HC Deb 14 March 1961 vol 636 cc1325-55

10.00 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Pay-Bed Accommodation in Hospitals, etc.) Regulations, 1961 (S.I., 1961, No. 184), dated 1st February, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be annulled.

Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter)

On a point of order. I want to put this point to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is a perfectly honest point of order. I have no intention of trying to delay the House, but I want to put a point of view to you which I think is strongly felt by many of my hon. and hon. and gallant Friends. I suggest this to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Most of the day has been spent on the Navy Estimates.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

Order. I cannot discuss what happened in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Dudley Williams

On a point of order. What I want to suggest to you is this, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As we have had no opportunity to discuss the Air Estimates and as we are now going——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. That cannot arise now.

Mr. Robinson

The effect of the Regulations against which we are praying is to double the charge for amenity beds in hospitals from 12s. to 24s. per day, or from 4 guineas to 8 guineas per week. The title of the Regulations is somewhat misleading. Amenity beds, which are the type of beds covered by the Regulations, are not what we normally refer to as "pay beds". They are in effect Section 4 pay beds and Section 5 beds.

As there is frequently some confusion about this, it may be helpful to recall the difference between these two types of hospital beds. They are called Section 4 and Section 5 beds because the provision for them is contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the National Health Service Act, 1946. Under Section 4 of that Act beds in single rooms or in small wards—the majority of them are in single rooms—when available can be provided for patients who prefer to have some degree of privacy, though they may not need that privacy on therapeutic grounds. They are made available to such patients in return for the payment of what at any rate used to be a modest fee. This arrangement is always provided—this is a very important proviso—that such beds are not required for non-paying patients who do need a private room on medical grounds.

Mr. Dudley Williams

I rise to a point of order. Mr. Speaker. as there is practically nobody on the benches 'apposite interested in this problem, is there any machinery by which we can continue with the debate on the Air Estimates instead of this rather boring subject?

Mr. Speaker

No.

Mr. Robinson

If the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) is bored, there is a perfectly simple remedy available to him. He can leave the Chamber. We should probably all be very glad if he did.

I was saying that normally the important thing about these beds is that medical reasons should have the priority. This aspect was put very succinctly and with complete approval by the Guillebaud Committee in paragraph 417 of its Report, which stated: We would agree that the first claim on this limited accommodation"— and I should explain that in that context the Committee meant both pay-bed and amenity-bed accommodation: should be for those hospital patients who are in need of privacy on medical grounds, whether or not they are prepared to pay for a private bed. Secondly, we feel that it is right, on humanitarian grounds, that a proportion of the private accommodation should be set aside for use as 'amenity beds' by those patients who desire privacy even when it is not considered essential on medical grounds; the patient then pays for his privacy and in all other respects is treated in the same way as patients in general wards. So far, we think few will disagree with what we have said. We on this side do not disagree. We think that this is a perfectly reasonable provision. We see in it no conflict with the principles underlying the National Health Service as originally conceived, and we support it.

The Section 5 beds are very different. These are beds for which the patient pays what is roughly their economic cost—perhaps 25 or 30 guineas a week—and in which the patient is looked after privately by a consultant who receives the full private fees for treating that patient. We think that this is a much more dubious provision; and that the existence of these private Section 5 beds not only tends to lead in the direction of there being two classes of service in the same hospital but certainly also leads to abuse.

We support the Section 4 beds because there is really no opportunity for abuse and, as far as I know, there has never been any complaint about abuse of that kind. On the other hand, we have had complaints time and time again about queue jumping with the Section 5 beds. This was referred to in the same section of the Guillebaud Report, and that Committee then said that it thought that it could not amount to very much because the number of pay beds' in the hospital was a very small proportion. Nevertheless, that complaint has been made time and time again——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not want to waste time or to take the hon. Member's time, but I have great difficulty about this, because it seems to me that this Order is concerned only with Section 4 charges. and I cannot relate what he says about Section 5 to that.

Mr. Robinson

I was trying to help the House, Mr. Speaker, because there is confusion between the Section 4 and the Section 5 beds. I certainly do not want to dwell on the Section 5 beds, but it is very important that we on this side should not be misunderstood. It would be most unfortunate if it were thought that we were praying against something concerned with pay beds in the fully accepted sense of the word.

I will conclude that part of my remarks by saying that the Lancet, in an editorial in January of this year said, in very round terms: To give priority to a patient, not because of clinical urgency but because he has paid a consultation fee, is not an exercise in professional freedom but more nearly an act of conspiracy. I think that we would all agree with that.

Occupancy of these beds in hospital should be determined on medical grounds, and my experience—and, I believe, the experience of most of my hon. Friends—is that by and large this is the case with the Section 4 beds, but very much less so with Section 5 beds. The occupancy figures for these paying beds in hospitals do not show very much difference between the Section 4 beds and the nonpaying beds, which are also known as Section 3 beds. I am sorry that this is so confusing. We find that usually in a hospital where the normal occupancy of beds is something like 85 to 90 per cent., the occupancy of the Section 4 beds is probably around 80 per cent. That is quite a common figure. In other words, the beds are filled with patients who need privacy on medical grounds. This does not happen with the Section 5 beds. That is another reason why we are not particularly enthusiastic about them.

The implication of all this is that on present demands we have—or, at any rate, we had—probably about the right number of Section 4 beds. By the same calculation, the implication is that we have rather too many Section 5 beds, since their occupancy rate is so low. What has been happening under the Government, however? I have some figures from a reply which the Minister was good enough to give me last week concerning the Section 4 and Section 5 beds in 1955 and 1959, which is the last year for which figures are available. The Section 5 beds remain virtually unchanged; there has certainly been no diminution. In a mere matter of four years, the Section 4 beds have gone down in number from 5,997 to 5,425. This represents a 10 per cent. drop in Section 4 beds.

This is deplorable, but it is all of a pattern. This all fits into the policy of the Government and their predecessors in constantly encouraging the private, paying section of the Health Service to the detriment of the free Health Service. Now we get the increase from £4 4s. to £8 8s. a week for Section 4 beds. I remind the House that under the 1946 Act and the 1948 Regulations made there-under, the original charge for Section 4 beds was £2 2s. a week. Therefore, in just over twelve years, the cost of these beds has quadrupled. The Minister cannot say on this occasion that this is merely an adjustment to keep the price of the beds in line with the cost of living, because, certainly, the cost of living has not gone up four times since 1958.

Our case against the Regulations is, perhaps, somewhat different from the case we have made against other proposals of the Minister of Health and against the rest of his taxes on sickness. I am not claiming that the Regulations cause hardship—at least, not to any great extent; I would not say that. What I do say is that they will price the amenity bed out of the market. A reasonable proportion of the population are in a position to afford the old charge of £4 4s. a week if they particularly want privacy when they go to hospital and if a Section 4 bed is available. There are far fewer people who can possibly afford £8 8s. a week.

Thus we get to the position that I do not believe that the Minister will achieve his estimated revenue from the Regulations. I gather that the estimate is £125,000. One wonders whether it was worth doing for that sum. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate, I should like to know whether that estimate is based on any drop in the use of Section 4 beds by paying patients and, if so, what estimated drop has been calculated. I prophesy that either many of the beds will remain empty or—I very much hope that this is what will happen—hospital management committee will do their duty and ensure that these beds, if not occupied by Section 4 patients, will be occupied by non-paying patients who could benefit from the privacy on medical grounds. In our view, this Statutory Instrument is totally unnecessary. No case has been made for it. It is undesirable and we believe that it will probably be ineffective in its revenue-raising purpose. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby against this Measure.

10.15 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary I am sure will agree that Section 4 beds are valuable and are needed and are a provision which, frankly, we could not do without. In the long run, we hope, every bed in every hospital will be an amenity bed of the type we are now discussing. That is surely the sort of thing to aim at, but as things are today they are required for one of two reasons and sometimes for the two reasons together.

It is an ordeal for many people, on the grounds of personal modesty, to go into hospital and share the life in a large ward with many other people. This affects not one class of patients but all classes, and, if I may suggest it to the Parliamentary Secretary, men more than women. Men tend to adapt themselves less easily than women do. Women, I was going to say, are more courageous; they are certainly tougher, in certain senses of the term, than men are. It is true. We know it. Women are nearer to the earth earthy; they understand the meaning of life and death perhaps more easily than men do. So it is men I am thinking of.

I have had some personal experience in the open ward and the amenity ward both as patient and as medical man. I remember that on one occasion I insisted upon spending a certain length of time in an open ward. Frankly, it was not a sort of experience I should like to undergo again. There is noise, which is often excessive and, in large wards, unavoidable. I remember one patient with meningitis a few beds away from me, whose great meningital cry rang through the night, night after night. As a result of modern treatment, on the fourth or fifth night his cries were stilled because he was better; he made a complete recovery; but it was very disturbing for everyone else.

Those who have the benefit of a side ward or a small ward where there are only two or three patients have some advantage, obviously, because there is not so much noise and so they can rest more easily. It is very common in open wards to make patients sleep by giving them drugs at night. They cannot get to sleep otherwise sometimes. It is not the best way of giving people rest, but it is unavoidable in the circumstances. Then, if, on the other hand, there are patients who cannot possibly remain solitary or in a small ward with only one or two other patients, they must be in the open wards.

I think we all agree that amenity beds are utterly desirable and that we must have them. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) in deploring that there has been a fall in the number by 10 per cent. in the past few years. I certainly support him in asking rhetorically of the Parliamentary Secretary, why was this change in charges made? It is a small sum. The need for the beds is great. Surely we could have done without this £120,000 rather than interfere with something which all of us with experience know to be necessary—and even those of us without, for imagination is enough and experience is not necessary to understand what I said at the beginning, that every bed really should be an amenity bed of a sort, and the best possible sort.

We know that our hospital service has improved remarkably since the 1946 Act. We know of the devotion and care given by medical men and staff to patients in amenity beds and those in other beds. It is almost incredible now to read of what life was like in our principal hospitals a hundred years ago. One has only to look at Daumier's cartoons of life in Paris to realise what it was like. A hundred years hence people looking back at the provisions that we are making will say, "What was the matter with those people?"

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell)indicated assent.

Dr. Stross

I notice that the Minister agrees with me and I can almost forgive him for speaking as strongly as he does about the need to improve hospital accommodation, because viewed from the vantage point of even fifty years hence the present position is scandalous. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North. I ask that in each and every case if these beds are not being used by those who pay they will not be allowed to stand unoccupied but will be filled with patients who need them not for modesty's sake but strictly on the ground of the kind of operation they have undergone, or that the attention they require is such that it disturbs nearby patients, or that that which is being done for them is such that they become emotionally involved because they feel that they are upsetting patients nearby.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

The hon. Member must know that Regulations to that effect already exist. The beds are used for these purposes when they are not occupied by paying patients and these Regulations do not in any way alter the position.

Dr. Stross

If I were still capable of sucking eggs I would tell the hon. Member that he could not teach me anything about that. Of course I realise that, but I ask that the beds should not be empty if anybody needs them. Nobody should be allowed such a bed for money if on clinical grounds there is anyone in the hospital who has a right to the bed. I am not sure whether the Minister agrees with me on that point but if I were superintendent of a hospital and had any influence I would not allow such beds to be used purely for modesty's sake if on clinical grounds, because of the seriousness of an operation or the nature of some treatment, they should be used free of charge.

If the Parliamentary Secretary can give an assurance of that kind, I shall feel some relief. I think that she probably will say that, but we should like the firmest assurance. In any case, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North that this provision should never have been brought forward. These charges should not have been increased. Whatever assurance I receive on the points that I have raised, I shall still gladly and on principle support my hon. Friend.

10.24 p.m.

Dr. Donald Johnson (Carlisle)

I should like to compliment the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) on raising an interesting subject in the debate, in sharp contrast to many of the objections to present legislation that we have heard during recent weeks. But I find his remarks contradictory because, first, he explains at some length—and I was pleased to hear him—the advantage and rightness of paying for privacy and then suddenly he switches round and says that this fee-paying practice is a wicked act of conspiracy.

In fact, in the hon. Member's speech and that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) I think I have heard the best defence of the fee-paying practice that I have heard in the House since I have been a Member. I was glad to hear it. I remember that fifteen years ago I debated against the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central at Rugby, when I spoke in favour of fee-paying practice and he spoke against it. I am delighted to feel that some of my arguments then have sunk in.

Mr. K. Robinson

The hon. Member has had a lot of fun, so perhaps he will now make it clear that we on this side have been speaking not in favour of fee-paying practice but in favour of the idea of a modest fee being payable for privacy. We are wholly against fee-paying practice, which is a totally different matter.

Dr. Johnson

I must apologise to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North if I fail to see the distinction he makes, because it is exactly privacy and other similar amenities for which people are willing to pay fees.

Dr. Stross

I remember our little adventure in Rugby, and all its details. I thought that I had the better of the argument at the time. I remind him of how very good humouredly he took his defeat. In addressing his remarks to this point, will he bear in mind that there is a distinction between pay beds and amenity beds?

Dr. Johnson

I do not see that in relation to this argument. I feel that, after fifteen years, the penny has dropped with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I am very pleased. That is the principal point I wanted to make. I feel that this rise in the fees is not unreasonable if people wish to pay for privacy, which is essentially an amenity.

As has been made clear during the debate so far, it is provided that if privacy is needed for medical reasons because the distressing circumstances of the general ward are militating against the health of a seriously ill patient, then an amenity bed is available so that the patient can have peace and quiet. We are all, on both sides of the House, in favour of that—indeed, we are insistent that it should be done.

Apart from that, if payment is made for strictly non-medical reasons—squeamishness or the simple desire for privacy—then I do not see why the fee, which is very much less than the fee for a private bed, and very much below the cost of the bed, should not be increased. It is for that reason that I am glad to support the Regulations.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds (Islington, North)

I hope that the House will accept this Motion so that these Regulations may be annulled. These Regulations are part of the operation which the Govern- ment have brought before us in the past few weeks, of increasing charges in the National Health Service. As I understand it, the argument for the increase in the National Health Service contribution was that it would mean that the contribution as a proportion of the earnings of an adult male would still be the same as it was in 1948.

That is one of the arguments that we have been given from the Treasury Bench as a justification for an increase in the contribution. This increase that is now demanded in these Regulations, this doubling of the charge, in my view—I am open to correction when the Minister replies—will mean that the charge will fall on a far greater proportion of the average adult male wage than was the case when it was originally fixed in 1948. If one of the main arguments for increasing the contribution is to bring it into line with the proportion which applied in 1948, why is it proposed to make this charge fall on a much greater proportion of the average wage than it did in 1948?

I sense an ulterior motive in this proposal. Many people, when they go into hospital, have a horror of lying in a ward with fifteen, twenty or more patients. They feel that they must have some sort of privacy, preferably in a ward of their own, or in a ward which they can share with one other person. This is a fear that I cannot understand. The last thing that I want to do on entering hospital—and I have had considerable experience as a hospital patient is to be locked in a small room by myself from first thing in the morning till last thing at night. I prefer to be in a large ward and to enjoy the company of the other patients. Nevertheless, some people have this fear. They are not particularly worried about going into hospital, but they dread going into a ward with a lot of other people. They want a certain amount of privacy.

If the charge is 4 guineas there is nowadays a wide range of people who can afford to pay it, but as soon as it becomes 8 guineas the proportion of the working population who can afford to meet such a payment is considerably reduced. How on earth can someone earning £13 or £14 a week—the average wage at the moment—even if he is fortunate enough to continue drawing full pay when away from work, afford to pay 8 guineas a week for a private bed in a ward, or even the smaller amount required for a bed in a ward which is shared with a few others? It cannot be done.

People, realising that that is what they will have to pay if they want privacy, will go to one of the insurance companies which specialise in policies which enable this sort of charge to be met, and will start paying premiums weekly, monthly or annually, for the purpose of being able to meet a charge for an amenity bed should they have to go into hospital for treatment.

While these Regulations will bring a certain amount of extra income into the coffers of the Treasury—part of the large amount that is to be gathered in to help pay for the small amount of additional capital work that is to be carried out—the main result will be to bring in a great deal of additional money to the insurance companies which will be collecting a substantial number of extra premiums from people who will find that that is the only possible way of affording what the Government are now making a luxury but which ought not to be considered a luxury—namely, obtaining a certain amount of privacy when receiving treatment in hospital under the National Health Service.

As I have said, I cannot understand why people should want that kind of privacy. I would not want it; I should prefer to be in a general ward. But we must face the fact that some people want it and require it and should have that kind of privacy, which cannot be justified on 100 per cent. medical grounds, and, therefore, they have to be prepared to pay for it.

The charges now proposed will put that part of the National Health Service, giving a little additional privacy, completely beyond the reach of the vast majority of our people and force many thousands to go to the insurance companies, thus increasing the profits of the insurance companies; and, in my view, that is as much a reason for the new Regulations as the attracting of extra money into the coffers of the Treasury.

10.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt)

The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K Robinson), in opening this modest debate about these modest charges, said a good deal of what might be included in my speech, because he explained what is meant by Section 4 beds. I make no complaint about that. I agree with him that there is still some confusion and that there are people who do not understand what is meant by Section 4 amenity beds, and that these beds are confused at times with the Section 5 pay beds. Tonight we are clearly dealing with Section 4, and, despite the path open before me, I am not prepared to stray into the question of Section 5.

Section 4 provides for accommodation in single rooms or in small wards not for the time being needed on medical grounds for any patient. This provision is available to those who undertake to pay the charges, which are in turn designed to cover part of the cost. It dates from the inception of the National Health Service Act; that is, from 1948. Under the old hospitals scheme there was nothing precisely parallel with amenity beds as we now have them. With the introduction of the scheme in 1948 it was considered that some patients who were unable or unwilling to pay the medical fees and the full cost of accommodation as private patients would wish to have this amenity of privacy, and that they would be prepared to pay for it.

In 1948 the Regulations fixed the daily charge at 6s. for a single room and 3s. for a bed in a small ward, but the same Regulations allowed for proportionate reductions if the average daily cost per in-patient in the hospital was less than 24s. in the last financial year available. The average daily cost was defined in the 1948 Regulations in these words: …the average daily cost per in-patient of the maintenance of the hospital and the staff thereof and the maintenance and treatment of the in-patients therein; I ask hon. Members to keep that point in mind during this discussion.

In 1952 the charges were amended to 12s. and 6s. respectively. But the Regulations still provided that if the average daily cost was less than 24s. the charge should be reduced proportionately.

The present Regulation substitute 24s. for the single room and 12s. for the bed in the small ward or, alternatively, a half or a quarter respectively of the average daily in-patient cost. whichever is less. So, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said, the effect of the present Regulations is that the charge is doubled. But the proportions remain the same as in 1952. The position is that these Regulations bring the charge up to date after a period of nine years.

As I said, the principle was established in 1948 that the charge should be related to the average daily cost of an in-patient. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) asked "Why change the charges?" The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) asked "How are they worked out?" This is the answer. Since 1952, when these charges were last revised, hospital costs have increased, as every hon. Member knows. For 1961–62, these increases are approximately 70 per cent. for acute non-teaching hospital beds and 125 per cent. for psychiatric hospital beds. That is above the level known at the time when the last increase was made in 1952. This, I feel, is the argument for increasing the charges now.

Mr. Albert Roberts (Normanton)

We are dealing with a different principle, are we not? The hon. Lady must realise that she is now making the amenity bed prohibitive for the people with moderate incomes. The argument which she is putting forward is that she is aligning the cost of the amenity bed with hospital costs.

Miss Pitt

That is exactly the principle laid down in 1948 when amenity beds were introduced.

Mr. K. Robinson

The hon. Lady cannot get away with that. The fact is that the initial cost of an amenity bed was 2 guineas a week in 1948. It is now 8 guineas a week. The hon. Lady cannot argue that it has therefore kept pace with the increased cost of hospital treatment, because that has not gone up four times since 1948.

Miss Pitt

That is what I am arguing, and I was about to give the House some details of hospital costings. These figures are worth bearing in mind. In the acute non-teaching hospital for the year 1950–51—the last figures available before the change was made in 1952—the cost of a bed per week was £16 19s. 6d. For 1959–60 that cost had gone up to £25 16s. 7d. For 1961–62 the estimated figure is £29 a week. On the psychiatric side, the cost of a bed for the year 1950–51 was £3 16s. per week. For 195–60 the cost for a psychiatric bed was £7 12s. 6d. For 196–62 the estimated figure is £8 10s. I think that these figure——

Mr. Robinson

We must get this straight. These figures show that in round terms the cost has doubled. The cost of the amenity bed has quadrupled. Therefore, we cannot align the two.

Miss Pitt

These figures show that the cost has doubled since the last increase was made in 1952. They were 4 gns. a week in 1952. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is incorrect. I am talking about the period since the last increase was made in 1952.

Mr. Robinson

Would the hon. Lady give the comparable figures for when the amenity bed charges were first fixed in 1948?

Miss Pitt

I have not got the figures and I doubt whether anyone has, because there was then no such service. I do not know on what basis hon. Members opposite when they were in power in 1948 made their decision to charge 3s. and 6s. respectively, because there was then no National Health Service on which to base an average cost. I have the figures for the period which we are discussing and I am sure—[AN. HON. MEMBER: "There were hospitals then."] I am sure there were hospitals then, but they were run on a different basis. In some cases they were run by local authorities and in others by voluntary organisations.

Mr. A. Roberts

These are amenity beds provided for people with moderate incomes. It is not a question of calculating on the basis of unit costing in a hospital. The very word "amenity" means what it says. It is wrong to react in this cold, calculated way.

Miss Pitt

But the basis laid down in 1948 was that the charges should be related to the cost of providing a bed in a hospital. On the figures I have now given the House I am sure that these proposed new charges are justified.

Dr. Stross

The hon. Lady tells us—and we probably feel some sense of shame about it—that the cost of a bed in a psychiatric hospital used to be £3 15s. and that it has now doubled. Will she explain why, at the time it was £3 15s., and when the cost was rising a little, the cost of the amenity bed—which is only for amenity, carrying with it freedom of treatment, and where only privacy is being paid for—was higher than the total cost of the average bed, including everything? Will she also explain, on the figures she has given us with regard to psychiatric hospitals, why 8 guineas today is more than the cost of the average bed, including everything?

Miss Pitt

Yes. I am proposing to come to that point. I think it will help the hon. Member when I reach it.

The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North asked me about the occupancy of beds, as did the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. They were concerned that the numbers had diminished over the years. The answer to that, so far as I am able to ascertain—and I have inquired into it myself—is that over those years the general wards have been considerably improved. Furthermore, a number of wards have been split up either into cubicled or curtained accommodation. Thus, I would expect far more people to be prepared to go into the general wards, with this greater degree of privacy, than was the case in the early years of the service.

Both hon. Members also asked if I could assure them that, when amenity beds are not occupied by patients who are prepared to pay extra for the amenity of privacy, they are used for the ordinary patient. That is the case. Already they are used for the ordinary National Health Service patient who is not paying anything towards the hospital cost, if, on medical grounds, he needs privacy.

Mr. K. Robinson

The hon. Lady should go a little further than that. The priority must be for the non-paying patient who requires the bed on medical grounds.

Miss Pitt

That is so, and that is made clear by the Regulations. It is also made clear by the agreement form which the amenity patient signs. I have personal experience of cases where a person has booked to occupy an amenity bed and has had to wait because it was being used by an ordinary patient in the hospital who needed privacy on medical grounds. I also know of people in occupation of amenity beds who have been transferred to general wards because their beds were needed by people from the general wards, again on grounds of privacy.

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)rose——

Miss Pitt

I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have given way on many occasions already, and I must get on.

I said that I would come to the point which concerned the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. The costs for mental beds—or psychiatric beds, as we should call them—and mental deficiency beds work out, even today, generally between £6 10s. and £8 a week. This means that charges for psychiatric patients admitted to amenity beds, with few exceptions—and this relates only to a few isolated hospitals which provide a specialised service—will not be affected, because of the low cost of a bed. That is to say, the half principle will apply, and in the majority of cases they will not be paying any more than at present.

Furthermore, if this is not clear to hon. Members, they will be glad to learn that there will be no increase in the charges being paid by existing occupants of amenity beds. This is stated in the Regulations, and it follows the pattern of the previous Regulations. It does not affect any agreement subsisting at the date when these new Regulations come into operation.

It means that long-stay patients, people who have been in hospital for years, if they became inmates before 1952 will still be paying on the original basis of 6s. for a single-bedded ward or 3s. in the case of a two-bedded or three-bedded ward. If they became patients between 1952 and the date of the operation of this Regulation, 1st March, 1961, they will continue to pay on the basis of 12s. and 6d. respectively. I think I have shown on the figures I have given that the proposed increases are justified.

Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)

Before the hon. Lady departs from the figures in which I am very interested, I do not want to be ungallant or ungenerous, but the whole of her case which I have listened to in the last few minutes has been based on the cost of £29 a bed. I should like more information about what formula is applied, because obviously these beds are used for part of the time as amenity beds and for part of the time as general beds. How can she arrive at that average cost, which is more than in some private nursing homes?

Miss Pitt

That is correct. I think that intervention tends to show that, even by paying the proposed new maximum of 8 guineas a week, this will be very good value in comparison with a nursing home. Furthermore, it represents the true cost of the whole of the provision of that hospital and the beds available in that hospital.

I was about to conclude by saying that I think these charges are justified. I believe that the service is a reasonable provision, as the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North said. For those who occupy an amenity bed because for their own personal reasons they desire privacy, I am sure the charge is not unreasonable and it can be met and cause no hardship to people already occupying such beds. It is in accord with present-day costs. I was glad to hear the hon. Member say that this is a good service, and I hope that the House will accept the Regulations tonight.

Mr. K. Robinson

I asked the hon. Lady if she had the figures on which her Department based its estimate of £125,000.

Miss Pitt

I am sorry, I meant to answer that point. The £125,000 is the estimated increased revenue for the whole twelve months and does not reflect any diminution in the use of the service, which we expect to continue as now.

10.54 p.m

Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

The hon. Lady would not give way to me although she gave way to my hon. Friends. I am afraid I must, therefore, treat the House to a speech in order to ask about some of the figures. I do not know why the hon. Lady is so selective when she looks across to this side of the House.

I have not yet taken part in debates on the National Health Service and I do not know whether she recognises me as a fee-payer or a non-fee-payer in this context. In contradistinction to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), when I went into hospital I had an amenity bed. He is gregarious and speaks at a great speed. I do not trouble the House so often and consequently when I went to hospital, as I am not one of the more talkative hon. Members, I wanted reasonable peace and quietness. I wanted a change from this place. If I went to hospital again I should want an amenity bed, where I should not have to listen to others and could occasionally read.

I am still bothered about what the hon. Lady based her figures on. One knows one's own region. Presumably, the hon. Lady has recourse to some national statistics. She gave the figures for 1952, and then excused herself by saying that there were no statistics for 1948 on which the original figure of 2 guineas could be based. I assume, therefore, that it was either a hit-or-miss figure or it was arrived on some consideration of the average wage. I wonder where we start when we consider the appropriate figure for amenity beds.

Was the figure of £29 based upon national statistics or was it taken from the regions? One can think of hospitals where £29 would be a ridiculous figure. I suppose that the most "hospitalised" town in the country is Dartford, for certain geographical reasons, and I can think of a very big hospital there where the amenity beds are just beds off the main ward which take the normal services of the ward. From a purely administrative point of view, they cannot be said to present more difficulty for the staff or to be more expensive to run. It is no more than a matter of providing privacy for certain patients. I find the figures which the hon. Lady gave rather suspect.

I do not think the hon. Lady gave what is the expected sum to be brought in by these regulations.

Miss Pitt

The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) gave i—£125,000.

Mr. Pannell

Presumably the hon. Lady agrees with that.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

The Minister is getting the information from the Opposition.

Mr. Pannell

As my hon. Friend says, so badly are the Government briefed, they have to take their information from the Opposition. Another necessary figure is the number of amenity beds in the country. What did the hon. Lady base her £29 on? It was an average, so the number of amenity beds in the country comes into it. Does not she know?

Miss Pitt

Again, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North gave the figure. I did not wish to take the time of the House on it. Of course, if the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) does not listen to his hon. Friend, I cannot question that.

Mr. S. Silverman

I do not quite follow what the hon. Lady says. If the Government are to obtain all the information from the Opposition Front Bench, why do they not take the policy from there, too?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) is in great difficulty in giving way to two hon. Members simultaneously on different sides of the House.

Mr. Pannell

Not for the first time have I been victimised in this way, Mr. Speaker.

I find it a monstrous doctrine that, when the Opposition say this or that, the hon. Lady can be silent on the points with which she agrees and give her views only on the points where she disagrees. The Opposition are not briefed as the Government are. We have to do our homework. In fact, of course, we may well be better briefed because we are briefed from experience. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is rumbling about. We are told, simply because the Opposition have said something, that the Government need not make a statement. The Government are not usually so accommodating. On other matters they will ten—

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

The information was right, so why should it be denied?

Mr. Pannell

Of course, it was right the first time, but we expect it to be confirmed or commented on one way or the other.

Mr. Martin Maddan (Hitchin)

Earlier this afternoon, the Opposition were stressing how many hon. Members opposite would want to take part in this debate. I thought that they would be grateful to my hon. Friend for being so brief and not wasting time saying things which had been said already.

Mr. Pannell

I cannot understand what the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) is talking about. I do not know whether he understands what an amenity bed is. There are plenty of amenity beds in the House, in the interview rooms.

Dr. Stross

And all free of charge.

Mr. Pannell

I am now being interrupted by one of my hon. Friends from behind me. From my experience of these beds, I find difficulty in accepting the hon. Lady's figures. If a common figure is taken for all over the country, I cannot see that that is the sort of figure which we can accept.

The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North are good ones. It is not necessarily snobbery to want an amenity bed. Some persons have to have three weeks or a month in hospital. A diabetic patient probably needs an amenity bed. Some patients want to carry on their business and want a limited amount of freedom whilst in hospital.

Superficially it can be said that these extra charges are the least objectionable of those which the Government are imposing, but they will constitute a very real blow to those who cannot afford to pay them. The Government should deal with these matters with precision. Certain figures have been flung at our heads tonight which I have great difficulty in accepting. If we were in Committee, we should probe them and want to know what they were based on. When the hon. Lady is asked anything, she says that she did not give the figure for that because it had already been supplied by the Opposition. We are justified in criticising that attitude, because the Government are not quite so good at accepting the arguments of the Opposition. One example of their unwillingness to accept our arguments was the procedural difficulty in which we were involved this afternoon because the homework had not been done. I should have saved the House the trouble of listening to this speech if the hon. Lady had not been so selective in giving way.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)

One can take any statistics one likes, depending on the base from which one starts. The hon. Lady was very careful never to go back to the origin of the amenity bed. She stuck to her figure from the base line of 195–52. It may be true that we did not have a costing system in hospitals at the beginning of the National Health Service, but we are not unaware of what has been happening to various costs ever since. There has been an increase in labour costs, coal costs, other fuel costs, and so on. It is not difficult to "job backwards" and ask what the weekly cost of a hospital was at that time.

It is not good enough to say that one can only take the base line of 195–53 or 195–53 and not go back to the original date. The only way on which we can make a serious calculation is to base it from the time when the amenity bed system was first introduced, which was in the National Health Service Act, 1946, which came into operation in 1948.

My hon. Friends are fully justified in comparing the charges which are now to be imposed for amenity beds with the charges which were imposed on their introduction. The cost fixed when the service was introduced was what was thought at the time to be a fair charge bearing in mind not only cost, but also wages and conditions.

I also have had some experience of amenity beds. They are a great boon to some people. It is the sort of service which should be provided as cheaply as it can be. I am not sure about the costing aspect. The hon. Lady gave figures of the costs of hospital beds, but they were not the costs of amenity beds. They were the costs of all beds in a hospital.

I concede that for an extra service an extra charge may be made if it is a service which is not absolutely necessary but one which can be taken of choice. I should have thought that the extra charge should have borne some relation not to the total cost of all hospital beds, but to the average of the rise in cost of amenity beds. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) pointed out, many amenity beds are attached to wards or are on the outskirts, so to speak, of wards, so that the extra cost of running them can be only a little. Therefore, it is a little difficult to see why this imposition, which, I admit, will not affect a very large number of people, should be imposed on this small number who wish to have these beds.

Though the number may not be large, we are concerned with small minorities as well as majorities, are we not? This small number of people have been able to afford these beds. We are pushing up the charge to such an extent that, as my hon. Friends have said, fewer people will be able to afford this slight extra service. One of my hon. Friends talked of patients being forced to go to insurance companies to help pay for this service. That is only another way of imposing on the individual charges which previously were borne on the Health Service general charges.

I can only hope that we are not going to see more of this sort of thing. It seems to me that the Government are trying to reduce everybody to a dead level, or to two levels, and it rather surprises me that they of all people should: either one is very rich and can afford to pay for the lot, or one is of the general run of those who cannot afford to pay anything at all.

Instead of recouping this miserable sum to the Treasury, I would have thought that the charges should have been kept as low as possible and bear some relation both to costs and to average earnings, as when they were first introduced. The hon. Lady knows very well that the charges will be about four times what they were in the past, whereas costs have not risen anything like that.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

I have listened very carefully to this debate, and the more I have listened the more it has seemed to me that hon. Members opposite are getting into very deep water. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) said that we must accept either that one is very wealthy and can afford to pay for the lot or very poor and can pay nothing at all. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are introducing differentials into the Health Service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. They are doing just that. It does not matter whether the charge is £2 for an amenity bed or £8 for an amenity bed, what they are saying is that if a person wants to pay for the privilege of privacy he should be allowed so to do if he can afford to do so.

If we take that argument to its logical conclusion then, equally, there is nothing wrong whatever in any member of the public saying, "I do not want to deal with the Health Service. I want to deal with private consultants. I want private hospitals." And hon. Members opposite are saying, "We have nothing against that. It is perfectly right and proper." That is the logic of the arguments they have been putting forward. It is surely logical on that argument, that if a person who can afford to pay £2 for an amenity bed he should have the right of having that privacy, equally to say that a person who can pay £8 should have the privilege of so doing.

But hon. Members opposite must also remember that if their argument is correct there are many people in the Health Service who are unable to pay £2 for an amenity bed just as there are many who can afford to pay. They are creating a differential. The whole point is that the amenity beds are not available for anybody who wishes to pay for them as long as there are any persons who need them without any payment whatsoever. But that does not absolve hon. Members opposite in any way from the arguments that they have put forward in saying that if a bed is available for a person who can afford to pay for it he or she should have it.

Mr. S. Silverman

Does the hon. Member not realise that even if we granted for the sake of his argument that to have a private bed for a private payment is a kind of differential, it does not make any difference to the fact that a much greater number of people can do it at a charge of two guineas than could do it at a charge of eight guineas?

Mr. Burden

It is not my argument. I have merely used the argument that that is being put forward to illustrate the point that hon. Members opposite are saying tonight that they are in favour of a National Health Service differential for the people who can afford it.

Mr. K. Robinson

The hon. Member keeps on saying that hon. Members are saying this tonight, but the provision for Section 4 beds and pay-beds and private treatment in hospitals was written into the 1946 Act. The hon. Member has made no discovery about anything that is happening tonight.

Mr. Burden

But hon. Members have now made this perfectly clear to the nation by their arguments tonight, whereas they have kept very quiet about it in the past.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)

I have listened to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health addressing us in her previous office at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and in her present office many times. There have been occasions when she has discharged her duty with a great show of diligence, with evidence that she had done her homework, and with good humour, but tonight that was not so. Perhaps she felt that her brief did not sound very convincing. At any rate, if a Government spokesman, including a junior Minister, speaks we expect at least that the figures presented in support of the case are a reliable indication of the facts. But there is nothing in the figures which she presented tonight which suggest to me, sceptical as I am, that they can be accepted as authentic in the circumstances of the case which the hon. Lady argued.

I present the precise figures which the hon. Lady gave us, and I hope that I am not misquoting her. She took as a base year 1951 and gave a figure of £16 19s. 6d. per week as the average cost of an amenity bed in the hospitals from which the figures had been taken. She next quoted a figure of £25 16s. 7d. for 195–60. But I cannot think why she should have gone on to make a forecast of £29 for 196–61. [Interruption]. If the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) wants to say anything I am willing to give way to him if he rises, but I am addressing a serious argument to the rest of the House and to those who are challenging us but who have had the courtesy to listen to what we are saying.

Mr. C. Pannell

The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) is not awake.

Mr. Price

The thing that struck me at once as rather questionable was that when the Parliamentary Secretary entered the realms of prophecy she tried to bolster the previous figures quoted with an estimate for 196–62. No one has that figure yet. Not even the private office of the Ministry of Health has a reliable figure of the average for 196–62.

Therefore, I prefer to relate what I have to say to the figures quoted between 1951 and 1959; and that is a difference of between £16 19s. 6d. and £25 16s. 7d. which, according to my rough arithmetic, represents an increase of about 50 per cent. over a period of eight years.

The hon. Lady has tried to substantiate her argument with the cost of the pay beds by saying that it must be doubled because, on average, they are costing twice as much. Yet, on the figures which she has given—and I am entitled to disregard the estimate for 196–62 because that is purely a guess, and she is only justifying her own basis for it on logic that there should be an increase from four guineas to six guineas instead of eight guineas—she has not shown that to be the case. I will leave that point at that, because I want to speak on another aspect of this matter.

I should like to remind the hon. Lady that both she and her right hon. Friend the Minister should remember that it is not so long ago that the Prime Minister boasted in another context that the Conservatives would double the standard of living of the people within twenty-five years. We say that the right hon. Gentleman is just doubling the cost of living: he is doubling the cost of these hospital beds and they are an essential part of the cost of living for those of our people suffering from illness. It really will not do. Some of my hon. Friends, more sceptical and cynical than I, and far less charitable than I try to be on some occasions, said at the time, that, instead of doubling the standard of living, the policies of the Government would double the cost of living and that everything in this island—rates and taxes, and all sorts of things would rise. Now the cost of pay beds is being doubled.

I am entitled to remind the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson), who entertained us earlier with details of an ancient exploit which he had with one of my hon. Friends from Stoke-on-Trent during a debate in Rugby. I gathered that the hon. Gentleman came off second best, but what he did not tell us was the merits of his argument, or anything of what he said in the debate.

Dr. D. Johnson

I said precisely what the hon. Member is saying tonight, fifteen years later; he is copying my argument.

Mr. Price

Well, I was not there, and' I have seen no report of the proceedings; but at that time, most members of the medical profession, and members of the Conservative Party in the early days when the National Health Service was being canvassed in this House and throughout the country, were against it.

Mr. Speaker

These are interesting reflections, but I must warn the hon. Member that they are far beyond the issues arising on these Regulations.

Mr. Burden rose——

Mr. Price

I accept your rebuke, Mr. Speaker, for what it is wort—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, Mr. Speaker is a good natured person and has to keep order; but I was provoked by hon. Members opposite. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot give way again, because I want to address myself to another observation in our case against these Regulations.

The hon. Lady has quoted figures and says that there are rises in costs. We understand the economic circumstances to which she refers, but I should like to know why, when she refers to the averages for the cost of beds—and her figures are higher average figures than in some private nursing homes—she did not make clear whether they included general hospitals, or whether they were only for teaching hospitals, where there are all kinds of extra overhead charges which have to be borne in mind and which should not be loaded against a proposition such as this.

I do not think that the hon. Lady, in defending the Regulations, has made out her case. The case rests on completely fallacious, sketchy and unconvincing figures which could not be accepted by any responsible tribunal in the country. After all, this is the High Court of Parliament, and we should not accept this sort of slapdashery in support of propositions which are put forward for purely political reasons.

Since I have been in the Chamber—and I apologise for not having been here at the very beginning of the debate, but I have been here for most of the time—nobody has referred to the fact that when the Health Service was formulated there were serious difficulties with the specialist branch of the medical profession. They threatened a sort of stay-in strike. They were not attracted to playing any part in the Health Service. I am not arguing the case tonight—it would be wrong to do so—but it is a fact that a concession was made to obtain the co-operation of the specialist branch of the profession, in that it was agreed that a limited number of beds should be available for patients of these specialists.

That is the background of the situation. I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary whether, since we still have this pernicious and objectionable system of the private control of beds by the profession, we can have an assurance that the specialists will not abuse this system. Many of the patients who are now being sent into private nursing homes where the fees are considerably higher than the present charge may be prepared to go into the general hospitals if the charge for a private bed is increased to 8 guineas a week.

Mr. Burden

The hon. Gentleman said a short time ago that the Government were doubling the cost of these beds. In fact, they are doubling the cost of the beds only to people who can afford to pay for the privilege of having them. If people need these beds and are unable to pay for them, they are always available.

Mr. Price

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in my remarks. He at least pays me the compliment of having listened to what I have been saying. I submit that on medical grounds it is debatable whether there ought to be any sort of private beds at all. We on these benches are sceptical about the whole system. However, this is a typically British situation, because we do so many things which are quite illogical but which, nevertheless, work in a sort of pragmatic way.

May I say, in conclusion—and I have been concluding for the last five minutes; I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker for having spoken for so long—that if the upshot of these Regulations should be that a limited class of people who can afford to pay four guineas a week for privacy are to be prevented from having these beds, and they are going to be available for a different type of person who at present prefers the private nursing home system, the House ought to object to the proposal.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins (Bristol, South)

My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has managed to impart a little humour into the debate. But I must tell the House that, frankly, I cannot see anything funny about this proposal, especially when one remembers that we must look at this not as a thing apart, but as part of a scheme which the Minister of Health has introduced which attacks every branch of the Health Service. It is in that light that we have to form our judgments, and it is because of that that I believe we are abundantly right to oppose the Regulations.

It is interesting to examine the Parliamentary Secretary's estimate of the amount of money that the additional charge will bring in to the Exchequer. This afternoon we have had another debate not unlike this in some respects, because among the other items that we discussed was scientific improvements in the Royal Navy under the Navy Estimates. There we are to spend another£¾ million a year—massive increases in some directions. Yet the Minister of Health, through the Parliamentary Secretary, asks us to impose additional charges to bring in the measly sum of £125,000. Let us compare that with the figures involved in our earlier debate today.

It is astonishing that the Opposition now find themselves having to defend in the House the people whom the Conservatives have always said they represented. After all, the increased charge will not hit the working class, because they have never been able to afford the charges anyhow. They certainly will not be able to afford eight guineas a week for amenity beds now. The people who will be hit are those who like to feel that they are within what we term the middle class, of whom the Tories have always professed to be the defenders. Thus, it seems that the Conservatives are indiscriminate in the attacks they are now making upon our people. It does not matter whether they are ordinary working folk or middle class; they will all have to suffer through the actions of the Government in imposing the increased charges.

I am one who believes that amenity beds should be made available, even free of charge, to all who need them—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are"]—and people need them for various reasons. It is not always on medical grounds that they may need them. Some people need them because they are modest—or perhaps too modest; perhaps they do not like being in public. The hon. Lady said that many beds in general wards now are, technically, at any rate, private beds because they have all been screened off. My understanding of the position—I have had very close connections with a hospital with 1,000 beds or more—is that most of these improvements have been carried out not through money provided under the Health Service but through hospital amenity funds collected voluntarily.

I do not want to talk the Prayer out. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are anxious to register their protest against what we believe to be yet one more iniquitous infliction upon our people.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter)

In the limited time that remains to me before we divide, I wish to say that I agree to a very great extent with many of the points that have been made by the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins). But I could not agree with the general theme of his argument. He has been saying that he wants to wipe out the National Health Service altogether. He is saying that none of the general wards of a hospital is suitable for people who have certain illnesses and that they ought to have private rooms. That, in fact, is tantamount to saying that there is no worth-while general provision in the hospital service and that everyone should be encouraged to fend for himself and be able to provide a private room for himself whenever he goes into hospital.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 95A (Statutory Instruments, &c. (procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 158.

Division No. 107.] AYES [11.30 p.m.
Albu, Austen Gourlay, Harry Proctor, W. T.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Grey, Charles Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Awbery, Stan Hannan, William Redhead, E. C.
Baxter, William (Stlrlingshire, W.) Hayman, F. H. Reynolds, G. W.
Beaney, Alan Hilton, A. V. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Blackburn, F. Hoy, James H. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Blyton, William Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) Danner, Sir Barnett Ross, William
Bowles, Frank Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Short, Edward
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Brockway, A. Fenner Kelley, Richard Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Kenyon, Clifford Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Lawson, George Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Callaghan, James Lee, Frederick (Newton) Sorensen, R. W.
Chetwynd, George Logan, David Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Cliffe, Michael MacCoil, James Spriggs, Leslie
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Stones, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Mason, Roy Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Milian, Bruce Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Deer, George Milne, Edward J. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Delargy, Hugh Mitchison, G. R. Wainwright, Edwin
Dempsey, James Morris, John Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Diamond, John Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Wilkins, W. A.
Evans, Albert Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Willey, Frederick
Finch, Harold Parker, John (Dagenham) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Fitch, Alan Peart, Frederick Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Yale) Pentland, Norman Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Popplewell, Ernest Woof, Robert
Galpern, Sir Myer Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn) Probert, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Dr. Broughton and Mr. [for Davies
NOES
Aitken, W. T. Bishop, F. P. Bryan, Paul
Allason, James Black, 8ir Cyril Burden, F. A.
Atkins, Humphrey Bossom, Cive Butcher, Sir Herbert
Barlow, Sir John Bourne-Arton, A. Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Box, Donald Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Berkeley, Humphry Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) Boyle, Sir Edward Channon, H. P. C.
Bidgood, John C. Browne, Percy (Torrington) Chichester-Clark, R.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Iremonger, T. L. Pitt, Miss Edith
Cleaver, Leonard Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Pott, Percivall
Cooper, A. E. Jackson, John Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Prior, J. M. L.
Corfield, F. V. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Coulson, J. M. Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Proudfoot, Wilfred
Craddock, Sir Beresford Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Quennell, Miss J. M.
Gritchley, Julian Kerr, Sir Hamilton Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Cunningham, Knox Kershaw, Anthony Rees, Hugh
Curran, Charles Kirk, Peter Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Currie, G. B. H. Kitson, Timothy Roots, William
Dalkelth, Earl of Langford-Holt, J. Sharples, Richard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Leavey, J. A. Shepherd, William
de Ferranti, Basil Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Skeet, T. H. H.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
du Cann, Edward Linstead, Sir Hugh Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Duncan, Sir James Litchfield, Capt. John Stodart, J. A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Longbottom, Charles Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Loveys, Walter H. Studholme, Sir Henry
Farr, John Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Finlay, Graeme) MacArthur, Ian Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Fisher, Nigel MoLaren, Martin Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) McLean, Neil (Inverness) Temple, John M.
Freeth, Denzil MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Gammons, Lady Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Maddan, Martin Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Goodhart, Philip Maginnis, John E. Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Goodhew, Victor Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Turner, Colin
Grimston, Sir, Robert Markham, Major Sir Frank Tweedsmuir, Lady
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Marten, Neil Vane, W. M. F.
Hall, John (Wycombe) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Mawby, Ray Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Wail, Patrick
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Ward, Dame Irene
Hendry, Forbes Mills, Stratton Whitelaw William
Hiley, Joseph Montgomery, Fergus Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) More, Jasper (Ludlow) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Nabarro, Gerald Woodhouse, C. M.
Hobson, John Heave, Airey Woodnutt, Mark
Holland, Philip Noble, Michael Woollam, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Page, John (Harrow, West) Worsley, Marcus
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Hughes-Young, Michael Peel, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hulbert, Sir Norman Percival, Ian Mr. Gibson-Watt and
Hutchison, Michael Clark Pilkington, Sir Richard Mr. J. E. B. Hill.