HC Deb 06 May 1958 vol 587 cc1147-65
Mr. H. Brooke

I beg to move, in page 44, line 5, at the end to insert: Subject to the provisions of Part II of this Schedule relevant expenditure for the purposes of this Act is expenditure falling within any of the following paragraphs. This Amendment and all the other Amendments in my name to the First Schedule are linked with the Amendment to Clause 1, which the Committee has already agreed.

Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)

May I ask the Minister a question which, perhaps, I should have asked earlier? What is the point of this rearrangement of the First Schedule? I am not asking now about the alterations in this subject matter, simply about the form. As far as I can see, if we want to find out what is relevant expenditure we can do it now by reading straight down the Bill. After this Amendment is made, to find it we shall have to read two pages of the Bill concurrently, and that would seem to be less tidy than the present arrangement.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke

The object of the Amendment is to make it easier to ascertain what were the exclusions from relevant expenditure. We considered the question in the form in which the Bill left the Committee and came to the conclusion that in the light of one or two further changes which needed to be made it would be far clearer if we had a separate Part II which set out in one coherent whole all the exclusions from relevant expenditure. I shall be perfectly willing to develop that point further when we consider the relevant Amendment, which is set out at some length, when we have Part II in front of us.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 44, leave out lines 7 to 30.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson)

I beg to move, in page 44, line 35, to leave out "section twenty-seven of".

The Amendment adds to the categories of relevant expenditure in the First Schedule the expenditure of local health authorities as local supervising authorities under the Midwives Act, 1951. I should explain that the expenditure of local health authorities under Section 27 of that Act, that is to say, expenditure on the provision and furnishing of residential accommodation for pupil midwives, is already included in paragraph 2 of the Schedule. The Amendment extends the provision to all expenditure under the 1951 Act. Section 23 of the National Health Service Act, 1946, makes local health authorities the local supervising authorities for purposes of the Midwives Act.

These functions are theoretically distinct from the functions of local health authorities under Section 23 (2) of the 1946 Act under which they are responsible for providing an adequate midwifery service by arranging with voluntary organisations or hospitals for the employment of midwives. In practice these functions overlap and cannot be separated one from another. Local authority associations have advised my right hon. Friend that these supervisory functions make such an important contribution to the efficiency of the National Health Service that they should not be excluded from relevant expenditure attracting grant. My right hon. Friend accepts these views and henceforth local health authority expenditure on supervisory functions will rank as relevant expenditure. I hope that the Committee will feel that this is a helpful Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 44, line 37, leave out from "services" to end of line 39.

In line 42, leave out from "1948" to end of line 44.

In page 45, line 1, leave out from "Act" to end of line 5.

In line 17, leave out from "1947" to end of line 21.

In line 23, leave out from "Act" to "or" in line 24.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Mr. Edward Evans (Lowestoft)

I beg to move, in page 46, line 29, to leave out from "1948" to the end of line 31.

The effect of the Amendment would be to delete from the Bill as it now stands the recognition as relevant expenditure of those services maintained by local authorities which operate under the welfare Sections of the National Assistance Act, 1948, and Section 29 in particular. This may appear a somewhat contradictory, if not reactionary, move, but it is designed to save the Government from themselves, and ultimately to allow them to take much more effective action to keep the welfare services at a good level.

Let us see what this Section of the 1948 Act aimed to do. It would be as well if I were to refresh the memory of the Committee as to its contents. The Section provides: (1) A local authority shall have power to make arrangements for promoting the welfare of persons to whom this section applies, that is to say persons who are blind, deaf or dumb, and other persons who are substantially and permanently handicapped"— and I should like to emphasise those words "substantially and permanently" by illness, injury, or congenital deformity or such other disabilities as may be prescribed by the Minister. The duties enjoined upon welfare authorities are, broadly speaking, entirely welfare services in this connection, and I quote— (a) for informing persons to whom arrangements under that subsection relate of the services available for them thereunder; I may add here that very many disabled persons are not aware of the already comprehensive services to which they are legally entitled under various Acts of Parliament. (b) for giving such persons instruction in their own homes or elsewhere in methods of overcoming the effects of their disabilities; This has been done for many years by voluntary societies, particularly the home teachers of the blind. (c) for providing workshops … and hostels and— (d) for providing … suitable work … in their own homes or elsewhere; Latterly, there has been developed a very fine domiciliary service by certain local authorities, particularly in regard to the blind. (e) for helping such persons in disposing of the produce of their work; One of the greatest difficulties of disabled persons, having been able to construct an article, either as recreative employment or on a commercial basis, is to be able to sell the goods. (f) for providing such persons with recreational facilities in their own homes or elsewhere; A very important duty that is laid upon the local authority is the necessity— (g) for compiling and maintaining classified registers of the persons to whom arrangements under subsection (1) of this section relate. When we had a debate in the House on 13th December on disabled persons, I stressed the need for more intense research into the extent of the problem of the disabled. This is one of the means by which a local authority, when it has taken on the responsibilities of this Section, can take measures to provide a classified register in the various categories. Section 30 of the Act deals with contracting out and assistance of voluntary societies by the local authorities making contributions to them. The Act also states that the authority shall, to such extent as the Minister may direct, be under a duty to exercise their powers under this section. When the Act was passed, we all hoped that these duties would be made mandatory upon local authorities for all the categories of disabled persons, but they have never been wholly so, except in the case of blind welfare work. There is a historical reason for that, because these duties were laid upon the local authorities by the Blind Persons Act, 1920, and these duties attracted special grants. I should like the Committee to be seized of that fact, because there is a long history of these services to disabled people having direct grants from the Exchequer.

With regard to the other categories of disability, the deaf, the hard of hearing, and cripples, the spastics, the epileptics and the acute arthritics, who are all substantially and permanently handicapped, only permissive powers were given, subject to a satisfactory scheme being submitted to the Minister of Health and approved by him. It is very much to the credit of local authorities that the majority of them submitted schemes approved by the Minister, and operated them in some degree or other. Some do so excellently, particularly some of the major authorities like the London County Council, Liverpool, Sheffield and a great many others; some moderately well and others not so well.

We must remember that this is a very heavy burden to place upon any local authority, especially a small one. For it to bring in any scheme for widely different groups of disabled persons is to open up an entirely new field of welfare work for it. It has to start from zero, build up an administration, recruit and train a specialist staff, acquire premises and learn new techniques. All this it is required to do out of its own resources, for no grant at all, direct or indirect, has been payable so far.

It is no wonder that nearly 30 per cent. of the local authorities up to now have not yet submitted schemes and that very little is done for the disabled in those areas by the local authorities. Fortunately for these handicapped people, they derive benefits from the ministrations of the voluntary societies such as the Deaf Missions, the societies and clubs affiliated to the Central Council for the Care of Cripples and many other voluntary societies financed from charitable sources. I feel sure that the difficulty of these local authorities has not been lack of desire to embark upon these schemes nor illwill against the Act, but the major problem of setting aside sufficient money to operate effectively a satisfactory scheme.

For those authorities who feel that they cannot adventure into all the activities associated with so many categories, it is competent for them to contract out and use the services of voluntary organisations as their agents to whom, in the several groups of disability, they are empowered to make grants either on a per capita basis or on a lump-sum basis, subject of course to being satisfied that the voluntary society is capable of giving the service to the local authorities' satisfaction.

This, I am always saying, is a challenge to voluntary societies. If they expect to act as agents for local authorities it is incumbent upon them to bring their work up to a standard that will ensure satisfaction to the local authority. These grants, paid by local authorities to voluntary societies, are paid on the basis of not attracting any help from the Exchequer. For a great many of these authorities this is a comparatively new venture in local government and it should be an expanding one. A great deal more can be done—I will refer in a moment to the Report of the Piercy Committee—to help these unfortunate people who are disabled permanently through no fault of their own to live more fully, to live happier lives and to integrate themselves more closely with the community. In too many cases they are isolated, lonely and frustrated.

The object of the Amendment is to prevent the Government from tying their own hands. If this part of the Schedule is passed as it stands, it will put the welfare services for the handicapped into the queue for their share of the block grant. The Amendment would give the Government an opportunity of examining the problem again without being tied rigidly to the Act in respect of special grants for these services.

9.45 p.m.

Anyone who has served on a local authority—I am one who has done so—knows the tremendous pressure exercised by long-standing, powerful statutory committees in respect of the allocation of the authority's financial resources. We know the desire of finance committees to keep down the rates. It is a commendable desire; no one quarrels with it as long as the services are maintained. Recently, however, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee had an opportunity to express their anxiety about the education service. It has not been a one-sided protest; it has come from all parts of the House of Commons and, indeed, from all parts of the country.

Education committees are by their very nature a very powerful element in local authorities which have education powers. They are statutory committees which are generally manned by men and women of great ability and experience. It is our object to ensure that welfare committees are established in the areas of local authorities which have not yet submitted schemes to the Minister, but I doubt whether a new or comparatively new welfare committee will be able to make the same impact on those responsible for the allocation of the block grant as any of the older, stronger committees will be able to do.

In its examination of the welfare services under local authorities, the Piercy Committee came to very strong and definite conclusions upon their operation by local authorities. It said in Chapter IV, in page 90: Apart from the provision made for the blind, it is clear that in the field of local authority welfare services for the disabled only the fringes have been touched so far … That is a very pregnant phrase. It bears out precisely what I was trying to say a little earlier; there is room for tremendous expansion. … and there is no doubt that there is need for fuller and better provision and scope for considerable development. The responsibilities of local authorities in the welfare field are:

  1. (a) to meet the social and occupational needs of those disabled who do not come within the employment field, and
  2. (b) simultaneously to cater as far as may be required for the social needs of the disabled who are in the employment field."
This is a very important observation: The Committee believes that more would have been done by local authorities in the welfare field if it had not been the case that most of the services which they can provide attract no grant from central funds. The Committee proceeds to make this recommendation: It therefore recommends that local authorities should be grant aided by the Exchequer in their expenditure on services provided by them under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act. Any such grant should be available without distinction between the type of disabled person or of services concerned, but the rate of grant would need to be calculated having regard to the extent to which services have already been provided in some fields. It has been objected that the Piercy Committee does not specifically advocate direct grant, but elsewhere in the Report blind welfare is held up as a pattern for welfare services. As one who has long been associated with such services, I can fully endorse the Committee's appraisement of them. But blind welfare itself has for long, certainly since the Blind Persons Act, 1920, attracted direct grant, and I submit that the tremendous expansion of blind welfare services in this country is mainly due to that fact.

The service is a model for welfare services all over the world, and it is certainly one that we can emulate in respect of other categories. I am sure that what has been done is due to the knowledge that the Government would provide direct support. If the Bill is passed as it stands, it will make it impossible for the Government to do anything to have these services given the priority they deserve in local authority programmes. I cannot see how a newly created service—and these welfare services are new in most parts of the country—can stand the pressure of other committees, such as those dealing with housing and health, and obtain what the Piercy Committee regards as sufficient resources in order to develop this great work.

Reference was made in Committee to the Minister's Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons, which has been set up with additional scope to follow the former Advisory Committee of which I regard it as a very great honour indeed to have been Chairman. I hope that I am not betraying any confidence or secrets when I assure the Committee that I had the direct grant principle very much in mind when we forwarded our recommendations to the Minister about grants, urging him to press for grant aid for these welfare services.

I move the Amendment in no spirit of controversy and with entire good will. I hope that the Minister will accept it and will later take the necessary steps to give such help as will go far to make the welfare services for disabled persons as effective and as helpful as we wish them to be.

Dr. King

I intervene very briefly for a special reason. The debate gives the Committee an opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) for his life's work on behalf of the handicapped people of this country. He has devoted his life to the care of the halt, the lame, the maimed and the blind, and no hon. Member can speak with more knowledge and experience of the problems of handicapped persons. I hope that the Minister and the Committee will give exceedingly great weight to the arguments which he presented in moving the Amendment.

It is a special example, and a very human example, of the general case which my hon. Friends have pressed for a long time that worthwhile services in local government may be in danger because of the block grant. This is particularly the case, as my hon. Friend pointed out, with a small service which is young and which has very little power when it competes with the claims of big and powerful committees in local government—a service which is non-existent in many cases for some handicapped people and a service which in the case of the blind is supported by direct grant.

I commend to the Minister the arguments and the fears which my hon. Friend has expressed, and I urge him to look very carefully into them.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

I, too, am anxious to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans). We have the privilege of belonging to the same profession, and I know the esteem with which the teachers of the country hold the work which my hon. Friend has done for the handicapped children in our schools. It is given to few people to see so many results of their labours as my hon. Friend has been able to see. He began his work in South Wales, where to this day he is held in great affection.

My hon. Friend has referred to a section of our community who in the nature of things are bound to be a minority. They are the least able to fend for themselves, and I believe that they have a special claim upon our consideration. The disabled young people are far more expensive to educate than are normal children. Inevitably, the classes have to be smaller. Longer special training is necessary for the teachers. Special types of buildings are necessary for spastic children, for the blind, for the deaf and the partially deaf.

The local authorities in Wales have been anxious to get together. They have pooled their resources. It was my great privilege along with my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) to serve on the Working Party set up by the late George Tomlinson to consider education in Wales. As a result of that Working Party there was established a joint education committee for the local authorities in the Principality of Wales. As a direct result of that local authority's activities there is a school for the deaf at Llandrindod Wells in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), where outstanding work is done solely because the local authorities pooled their contributions. Clearly, there are authorities which will find it impossible out of their own resources to cater for their own handicapped children.

Mr. Edward Evans


Mr. Thomas

I should have thought this would have been one of those Amendments the Minister would have felt able to accept. Whereas I have been referring to the young, the same arguments are applicable to the mature adults. It is more expensive to look after these disabled adults than it is any other section of our community. The voluntary societies have been doing an admirable job, particularly, to my knowledge, for spastics, but it is not fair of us to put local authorities in such a position that they have to leave work which is their rightful duty to these voluntary organisations.

I earnestly support the plea which has been made by my hon. Friend for the removal of the welfare services of the local authorities from this block grant. Whatever arguments may be applied to the other services, I am quite sure that the Minister will not want to handicap himself in dealing properly with a service which has been expanded during the past decade more than at any other comparable period of our history. I fear that this Measure may bring to a halt the expansion which has taken place. I do not suppose the Minister wants that to be so, and that is why I hope he will accept the Amendment.

Mr. R. Thompson

As the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) fairly said, the effect of this Amendment would be to remove expenditure on welfare services for the handicapped under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, from the types of expenditure taken into consideration as relevant expenditure when fixing the size of the general grant. Of course, the immediate effect of this Amendment would be not to improve the financial provision for those services, but the opposite; but in saying this, I fully recognise that the hon. Member's object is a far wider one, and I shall try to deal with it on that basis.

I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Lowestoft, whose great services to the cause of the handicapped are acknowledged in all parts of the Committee, and whose Chairmanship of the Minister's Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons entitles him to speak with authority and experience on this matter, has only one real objective in moving his Amendment, and that is to secure the best possible financial provision for the development of the services to the handicapped. He feels that this would be better achieved by implementing the recommendation, which he quoted, in paragraph 124 of the Piercy Report, which advocated the introduction of a specific Exchequer grant—of a size admittedly unspecified—on services provided by local authorities under Section 29 of the National Assistance Act. I am sure that is what the hon. Member has in mind and what has inspired him to move this Amendment.

10.0 p.m.

When the Piercy Committee reported in September, 1956, naturally it had no foreknowledge of the intention of the Government, a year later, to introduce a general Exchequer gvant covering a large number of services, including the domiciliary health services. I should have thought that it was not appropriate, when specific grants for comparable social services are being absorbed into the general grant, to introduce a completely different formula, that is to say, a specific grant for welfare services for the handicapped alone. The Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons, of which the hon. Member is Chairman, while admittedly strongly in favour of a Government grant towards expansion of local authority welfare services to the handicapped, has not in fact expressed any opinion on the merits of a specific grant as distinct from inclusion of an element of assistance in a general grant.

Mr. Edward Evans

I want to make this quite clear. I was very careful when I made my remarks to say what I had in mind. I should not like to commit my Committee, but I think there are no dissentients.

Mr. Thompson

That is a very fair intervention, but I am bound to say that at its meeting on 1st May, 1957, when the Committee had under review the Piercy Report, it recommended that the Government should give early effect to the Piercy Committee's recommendation, either for a specific grant or, if a general grant was introduced, by recognising the needs of the welfare services as a specific factor in the composition of such a grant.

At its most recent meeting, on 12th March, 1958, after the Committee had been informed that the Government had accepted that there should be a measure of assistance through the general grant towards expenditure on developing welfare services for the handicapped, the Committee reaffirmed its recommendation of 1st May, 1957. I feel that the Amendment I moved in Committee, which this Amendment seeks to reverse, to bring these services for the handicapped into the type of expenditure taken into consideration as relevant expenditure when fixing the size of general grant, is in conformity with what the Advisory Committee on the Health and Welfare of Handicapped Persons recommended at its meeting on 1st May, 1957, and that we should not now seek to exclude those services as proposed by this Amendment.

I recognise fully that the hon. Member in moving this Amendment was sincerely motivated to try to steer this matter into the direction he thought would secure most benefit for the services, but for the reasons I have enunciated I must advise my hon. Friends to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Edward Evans

Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the objection I raised as to the status of a newly-formed welfare committee and its prospects of getting any share of the block grant of an authority? Does he not agree that it would be extremely difficult for that committee to provide anything like an adequate service, having regard to the terrific pressure on the authority from other directions?

Mr. Thompson

I would not accept that. As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is a very human subject, and I do not think that committees, even if newly formed as he suggests, would be at e disadvantage as compared with their fellows in obtaining a fair share of the expenditure for this purpose.

Mr. M. Stewart

I am sure that we all realise the human aspect of the subject and would accept that the Parliamentary Secretary has tried to show respect to that aspect, but I am afraid that I must pin him down on one or two points. In the first place, I do not think it is denied that in 1956 the Piercy Committee recommended a specific grant for this purpose and that it was open to the Government from then onwards to have complied with that recommendation. At that time the Government were not tied to this block grant idea, but they did not comply with the Piercy Committee's recommendation.

They now take advantage of this block-grant Bill to avoid ever having to comply with it by tucking the whole idea away as part of the block grant. It is about that rather deplorable manoeuvre of using a block-grant device as a way of disguising the fact that the Government have not complied, and apparently have not intended to comply, with that quite clear recommendation that we on this side complain.

I took the Parliamentary Secretary to be arguing that this service will be helped now because it will be a factor affecting the size of the general grant, but perhaps he can tell us this. As I understand the matter, local authorities are at present spending money on this service, but the money they so spend does not attract grant. They have to find it. When the general grant is framed, will account be taken of the amounts of money they are now spending?

I see that the answer to that question is "yes." That being so, could the hon. Gentleman clear up my next point? He will see in Clause 2 that it states that the Minister, in fixing the amount of the general grant, has to take into consideration: … the latest information available to him of the rate of relevant expenditure (excluding, except in so far as the Minister with the consent of the Treasury otherwise determines, any expenditure of a description in respect of which no grant has been paid for years before the year 1959–60) … That means that unless the explicit consent of the Treasury is obtained, the Minister cannot do what the Parliamentary Secretary told me a moment ago he would do. It is true that, under later parts of the Clause, he can take into account possible future expenditure, but he cannot, without the explicit and exceptional consent of the Treasury, take into account, in making a general grant order, the money now being spent, or spent in any year prior to 1959–60 on the development of these services.

In view of the wording of Clause 2, I do not think that that will be disputed. This is a service in respect of which no grant will have been paid before 1959–60. I am bound, therefore, to ask this question. When the Parliamentary Secretary told me a moment ago that the money now being spent in this service would be taken into account in determining the size of the general grant, did he say that knowing that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already been asked about it and has indicated that he would give consent? Unless that has been done, the undertaking of the Parliamentary Secretary just now is worthless; he cannot fulfil it without the express consent of the Treasury. This is a measure of how seriously the Government take the matter. Did they consider the bearing of that part of Clause 2 on this? Have they approached the Treasury to see whether, in this case, the Treasury would give the consent which Clause 2 requires? If they have not, I must come to the conclusion that they have not taken it quite as seriously as the nature of the subject requires.

Let us suppose that they get over that hurdle and they are able to take into account not only probable future expenditure but the rate of present expenditure when framing the size of the general grant. We are bound to face the fact that, important though the subject is in human terms, it is mercifully true that the number of handicapped persons is a small proportion of the whole population. Quantitatively, it is bound to be a quite small sum of money in comparison with the great sum of money involved in the whole amount mentioned in a general grant order. It will be a small proportion of the expenditure which local authorities will have to meet out of the general grant. It will be almost impossible to say whether proper account of it has been taken in framing the general grant. It will be all too easy for any local authority not inclined to take the service sufficiently seriously simply to ignore it.

This is why we feel that it would not be unreasonable to revert to the original form of the Bill, keeping this out of the general grant. Let the Government do now what they might have done when the Report of the Piercey Committee first came out and make a specific grant such as the Piercey Committee recommended.

Possibly, the Parliamentary Secretary will say that that would be untidy and not appropriate at a time when we are thinking in terms of block grants. We had that said very often in Committee; it was the stock argument against anything to say that it would not fit in with the idea of the block grant. But we really cannot treat the block grant as a sort of idol before which anything, even the needs of handicapped persons, must be sacrificed merely for the sake of tidiness. There will be a string of exceptions in what will be, after the Amendments have been made, Part II of the First Schedule to the Bill. The treating of this service as a special case is not administratively impossible. It is not even inconsistent with certain other exceptions that there are in the Bill, and it will secure what I believe we are all determined to secure, namely, that this service is not overlooked.

One could say, I think, that the great majority of local authorities will be glad to fulfil their duties in this respect. But it should be made quite clear that, if there is anyone anywhere who is inclined to forget his duty, the form of the grant should be such that he cannot get away with neglecting it and the matter remain unseen. The danger in making it part of a general grant is that a service, the importance of which ought to be rubbed in and underlined, can be easily ignored if it is tucked away and overshadowed by the great bulk of the block grant.

I do not think that the Government are really wedded to the Bill in its present form. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) is really asking them to go back again to the Bill as they had it in its original form. I feel that, after consideration, they will come to the conclusion that that would be the wiser course.

Question put, That "1948" stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 154.

Division No. 112.] AYES [9.20 p.m
Ainsley, J. W. Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Palmer, A. M. F.
Albu, A. H. Grimond, J. Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Pargiter, G. A.
Awbery, S. S. Hamilton, W. W. Parker, J.
Bacon, Miss Alice Harman, W. Paton, John
Balfour, A. Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Pentland, N.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Hastings, S. Popplewell, E.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Hayman, F. H. Prentice, R. E.
Benson, Sir George Hewitson, Capt. M. Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Beswick, Frank Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Holman, P. Probert, A. R.
Blackburn, F. Houghton, Douglas Proctor, W. T.
Boardman, H. Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Pryde, D. J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hoy, J. H. Randall, H. E.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Rankin, John
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Redhead, E. C.
Bowles, F. G. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Brockway, A. F. Hunter, A. E. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Burke, W. A. Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Ross, William
Burton, Miss F. E. Janner, B. Short, E. W.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jeger, George (Goole) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Callaghan, L. J. Johnson, James (Rugby) Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Jones, Rt. Hon. A.Creech(Wakefield) Snow, J. W.
Chetwynd, G. R. Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Sorensen, R. W.
Clunie, J. Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Coldrick, W. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Sparks, J. A.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Steele, T.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury) Kenyon, C. Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Stonehouse, John
Cove, W. G. King, Dr. H. M. Stones, W. (Consett)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Lawson, G. M. Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Cronin, J. D. Lee, Frederick (Newton) Sylvester, G. O.
Crossman, R. H. S. Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Cullen, Mrs. A. Lewis, Arthur Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Darling, George (Hillsborough) Logan, D. G. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) McAlister, Mrs. Mary Thornton, E.
Deer, G. McGhee, H. G. Timmons, J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey McKay, John (Wallsend) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Delargy, H. J. McLeavy, Frank Viant, S. P.
Diamond, John MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Wade, D. W.
Donnelly, D. L. Mahon, Simon Watkins, T. E.
Dye, S. Mainwaring, W. H. Weitzman, D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Mann, Mrs. Jean West, D. G.
Edwards, R. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Wheeldon, W. E.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mitchison, G. R. Willey, Frederick
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Moody, A. S. Williams, David (Neath)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Finch, H. J. Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Fletcher, Eric Moyle, A. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Forman, J. C. Mulley, F. W. Winterbottom, Richard
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Gibson, C. W. O'Brien, Sir Thomas Woof, R. E.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Oliver, G. H. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Orbach, M.
Grey, C. F. Padley, W. E. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.
Agnew, Sir Peter Bingham, R. M. Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Aitken, W. T. Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Cooke, Robert
Alport, C. J. M. Bishop, F. P. Cooper, A. E.
Arbuthnot, John Body, R. F. Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Armstrong, C. W. Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Atkins, H. E. Boyle, Sir Edward Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Baldwin, A. E. Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Crosthwaite-Eyre, col. A. E.
Balniel, Lord Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Barlow, Sir John Brooman-White, R. C. Cunningham, Knox
Barter, John Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Dance, J. C. G.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Burden, F. F. A. Davidson, Viscountess
Beamish, Col. Tufton Butcher, Sir Herbert D'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Digby, Simon Wingfield
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Carr, Robert Doughty, C. J. A.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Cary, Sir Robert du Cann, E. D. L.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Channon, Sir Henry Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Bidgood, J. C. Chichester-Clark, R. Duncan, Sir James
Duthie, W. S. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Elliott,R.W. (Newcastle upon Tyne,N.) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Pitman, I. J.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) Pitt, Miss E. M.
Errington, Sir Eric Joseph, Sir Keith Powell, J. Enoch
Farey-Jones, F. W. Joynson Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Price, David (Eastleigh)
Finlay, Graeme Kaberry, D. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C. Keegan, D. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Fort, R. Kimball, M. Ramsden, J. E.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Kirk, P. M. Rawlinson, Peter
Freeth, Denzil Lancaster, Col. C. G. Redmayne, M.
Gammans, Lady Leather, E. H. C. Rippon, A. G. F.
Garner-Evans, E. H. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
George, J. C. (Pollok) Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Gibson-Watt, D. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Glover, D. Linstead, Sir H. N. Roper, Sir Harold
Glyn, Col. Richard H. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Godber, J. B. Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Goodhart, Philip Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Sharples, R. C.
Gough, C. F. H. McAdden, S. J. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Gower, H. R. Macdonald, Sir Peter Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Graham, Sir Fergus McKibbin, Alan Spearman, Sir Alexander
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Speir, R. M.
Green, A. McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Ma[...]ean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster) Stevens, Geoffrey
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Gurden, Harold Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Hall, John (Wycombe) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Maddan, Martin Studholme, Sir Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston) Maitland, Cdr. J. F, W. (Horncastle) Summers, Sir Spencer
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Marlowe, A. A. H. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Marshall, Douglas Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Hay, John Mathew, R. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Maudling, Rt. Hon. R. Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Mawby, R. L. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Medlicott, Sir Frank Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W. Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh Tweedsmuir, Lady
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Morrison, John (Salisbury) Vickers, Miss Joan
Holland-Martin, C. J. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Wakefreld, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hope, Lord John Nabarro, G. D. N. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Hornby, R. P. Nairn, D. L. S. Wall, Patrick
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Neave, Airey Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Horobin, Sir Ian Nicholls, Harmar Webbe, Sir H.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch) Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Nugent, G. R. H. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Howard, John (Test) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N) Woollam, John Victor
Hurd, A. R. Page, R. G. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.) Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.) Partridge, E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Peel, W. J. Colonel J. H. Harrison and
Iremonger, T. L. Peyton, J. W. W. Mr. Bryan.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Division No. 113.] AYES [10.15 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Green, A. Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Aitken, W. T. Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Alport, C. J. M. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) Nabarro, G. D. N.
Arbuthnot, John Gurden, Harold Nairn, D. L. S.
Armstrong, C. W. Hall, John (Wycombe) Neave, Airey
Atkins, H. E. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)
Baldwin, A. E. Harris, Reader (Heston) Nugent, G. R. H.
Balniel, Lord Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Barter, John Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Beamish, Col. Tufton Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.>
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Page, R. G.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G. Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Partridge, E.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Peel, W. J.
Bidgood, J. C. Holland-Martin, C. J. Peyton, J. W. W.
Bingham, R. M. Hope, Lord John Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Hornby, R. P. Pike, Miss Mervyn
Bishop, F. P. Horobin, Sir Ian Pitman, I. J.
Body, R. F. Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire) Powell, J. Enoch
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Boyle, Sir Edward Howard, John (Test) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Ramsden, J. E.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Hurd, A. R. Rawlinson, Peter
Brooman-White, R. C. Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.) Redmayne, M.
Bryan, p. Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry Rippon, A. G. F.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Iremonger, T. L. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (SaffronWalden) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Carr, Robert Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Cary, Sir Robert Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Roper, Sir Harold
Channon, Sir Henry Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Joseph, Sir Keith Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Cooke, Robert Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot Sharples, R. C.
Cooper, A. E. Kaberry, D. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Keegan, D. Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Corfield, Capt. F. V. Kimball, M. Spearman, Sir Alexander
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Kirk, P. M. Speir, R. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. A. E. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Cunningham, Knox Leather, E. H. C. Stevens, Geoffrey
Dance, J. C. G. Legge-Bourke, Maj, E. A. H. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Linsteao, Sir H. N. Studholme, Sir Henry
Doughty, C. J. A. Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Summers, Sir Spencer
du Cann, E. D. L. Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Duthie, W. S. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West) McAdden, S. J. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.) Macdonald, Sir Peter Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn McKibbin, Alan Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Errington, Sir Eric Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Farey-Jones, F. W. McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Finlay, Graeme MacLean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Fletcher-Cooke, C. MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Tweedsmuir, Lady
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley) Vickers, Miss Joan
Freeth, Denzil Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Gammans, Lady Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Garner-Evans, E. H. Maddan, Martin Wall, Patrick
George, J. C. (Pollok) Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Gibson-Watt, D. Marlowe, A. A. H. Webbe, Sir H.
Glover, D. Marshall, Douglas Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Glyn, Col. Richard H. Mathew, R. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Godber, J. B. Maudling, Rt. Hon. R. Woollam, John Victor
Goodhart, Philip Mawby, R. L. Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Gough, C. F. H. Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Gower, H. R. Medlicott, Sir Frank TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Graham, Sir Fergus Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Mr. Wills and Mr. Chichester-Clark.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Ainsley, J. W. Blackburn, F. Chetwynd, G. R.
Albu, A. H. Boardman, H. Coldrick, W.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Awbery, S. S. Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.) Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)
Bacon, Miss Alice Bowies, F. G. Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Balfour, A. Brockway, A. F. Cove, W. G.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.) Brown, Thomas (Ince) Cronin, J. D.
Benson, Sir George Burton, Miss F. E. Crossman, R. H. S.
Beswick, Frank Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Cullen, Mrs. A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Jones, David (The Hartlepools) Proctor, W. T.
Deer, G. Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, D.) Randall, H. E.
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Redhead, E. C.
Delargy, H. J. Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Diamond, John Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Donnelly, D. L. Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Dye, S. King, Dr. H. M. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Lawson, G. M. Ross, William
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse) Lee, Frederick (Newton) Short, E. W.
Edwards, R. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Lewis, Arthur Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Logan, D. G. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) McAlister, Mrs. Mary Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) McGhee, H. G. Snow, J. W.
Finch, H. J. McKay, John (Wallsend) Sorensen, R. W.
Fletcher, Eric MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Forman, J. C. Mahon, Simon Sparks, J. A.
Frastr, Thomas (Hamilton) Mainwaring, W. H. Steele, T.
Gibson, C. W. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.) Storehouse, John
Grenfeil, Rt. Hon. D. R. Mann, Mrs. Jean Stones, w. (Consett)
Grey, C. F. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mitchison, G. R. Sylvester, G. O.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Moody, A. S. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.) Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hannan, W. Moyle, A. Thornton, E.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.) Mulley, F. W. Timmons, J.
Hayman, F. H. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.) Watkins, T. E.
Hewitson, Capt. M. O'Brien, Sir Thomas Weitzman, D.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley) Orbach, M. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Houghton, Douglas Orbach, M. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr) Padley, W. E. West, D. G.
Hoy, J. H. Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Wheeldon, W. E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Palmer, A. M. F. Willey, Frederick
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Williams, David (Neath)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pargiter, G. A. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Hunter, A. E. Parker, J. Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Paton, John Winterbottom, Richard
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Pentland, N. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Popplewell, E. Woof, R. E.
Jeger, George (Goole) Prentice, R. E. Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Johnson, James (Rugby) Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield) Probert, A. R. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.
Mr. R. Thompson

I beg to move in page 46, line 29, after "1948" to insert: or in the making of payments or contributions under section twenty-six of that Act to voluntary organisations". This is mainly a drafting Amendment. Its object is to make absolutely clear that when we refer that expenditure under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, we include the expenditure incurred by local authorities in making arrangements with voluntary organisations for the provision of such accommodation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. H. Brooke

I beg to move in page 46 line 34, to leave out "12. The foregoing paragraphs do" and to insert: