the National Insurance scheme and, under this Bill, to the National Health Service. They will all rank as charges against taxable profits, so that he is left in the same favourable position as before. He will be making a slightly higher contribution under the Bill towards the Health Service than he was making before— 3½d. instead of 1½d.—but that will still rank for tax relief.
We think that, if there is to be a National Health Service contribution, it should be no bigger than the National Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution, and so we propose in these Amendments a simple equation as between the First and Second Schedules. By the amount that we reduce the National Insurance contribution, to that extent we will impose a National Health Service contribution. That gives the Minister everything he wants except the money, and he really does not want the money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has money and to spare. He is absolutely rolling in it, and in this year's Budget he chose certain ways of reducing the surplus which he estimated would otherwise remain at the end of the present financial year.
Consideration for the feelings of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite almost forbids my mentioning the principal respect in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to disburse part of his surplus, but he has given very substantial reliefs to persons of very substantial income. We would have thought 945 that he would have refrained from imposing an additional burden on the community generally, rich and poor alike, for the National Health Service, and that he would not have done it in this way at a time when he is giving substantial reliefs of taxation.
I am not one of those who calls a flat rate contribution a poll tax, though some of my hon. Friends have so described it. It is a contribution—call it a form of taxation, if we like—but there is no doubt that the flat rate principle of contribution has some disadvantages from the point of view of the equitable distribution of the burden. It is well known that some fresh thinking is now being done in certain quarters on the desirability of continuing the flat rate contribution principle in connection with the National Insurance scheme.
It is one of the principles of the party to which I belong that, as has already been stated once or twice this afternoon by some of my hon. Friends, the hazards of life of the individual should, as far as possible, be taken care of by the community. The community can do something for each one of us which it is often beyond our own power to do for ourselves. By this principle of communal effort we safeguard the individual from the hardships and hazards of life in this matter of health. In the case of old age, infirmity and sickness, there is an especial emotional appeal about community effort to protect those who suffer from ill-health and who are overtaken by sickness, very often prolonged, which can make a substantial difference to their standard of life and to the welfare of those who are dependent upon them.
In getting treatment and proper attention during sickness, we all know from past experience the fear of doctors' bills in many a household in Britain. When I was a boy, if I may be permitted a personal note, behind a vase on the mantelpiece was the doctor's bill that had not been paid, and as long as that unpaid bill was there, we had to take care of our own colds and maladies in self-medication. The book of words which was kept in a cupboard in many working-class homes in those days was referred to by parents who wanted to see what they could do to get their children well, because they did not feel that they could call in the doctor because they had not paid his last bill.
946 7.45 p.m.
The National Health Service removed that from all the homes of Britain in one go. There has been nothing more dramatic or more revolutionary in our social and domestic life than that, and none of us, I am sure, on either side of the Committee—or am I sure of the other side?—I assert that none of us on either side of the Committee wants to go back to those old days, but wants to keep the National Health Service in all its fundamentals.
Here, we find a nibbling away at the first principle upon which the National Health Service rests. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite begin to nibble in this way, they can begin to nibble all round, and very soon the National Health Service will have quite a different look. This Amendment is a salutary warning to the Minister that, even at this last stage in the consideration of the Bill, we want to resist his attempt to impose an additional Health Service contribution.
It goes against the grain for many of us that we have conceded that there should be a National Health Service contribution at all, but at this stage we cannot do anything to prevent that. All that we can do is to seek to reduce it in amount, and I therefore submit to the Committee this Amendment, which reduces the amounts in the First Schedule to those in the Second Schedule, which are almost half the amounts of the contributions which the First Schedule seeks to impose.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan)
It was with some measure of relief that I heard the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) saying that this was a last despairing fling. Of course, he put the argument against his Amendment eloquently and well. He said quite rightly that it would deprive my right hon. Friend of the money. Let us face the fact that if we are to have an expanding Health Service, we do need the money, and the Health Service, no matter what the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths), who is not here now, may say, is a service making real expansion in every direction.
The hon. Member for Sowerby went into this rather abstruse point of Income Tax, and I must confess that for me to 947 try to teach him about Income Tax is a little absurd, because I know that he knows so much about it. The change that is being made so far as employers are concerned is only that an employer who is not carrying on a trade or business will no longer be entitled to deduct the National Health Service element in the contribution when he is paying Income Tax. I do not think there was any reason why he should have been allowed to do so. The principle that the same sum should not be taxed twice when dealing with benefits such as retirement benefit could not be said to apply with equity in this case.
The hon. Gentleman made a heartfelt plea, which was really how hard this proposal would be on those in the highest ranges of Surtax, and it came very quaintly from the benches opposite. I hope that we shall be clear about what is being done. We are correcting an anomaly which was allowed to creep into the Finance Act, 1946, and which was continued in the Income Tax Act, 1952.
I revert to the main theme of the Amendment, which, as the hon. Member for Sowerby said, would deprive us of the money that we need. It would also conflict with one purpose of the Bill— that the National Health Insurance contribution should meet a higher proportion of the growing cost. The Service is expanding, and the proportion which we derive from the contribution has been falling. In the first year of operation it was 10 per cent. The general expectation was originally that it would cover 20 per cent. of the cost. After the Bill becomes law we shall still be receiving only 11½ per cent. of the cost from contributions. Even if we add the charges we shall still only receive 17 per cent., compared with the 20 per cent. which was originally aimed at. The Committee should have those figures in mind. It is not unreasonable, considering the changes in income and the great expansion there has been in the Service, that we should get back to the original figure.
§ Mr. Vaughan-Morgan
The 20 per cent. to which I was referring was mentioned in the Beveridge Report. I think 948 that the hon. Lady will find that the figure was generally accepted at the time.
§ Miss Herbison
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister, replying to an Amendment earlier today, mentioned that the figure was in the Financial Memorandum? If the Parliamentary Secretary is now basing his case on the Beveridge Report I think he will find that it has already been completely demolished.
§ Mr. Vosper
As the hon. Lady has referred to me, may I say that if she will look at the Financial Memorandum to the 1946 Bill she will see the figure for the total estimated cost. From that, the proportion of 20 per cent. from the contribution can be worked out.
§ Mr. Vaughan-Morgan
I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that the point which she raised has now been completely answered. We consider it quite reasonable that the percentage of the cost derived from this source should be something like what it was then.
We are also entitled to make something of the point that people will now be more aware of what they pay. It has never been easy to explain to our constituents that out of their contributions they get these various financial benefits, and that there is the strange anomaly that they do in fact make a contribution towards the National Health Service. Now we can say that the Is. 8d. goes directly to that Service.
I do not think that our proposal will be as unpopular as hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think. The views of the hon. Member for Sowerby on Income Tax and poll tax matters are always very interesting and honest, but I do not think that there will be anything nearly approaching the popular outcry that he and other hon. Gentlemen opposite are gambling on.
After all the arguments heard today, we have not heard one real point from Members opposite about what their own proposals would be for financing the expanding National Health Service. We have heard about the question of Surtax and the amount that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has distributed already, but we have not had a real, straightforward answer to the point, "How would hon. Gentlemen opposite find this sum?" I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. Marquand
We are very glad to hear the views of the Parliamentary Secretary. We only wish that he had been empowered to go some way towards meeting us, or even towards saying something fresh. Unfortunately, he was not so empowered.
He did say that he felt—I think that I am quoting him properly—that we were all now entitled to make it clear to our constituents that they pay to the National Health Service in the form of a direct contribution. The Amendment concedes that point, which we have argued on a previous Amendment. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) gives the Minister his National Health Service contribution. There is nothing to stop the Minister from having his separate stamp indicating a contribution towards the National Health Service. In so far as that removes misconception from people's minds it will be fine.
I quoted to the Parliamentary Secretary earlier what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). I doubt whether it would be more likely to increase rather than diminish the ignorance about the way in which the National Health Service is financed. The larger this special contribution the more likely people are to believe that the whole cost of the Service is met from it. However that may be, we have reached the point where we are obliged to accept from the Minister that he intends to have this special contribution. We concede it to him in the Amendment.
So far we have unfortunately had no reply to what has been said in favour of the Amendment. We have not heard how far the Minister intends to go along this road. The hon. Member for Cheadle said that the present contribution was inadequate and that we ought to work towards having at least one-third of the cost of the National Health Service covered by contributions. That is the threat behind this proposal, despite all that the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that an increased contribution would require further legislation; of course it would. We know that.
What is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind? Having said so much about the 950 desirability of a 20 per cent. contribution towards the cost of the National Health Service, can he say whether that is the final figure? I wish he would answer that question before we part from the Clause. We should like an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, who has some influence in the counsels of Government supporters, and is likely, as time goes on, to have more influence. He has experience, and confidence as a debater, and we should not be at all surprised to see him obtain promotion to the Government Front Bench, Do his views influence the mind of the Minister?
Do the Government agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle that the Bill is part of a gradual step, albeit by easy stages, towards the proportion that he mentioned? When is the next step to be taken? Before we press the Amendment to a Division we should like to have assurances on these points. We have not had answers upon them. I press the right hon. Gentleman to intervene again and to give us some sort of assurance.
Could he also explain to us whether he gave any consideration to the equity of doubling the contribution for other classes of contributors? We accept that he wanted to get about double the money from insurance contributors he has been getting hitherto, but when he was drawing up these Schedules, did he really feel it was absolutely necessary to double every one? In particular, will he explain who are the non-employed boys and girls under the age of 18 who are to pay 1s. Health Service contribution and whose National Insurance contribution in this respect was previously 6d.? One could hazard a guess, but let us have it clearly from an authority. If it is equitable to double the contribution of an employed man earning wages of substantial amounts, is it equitable to double the contribution of non-employed boys and girls—or, for that matter, of employed boys and girls?
At an earlier stage the Minister argued that good wages are being earned and that people ought to pay some contribution out of their increased earnings towards the increased costs of the National Health Service, that it is all 951 gradually moving up pari passu and the contribution ought to be increased proportionately, but does that apply to people earning small salaries or to boys and girls? Have their wages gone up? What about those boys and girls under the age of 18—who are they?
What about the self-employed? Has there been a great deal of difficulty hitherto in collecting contributions from self-employed under National Insurance? Has that difficulty diminished as time has gone on, or has it tended to increase? What anticipation has the right hon. Gentleman about the ability of the Ministry to collect in future from large numbers of self-employed people in a small way of business the amount of contributions now to be asked from them? Has any thought been given to this, or has the Minister just thought of a number and doubled it? We should like to know something about the incidence of this charge on various classes of contributors.
Has any estimate been made by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance? He is not here, but the Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry is present. Has any estimate been made of the effect of all this on the National Insurance contribution, which is nominally reduced, but that reduction is offset by an increase in the National Health Service contribution? What effect has that on the ability to collect contributions for the National Insurance Fund in future? We know that contributions to that Fund are bound to be increased. The Minister has already told us that they will be increased to pay for the improved conditions of benefit for widows and others in respect of whom we passed legislation this year and last year. Is there to be some increase in contribution from that source?
At a later date—we suppose at a time as near as possible to the next General Election—the Government will be doing something for old-age pensioners. Are they to finance that by an increase in contributions? What is the size of the National Insurance contribution going to be at the end of all this process? Have the Government thought about that and considered whether these increases will not adversely affect the ability of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance adequately to finance and collect the finance for the National Insurance Fund? Will it not impede his ability to make 952 improvements for old-age pensioners and others affected?
Those are all indirect repercussions. I may be wrong about some of them, but they are possible repercussions on the National Insurance Fund. When we are asked to vote on this Schedule we have to have in mind, not merely the National Health contribution, but possible repercussions on the National Insurance Fund. I should like to have answers to these questions.
§ Mr. Vosper
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) put three specific questions to me which I shall try to answer. I cannot give a further assurance about the future, except that I did say that further legislation will be required to increase this contribution still further. I am rather surprised that the right hon. Member belittled the difficulty of introducing legislation. I thought I was going as far as any Minister could go in saying that there was no intention in this Bill to increase the contribution above what is now proposed. I cannot go further than I have done in regard to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). I did not brief my hon. Friend on his contribution to the debate, and he would be the first to agree that there have been several occasions when he has not found himself in accord with his Front Bench.
On the second point, about doubling the contributions of specific categories, of course I gave serious consideration to that, but I am satisfied that this will not impose hardship on any particular category. I should have thought the ones mentioned by the right hon. Member might be those least adversely affected. I am not satisfied that the sort of people contained in those categories—whose level of earnings, on the whole, has doubled—will find that this falls hardly on them.
§ Mr. Vosper
The non-employed are a very limited and technical category. I am not satisfied that we are causing hardship to them.
The third point is that of course we have had prolonged consultations with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and the Committee will have 953 noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary of that Ministry has been here in support during the whole Committee stage. My right hon. Friend the Minister and I are satisfied that in introducing this Bill we are not damaging the future prospects of National Insurance.
§ Mr. Willis
I do not think we can let the increased contribution go quite so easily as this. This is a very important matter. It is all right for the Minister to try to dismiss it by saying that no one will suffer any hardship. That is the usual Tory excuse. When they make any increase they say that no one will suffer through having to pay ld. more for bread, or 2d. more for milk, but all these small matters add up to a total which forms an enormous hardship, not to a trifling amount. An increase of 8d. or 10d. means that a family which needs another pint of milk cannot afford to buy it. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to try to dismiss that as being nothing at all.
I am still very much disappointed that the Scottish Office is not represented on the Government Front Bench in this debate. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance can do us the honour of being present for the whole debate, I think we could have had the attendances of at least one of the Scottish Ministers.
§ Mr. Willis
Yes, and we have a sufficient number of Scottish Ministers, goodness knows. I should have thought that one could have attended to answer some of the questions we wish to raise.
Do I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government now feel that 11 per cent.— which I understand is the amount of the cost to be met by contributions—is roughly the right amount? We had a lot of argument earlier about whether Beveridge was right or wrong. I am not so much concerned with that as with what the Government have in mind at present. If the Government think that roughly 11 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service ought to be met by contributions, are we to take it that, in spite of the difficulty of legislation, every time the cost of the National Health 954 Service rises, the contribution will be increased accordingly? We ought to have an answer to that.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that it is difficult to introduce legislation. I have found that Tory Governments can always find time for a Bill of this character. If it is a question of spending money, then of course it becomes very difficult for them to find time for the Bill. We ought to be told a little more about the 11 per cent. and what the Government think is the right percentage. I asked the question earlier, but we did not receive an answer. Is it the Government's opinion that 11 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service should be met by these contributions?
I want to return to the question of what this additional money is needed for. I have already tackled the Minister twice upon it. He has been very clever; I assure him that I admired the nimbleness of mind with which he managed to skirmish around the answer. But it not sufficient to display nimbleness of wit in dealing with the question. What we should like is the answer.
As a result of the increase in contributions in this Schedule, the Government will get an additional £42 million, of which, we understand, £20 million will be received this year. The question which 1 asked previously was this: if the Committee voted against the Schedule, would the National Health Service be cut by £20 million? Is this £20 million to mean an extension of the National Health Service to the amount of £20 million? We are entitled to the answer to that question.
People are to be asked to pay 8d. or 10d. a week extra. The man in the factory will ask, "What am I paying this for? Shall I get something additional for it? Are they going to build a new hospital in my area or extend the various treatment centres in the area? Shall I get a reduction in some of my present charges?" He will ask all those question. Most men will ask one very simple question: what do I get in return for the extra money I have to pay?
The Minister has skirted around the question twice but has not yet dealt with this specific point: next year, when he gets an additional £42 million, will the National Health Service be extended, more than otherwise would have been the 955 case, by £42 million? If so, in what direction?
What does it mean in Scotland? We cannot ask about Scotland because the Joint Under-Secretary of State apparently thinks this Bill has nothing to do with him. I should have liked to know about some of the hospitals in my constituency. Does this extra money mean that we shall be able to get on with them? Is the hospital programme in Scotland to be extended as a result? That is a legitimate question to ask. If it is to be extended, where is it to be extended?
We ought to have an answer to these questions, because a lot of money is involved. I do not believe that we should easily grant the Government the power to ask every man and woman for an additional 8d. or 10d. per week unless we know what the money is for and whether it is for new expenditure or to help the Government to pay for the existing scheme. I believe it is the latter. If the Minister is honest that is probably what he will tell us and he will not try to skirmish around the point.
I do not wish to ask any more at the present, but we must insist on an answer to that specific question.
§ 8.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Ross
I want to emphasise the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) about the absence of Scottish Ministers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If anyone thinks this is a frivolous point, let him turn to the front of the Bill, where he will see that it is sponsored not only by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance but also by the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose name is the second name sponsoring the Bill. Like my hon. Friends, I appreciate the fact that we have had present not only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, who has been here practically throughout the course of the debate—and we are grateful to her—but also the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Both the Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary have been present.
We had in the House a Secretary of State for Scotland and two Joint Under-Secretaries of State. The Government 956 asked for a third, and eventually we had two more Ministers, in order to relieve the Secretary of State so that he could pay more attention to the House. We appointed a Minister of State to the Scottish Office who spends his time between another place and Scotland. With all these Ministers, surely one representative could have been present today. We are dealing with a Schedule which lists charges which will bring from the men and women and the youth of Scotland the sum of £8 million in National Health contributions, a net increase of the revenue of the National Health Service of £4.2 million when we take into account the element which is already paid.
Surely it is not a matter of the Scottish Ministers saying, "I do not need to attend the House. We have no responsibility for these matters. It is only £8 million." It is less than fair of the Scottish Ministers in their attitude to their work for them so completely to ignore the fact that the Committee is discussing the Scottish Health Service.
If hon. Members opposite do not appreciate it, I will explain to them that we have a special Health Service Act for Scotland, which is entirely different from and in many ways better than that for England. We dealt with that Bill as a Scottish Committee, with 15 English Members, and we had a separate Act.
The Ministers now sitting on the Government Front Bench have no responsibility at all to speak for Scotland. The Minister said he had considered matters very carefully and had had a long discussion with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Where was the Secretary of State for Scotland? Was anything discussed with him? Let me tell the Minister again that nothing he says from the Government Bench means anything to us Scottish Members of Parliament, He has quoted figures. He did not say whether they were for the United Kingdom or for England and Wales or whether Scotland was included. He must be sensible of his limitations, and if he is speaking on behalf of another Minister he should say so. If he is quoting figures, let him quote them for the whole of the United Kingdom and say so.
We are dealing with a matter of importance to the people of Scotland. The 957 Minister of Health spoke about the level of wages. One outstanding difference between the two countries is that the level of wages is lower in Scotland than in England and Wales. We have a separate wages board to decide the wages of agricultural workers in Scotland. The wage level is decidedly lower than it is in England and Wales.
I should have thought that the Secretary of State for Scotland or, in his absence, the Minister of Health would have given some justification why, despite that fact, the contribution should be exactly the same for people in Scotland as for people in England and Wales, but we have not had a word of justification. This is a poll tax. More than that, in respect of people whose earnings are lower than the average level, there is injustice and unfairness even within the poll tax.
What is happening is that by this Schedule we are laying down the actual contributions by which the Ministers concerned are prepared—[Interruption.] I do not wish, and I am sure that you, Sir Charles, do not wish me to repeat the earlier part of my speech now that the Joint Under-Secretary has arrived. We shall probably have ample opportunity tomorrow, and probably all day tomorrow in Scottish Grand Committee—[AN HON. MEMBER: "How long?"]. Last week it was eight o'clock, and the week before. The week before that it was a quarter-past four in the morning. I do not know what time it will be tomorrow, but I think that I will have an ample opportunity to remind the Joint Under-Secretary that in this House he has certain responsibilities for Scottish legislation.
Here we are breaching a principle. Hitherto we have riot had an actual contribution, but now we arc to have a definite contribution paid weekly by all employed persons in respect of the National Health Service. The first question I want to ask is: how long is that to last? Anybody who has been considering this Bill on Second Reading and in Committee will recollect that he have had one or two percentages given.
We have heard the Minister, or that Minister who did speak, proclaim that this was not really so bad because it did not come up to the 20 per cent. envisaged in some Memorandum preparatory to the introduction of the Health Service, and telling us that even this 11 per cent., with 958 an added 5½ per cent., only came to somewhere about 17 per cent. Are we to take it that there is to be a gradual approach in the contributory element to the 20 per cent. with or without changes in respect of health charges? Is that the aim? If it is, we should know.
Secondly, to what is this related? Is it because of the virtue of some long-forgotten formula that had some special righteousness of its own that we must return to it? I should like to ask the Minister—and now that we have with us the Joint Under-Secretary who can say something for Scotland I should like to ask him: to what purpose is this money to be applied in respect of Scotland? Is it that the Joint Under-Secretary cannot tell us? Are we to have the same kind of speech that we had, I think, from the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) today, who told us that the choice lay between this Bill and failure to extend the Service?
We have not had any extension of the Service, and even with this Bill, I gather, we shall have no extension of the Service. I should like to know from the Joint Under-Secretary whether or not some of the money is to be applied to the forthcoming increase in the salaries and emoluments of general practitioners in Scotland. After that takes place, are we to he faced with another Bill or an order to increase the present amounts? The fact is that, although we have been spending more money, we have had no extension of the Service in Scotland. It is the same with every Estimate coming from the Government in respect of every other service—spending more money to get less for it.
What is to happen next year when we are faced with the same position of the Government having failed once again to control inflation, when costs rise, and again we are faced with the same choice of more money or a cut in the Service? Are we to get out of that position by coming along with another Bill and another Schedule like this, increasing the amounts to be paid by the employed? This paying for the Service or for any part of the Service, not according to the ability of people to pay but by a tax which, by its very nature, if it does anything at all, hits hardest those earning least, is so obviously unfair.
959 In this respect, the Government cannot expect any support from this side. Of course, we now have a chance to hear, for the first time during the whole of the Committee stage, a Scottish Minister defending a piece of Scottish legislation. It was suggested at one point that the Minister of Health had lost his battle with the Treasury. What help, if any, did he get from the Scottish Office in this mythical battle with the Treasury? Or were the Scottish Ministers so wrapped up in the cutting of housing subsidies in Scotland and the producing of a wonderful plan that will certainly not add at all to Glasgow's ability to solve its overspill problems, that they left the matter for English Ministers to deal with on their own?
Now that he is here, perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will address himself to the points in this Bill. Why is it necessary that in Scotland, where the wage level is lower than it is in England, we should have these standard contributions for the Health Service? Having collected the £4.2 million net increase, to what is it to be applied? Is there to be any extension of the Service, or is that sum to be swallowed up by inflation? I ask that because of the Government's past failures—and, by every prospect, their future failure—to control the never-ending bogey of inflation.
Could the Joint Under-Secretary tell us how long it will be before he, with his right hon. and hon. and Friends, comes back with another such Bill further breaching the principle of a Health Service without contributions by way of weekly stamp? How long will it be before he comes back to increase the contribution? Having waited a long time to hear the voice of someone from the Scottish Office, I think that we are entitled not only to ask these questions but to expect that the Joint Under-Secretary, now being present, will address himself to the Scottish points in the Bill.
§ Miss Herbison
Surely now that at long last we have present a Scottish Minister, we shall hear something about the point of view of the Scottish Office on this important matter. It seems to me to be discourteous that only now, when the Bill has almost reached the end of its Committee stage, do we have a Scottish Minister in attendance.
960 I am sure that the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) deserve a reply from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. But I am not in the least surprised that he stays glued to his seat. In view of our experience in the Scottish Grand Committee, where we are dealing with a Bill which the Scottish Ministers are supposed to have studied, and on which we get so little information from them—indeed they often contradict themselves—it seems to me that it might be very difficult for the Joint Under-Secretary to speak on the Bill which is now before us and deal with the important points which have been raised.
As the Joint Under-Secretary is quite unable to answer those points, I should have thought there would have been some camaraderie between the Tory Ministers, and that the Minister of Health might have sprung to the protection of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and might have tried to give answers to the questions that have been raised by Scottish Members. But that camaraderie does not seem to exist.
One specific question has been asked on a number of occasions today by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). The Minister has not given an answer to that question, and it seems to me that before any decision is taken on this Schedule, which seeks to increase the contribution, the Minister ought to reply to my hon. Friend. The question is simple. If this increased contribution were not available to the Government, would that mean a cut in the National Health Service? Putting it another way, if this increased contribution does find its way into the Ministry of Health and into the Health Service in Scotland, does it mean that on this year's estimates we shall get an increase equivalent to the increase in this contribution? It seems to me that the Minister should answer these questions, and so far he has not done so.
My next point is this. The Minister is doubling the contributions towards the Health Service, and he glibly talks about earnings having doubled. He does not mention that wages have gone up 70 per cent. and not 100 per cent. Yet here he is trying to make a case for doubling contributions on the basis that incomes 961 have doubled when, in many instances, incomes have not doubled at all. The Minister has made no case whatever for doubling the contributions. There is no case for the Government to get money for the National Health Service out of contributions rather than from taxation.
The Minister said that no one from this side of the Committee has made an authoritative suggestion on how this extra money should be found, if it were needed. On a number of occasions I, and I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), have said that we would not have asked for that increased contribution, but that we would have used money from taxation instead of giving it to the Surtax payers. Surely, that is clear enough, even to the Minister, who has heard it on a number of occasions.
I ask the Minister at least to answer the specific question that has been put by my right hon. Friend; and perhaps he will have a whispered discussion with the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on another question that I asked him about the division of this extra contribution. I asked him how it would be divided between the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Office, and he told me that it would be divided as it is at present, according to the insured population. So far as I can understand, that is not how the Health Service in Scotland is financed at all. We have the Goschen formula; in other words, from what the Minister of Health pays to the National Health Service, the Scottish Office gets eleven-eightieths. That is another point that ought to be cleared up before we take a vote on the question of these increased contributions.
§ Mr. Willis
We have plenty of time tonight, because the Government have moved the suspension of the Rule and, therefore, we have time for the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to accustom himself to the climate of the debate and to rack his mind in order that he may answer some of the questions we have been asking.
Now that the Joint Under-Secretary has condescended to grace the Committee with his presence, I want to ask a further question about the crofters of Scotland. It concerns the contributions, as will be seen when I come to expand this point. 962 When the National Insurance Bill went through the Committee in 1946, we had long discussions about the rate of contribution in so far as it affected the Highland counties. There was a special reason for that. Money incomes amongst crofters and a number of people in the Highlands are very small. The people there tend to live by barter. A grocer, for instance, goes out with his wagon and comes back with a certain amount of produce which he has obtained from the crofters.
We did discuss at that time, as the hon. Gentleman will find if he cares to turn up the Report, whether or not the suggested rate of contribution was not too heavy. This is very relevant to what we are discussing now, because we are here considering an increase in the rate of contribution. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who is looking very amiable, in his usual forthcoming manner will give us the benefit of his advice and tell us whether this matter was borne in mind during the preparation of the Bill. If it was, what did the Scottish Office have to say about it? Did the Scottish Office make any representations to the English Ministers and the Treasury about it? If it did, why has it doubled the contribution from crofters and others in their position? This is a purely Scottish matter It is a question which, I am sure, the English Ministers are quite unable to answer. Therefore, if we are to have any light shed upon it, as well as upon the other matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), we must have a word from the Joint Under-Secretary. I beg the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to get his Bill quickly, to treat the House courteously and to endeavour to answer the questions which Scottish Members are putting to him, for they are put in all seriousness.
We want to know what is to happen as a result of the increased contribution in Scotland as a whole. What has he in mind? I notice that he made a great speech at the weekend about the National Health Service. He had an excellent Press and an excellent opportunity for outlining his ideas for the spending of this additional money in Scotland. Having read his speech, I am bound to say that I did not gather from it that he contemplated doing very much. All he did was 963 to lecture people on the National Health Service and how they ought to run it, and not give them any encouragement in the running of it. Neither did he tell them —and this is closely relevant to the point on which we want an answer—that his Government were introducing a Bill in the House of Commons which would give them an additional eleven-eightieths of £41 million, that is to say, approximately £5 million. His speech to this gathering received wide publicity throughout Scotland, but he did not say, "We are introducing a Bill in the House of Commons which will give us an additional £5 million per annum, £2½ million during the current year; as a result of this increased income to the National Health Service Fund, we shall be able to do this, that and the other ".
§ Mr. Ross
If my hon. Friend will allow me to say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) pointed out that the Goschen formula is not working in this respect. If my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) turns to the Financial Memorandum, he will find that, according to the table at the end, the net additional payment towards the cost of the Service in Scotland is to be £.4.1 million.
§ Mr. Willis
I was trying to get a figure which could be used with some degree of accuracy. I admit that my hon. Friend was absent for a few moments when the English Minister, the Minister of Health, answered my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not make the position clear. Once again, his answer was most unsatisfactory. I am simply using the Goschen formula so that we might arrive at the figure for Scotland.
What is the Minister doing with this extra £2½ million this year? We have not yet been told whether it is additional. We are still in the dark about it. Perhaps we can find out whether we are actually getting additional income or simply finding a new method of paying for the old expenditure by asking whether, if it is additional income, the Minister has in mind projects in Scotland on which it will be spent. What will the £5 million be spent upon next year? Will it be spent 964 in the south-eastern, the northern or the south-western region, or where will it be spent? What projects has the Minister in mind? We are entitled to an answer.
The Minister of Health fails to give the answer we want. I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will not be as discourteous as that. He knows that Scottish Members are accustomed to rather better treatment and that, whilst English Members might put up with anything, we from Scotland are not prepared to put up with that kind of thing. We like to have answers to questions and to know what we are doing. Where money is concerned, we like to know where it is to be spent. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary, in his usual charming and obliging manner, will treat us in the same fashion on the Floor of the House and try to give us some of the information we want.
§ Mr. Ross
The signatories in support of the Bill are the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. This First Schedule lays down what has to be paid by everyone employed in Scotland, whether man or woman, boy or girl, by way of weekly contribution. That contribution is to be taken from them and remitted by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to the Secretary of State for Scotland at such times and in such sums as the Treasury thinks fit.
Surely, we are entitled to have from the Joint Under-Secretary—and the longer I speak, the better brief he will get from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health —an explanation of why that money is necessary and why these particular sums must be paid. How much will they amount to for Scotland? For what purpose is the money to be applied once it is collected? We are entitled to know why these amounts have been specified in the Schedule and why there has been no differentiation in respect of the National Health Service in Scotland.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will not feel that we are in any way aggressive. As Scottish Members, however, we feel that if the signature of the Secretary of State is required to the Bill and he has been in discussion concerning both its principle and its detail, as Members representing Scottish constituencies we have a right to know exactly how the Bill is to work in Scotland and the reason 965 for these precise figures. The Joint Under-Secretary appears to be rising to his feet. Now that he has decided to speak, I hope that he will not be impatient about getting me to sit down.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to these questions—why Scotland participates in the first place, why these figures are applicable to England and Scotland, how the money will be divided in respect of the Scottish Health Service and, having received the money, how it will be spent. We should also like a specific answer to the question, which has been put more than twice in the debate, whether the sum coming in this year is new and additional to the Estimates already laid before the House of Commons. Does this mean that there will be an extension to the tune this year of over £2 million and in a full year of £4.2 million in relation to the Scottish Health Service?
§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne)
I can assure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the Committee that there is no question of any discourtesy to the Committee in the fact that no Scottish Minister has actually taken part in the discussion on the Bill. I assure hon. and right hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has co-operated with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health at all stages and, so far as Scotland and England are concerned, this is an agreed Measure in every respect.
§ As hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies know, there is really no separate Scottish aspect in the Bill, although they have endeavoured to find some particular Scottish aspect in order, quite properly, to get me to speak. The only point that I would make is that the division between England and Scotland is on the basis of the insured population.
§ Mr. Browne
We are discussing the contribution. It is on the basis of the insured population, but a final decision will be made by the Government, and I can assure the Committee that, as always, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that Scotland gets her fair share.
§ Mr. Ross
Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question which has been put to him two or three times? Is this sum of money already in the Estimates or, the Government having got it when the Bill receives a Third Reading, does it mean that there will be an extension to the extent of £2.5 million this year in expenditure on the Scottish Health Service; or will that money not be spent but held over in respect of the future of the Service? Can we have a reply?
§ Question put, That "1 4½" stand part of the Schedule:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 185, Noes 146.969
|Division No. 109.]||AYES||[8.49 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Butcher, Sir Herbert||Fort, R.|
|Aitken, W. T.||Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)||Garner-Evans, E. H.|
|Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)||Channon, Sir Henry||Godber, J. B.|
|Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)||Chichester-Clark, R.||Goodhart, Philip|
|Arbuthnot, John||Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Gower, H. R.|
|Armstrong, C. W.||Cole, Norman||Graham, Sir Fergus|
|Atkins, H. E.||Cooke, Robert C.||Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Cooper, A. E.||Green, A.|
|Barber, Anthony||Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Gresham Cooke, R.|
|Barter, John||Corfield, Cant. F. V.||Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley||Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.|
|Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)||Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Gurden, Harold|
|Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)||Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)||Cunningham, Knox||Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Currie, G. B. H.||Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)|
|Bishop, F. P.||D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)|
|Body, R. F.||Deedes, W. F.||Hay, John|
|Bossom, Sir Alfred||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.|
|Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)||Doughty, C. J. A.||Henderson-Stewart, Sir James|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.||du Cann, E. D. L.||Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)||Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)|
|Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)||Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne.N.)||Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)|
|Bryan, P.||Finlay, Graeme||Hill, John (S. Norfolk)|
|Burden, F. F. A.||Fisher, Nigel||Hornby, R. P.|
|Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.||Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)||Russell, R. S.|
|Horobin, Sir Ian||Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)||Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.|
|Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence||Manningham Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Simon, E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)|
|Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)||Mathew, R.||Smithers, Peter (Winchester)|
|Hulbert, Sir Norman||Maude, Angus||Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)|
|Hyde, Montgomery||Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.||Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard|
|Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry||Mawby, R. L.||Stevens, Geoffrey|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Medlicott, Sir Frank||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)|
|Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)||Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Storey, S.|
|Jennings, J. C. (Burton)||Moore, Sir Thomas||Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)|
|Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Nabarro, G. D. N.||Studholme, Sir Henry|
|Keegan, D.||Nairn, D. L. S.||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Kerby, Capt. H. B.||Heave, Airey||Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)|
|Kerr, H. W.||Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Kershaw, J. A.||Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)||Teeling, W.|
|Kimball, M.||Nugent, G. R. H.||Temple, John M.|
|Lagden, G. W.||Oakshott, H. D.||Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)|
|Lambert, Hon. G.||O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)||Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)|
|Langford-Holt, J. A.||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Leavey, J. A.||Osborne, C.||Turner, H. F. L.|
|Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Page, R. G.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)||Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)||Partridge, E.||Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.|
|Linstead, Sir H. N.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.||Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.|
|Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Longden, Gilbert||Pilkington, Capt. R. A.||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)||Pitman, I. J.||Wall, Major Patrick|
|Lucas, P. B. (Brantford & Chiswick)||Pitt, Miss E. M.||Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)|
|Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Pott, H. P.||Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)|
|McAdden, S. J.||Powell, J. Enoch||Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.|
|McCallum, Major Sir Duncan||Profumo, J. D.||Whitelaw, W. S. I.|
|McKibbin, A. J.||Rawlinson, Peter||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)||Redmayne, M.||Wills, G. (Bridgwater)|
|McLaughlin, Mrs. P.||Ridsdale, J. E.|
|Macmillan, Rt. Hn.Harold(Bromley)||Rippon, A. G. F.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)||Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)||Mr. Hughes-Young and|
|Maddan, Martin||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Mr. Brooman-White.|
|Ainsley, J. W.||Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)||Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.|
|Albu, A. H.||Fienburgh, W.||Mason, Roy|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Mellish, R. J.|
|Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)||George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Gibson, C. W.||Monslow, W.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Moody, A. S.|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Greenwood, Anthony||Moss, R.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.||Moyle, A.|
|Benson, G.||Grey, C. F.||Mulley, F. W.|
|Beswick, Frank Blackburn, F.||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Noel-Baker Francis (Swindon)|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Griffiths, William (Exchange)||O'Brien, Sir Thomas|
|Blyton, W. R.||Hale, Leslie||Oliver, G. H.|
|Boardman, H.||Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Orem, A. E.|
|Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)||Hannan, W.||Orbach, M.|
|Bowles, F. C.||Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)||Owen, W. J.|
|Brockway, A. F.||Hastings, S.||Paget, R. T.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Hayman, F. H.||Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)|
|Burke, W. A.||Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Burton, Miss F. E.||Herbison, Miss M.||Pentland, N.|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Holmes, Horace||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Houghton, Douglas||Popplewell, E.|
|Callaghan, L. J.||Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Carmichael, J.||Hunter, A. E.||Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)|
|Champion, A. J.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliff)||Probert, A. R.|
|Chapman, W. D.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Proctor, W. T.|
|Chetwynd, G. R.||Janner, B.||Rankin, John|
|Coldrick, W.||Jeger, George (Goole)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)||Jones, David (The Hartlepools)||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)|
|Collins,V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)||Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Ross, William|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Short, E. W.|
|Cullen, Mrs. A.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Darling, George (Hillsborough)||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)||Lawson, G. M.||Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)|
|Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Slater, J. (Sedgefield)|
|Deer, G.||Lever, Harold (Cheetham)||Snow, J. W.|
|Delargy, H. J.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Donnelly, D. L.||MacColl, J. E.||Sparks, J. A.|
|Dugdale, Rt. John (W. Brmwch)||McGhee, H. G.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Dye, S.||MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Mahon, Simon||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Mainwaring, W. H.||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)|
|Taylor, John (West Lothian)||Wheeldon, W. E.||Winterbottom, Richard|
|Tomney, F.||White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Woof, R. E.|
|Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn||Wilkins, W. A.||Yates, V. (Ladywood)|
|Viant, S. P.||Willey, Frederick||Younger, Rt. Hon. K.|
|Weitzman, D.||Williams, David (Neath)|
|Wells, Percy (Faversham)||Williams, Rev. Liywelyn (Ab'tillery)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Wells, William (Walsall, N.)||Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)||Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.|
|West, D. G.||Willis. Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)|
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.