Sitting of 24 May 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  DARTFORD TUNNEL (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Hearing Aids (Batteries)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that Scottish patients already possessing commercial aids to hearing are denied free batteries; and whether he will take steps to make them available.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. J. Robertson): I regret that the administrative difficulties involved in providing batteries for all the commercial types of hearing-aids would preclude their provision under the National Health Service.
    Colonel Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some 10 per cent. of sufferers get no benefit from the Medresco artificial aids and that some of them provided their own commercial sets and used to get funds to help in the upkeep and provision of batteries? Would it not be more economical for the country to provide batteries for a set which gives satisfaction rather than force the sufferer to get a completely new set which does not give satisfaction and costs more?
    Mr. Robertson: There is no evidence that the Medresco set is unsatisfactory. As I have indicated, there would be considerable administrative difficulties in setting up machinery by which the hospitals were compelled to supply batteries.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my hon. Friend say what the administrative difficulties are? Does he realise that there is a great shortage of these batteries in the North-east of Scotland and will he see that this is rectified?
    Colonel Hutchison: Would the hon. Gentleman like me to send him official statistical figures of those who have tried the Medresco set without benefit but who receive benefit from other sets?
    Mr. Robertson: We shall be glad to have evidence on which to base that assertion.

    Dean of Guild, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if in view of the fact that the office of Dean of Guild fills ex-officio a seat in Aberdeen Town Council without being elected to it, he will abolish the ex-officio right of the Dean of Guild to sit as a member of the town council there.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): As my right hon. Friend indicated in reply to Questions on 17th May, he is looking into the whole question of the Dean of Guild and cannot at present make any statement.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: The Secretary of State stated last Tuesday that he was looking into the whole affair with regard to Glasgow. Will his investigations include other towns and cities in Scotland, particularly Aberdeen, which are affected by this?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. John Henderson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Dean of Guild of Aberdeen represents very important interests in that city and that he and his predecessors holding this high office have given the utmost satisfaction and have received the greatest admiration from the citizens of Aberdeen? Is it not the case that the hon. and learned Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) who is a Welshman, seems to be quite incapable of appreciating the historical past of that city?
    Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to make a mis-statement about my nationality?
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot say that it is out of Order. I do not like personal taunts myself, but it is not out of Order.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware that the only Royal Commission which has inquired into this matter recommended in 1834 that this anomalous office "should now be abolished"? Does he not agree that recent happenings in Glasgow have strengthened that recommendation?
    Mr. Carmichael: Can my hon. Friend give an indication when the Secretary of State is likely to report to the House on this matter?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: To come back to the original Question, may we assume that the Aberdeen Dean of Guild is a Conservative?
    Mr. Fraser: I am not prepared to make any assumption but, as I have already indicated, my right hon. Friend promised a week ago to look into the whole question, which is one of very considerable complexity and I am sorry that I cannot say when he will be able to make a statement.

    Development Rights (Claims)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many claims, to the nearest convenient date, have been received by the Central Land Board from property owners; and what steps are being taken to make them aware of their entitlement to compensation for loss of development rights.
    Mr. Robertson: Up to 20th May, 7,728 claims had been received. Since the middle of June last year, a fortnight before the appointed day, the Central Land Board have given continuous publicity to the need for claiming on the £300 million by announcements and advertisements in all sections of the Press, by broadcast, by poster, and by pamphlets available at local authority offices. The Press has been particularly helpful recently on the need to send in claims before 30th June.
    Mr. Rankin: Could my hon. Friend say how the numbers of claims made compare with the numbers that were anticipated? Is he further aware that small property owners are in considerable doubt as to their position, and will he see if he can clarify it for them?
    Mr. Robertson: I cannot agree that there is widespread doubt as to the necessity of making the claims before 30th June. I may add that as a result of the increased publicity last week 34,000 additional claims for forms came forward.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Can my hon. Friend explain why it is necessary that before form S.I. 1 is returned it must be filled in by a surveyor or a legal man? Is it not putting the property owner to a great deal of expense to insist on this?
    Mr. Robertson: I think my hon. Friend is slightly misinformed on that point. The original claims can be submitted by the applicant without the necessity for legal advice.
    Mrs. Mann: I have a form in my possession at the moment—[An HON. MEMBER: "Property owner!"]—I cannot fill it in without sending it to a lawyer or surveyor.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend give an answer to the second point in my supplementary question, as to the number of claims anticipated? Is he aware that small property owners have been assured that under the Act they have no claim whatsoever? That has been broadcast.

    Hospital Employee, Castle Douglas
    Mr. McKieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Mr. Robert Hogg who was employed for 27 years as caretaker and gardener at Castle Douglas and District Hospital has been refused a pension by the Department of Health for Scotland who have dismissed him on the ground of ill-health; and if he will give this decision reconsideration in view of the fact that the old hospital board proposed to give Mr. Hogg a pension of £52 per annum which proposal was departed from on the passing of the Health Service (Scotland) Act in 1947, on the ground that as a new governing body would take over the board's responsibilities the question of a pension should properly be left to them.
    Mr. Robertson: No, Sir. Mr. Hogg worked on a jobbing basis, and the old board had contemplated replacing him—as the new board have done—by a full-time employee. But the records show that the old board declined to accept a recommendation that he should receive a

    1031
    pension. Moreover, they took no steps to reverse this decision before July, 1948, although they were invited to declare their intentions regarding pensions for their employees; and there is no record of any employee of the hospital ever having received a gratuitous pension.
    Mr. McKie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable local feeling about this man, who has given 20 years' loyal service, and that it is regarded as one of the worst illustrations of the callous operation of State Socialism?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree, in view of what my hon. Friend has said, that there is a degree of doubt about this? Should it not be looked into again in order to allay public suspicion, even if it is not correct?
    Mr. Robertson: I think the information of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) is not complete, especially on the latter point he made, but if he has any evidence in his possession to show that our information in inaccurate, I shall be glad to reconsider it.
    Mr. McKie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that undertaking, and I certainly will bring it to his notice. May I ask if he is aware that the information was supplied to me by members of the board in question?

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    Artificial Limbs
    Lord Willoughby de Eresbyasked the Minister of Pensions the numbers of suction socket artificial legs now under trial by selected legless patients; for how long the trials have been proceeding; and when the suction socket limb is likely to be put on the approved list for general issue to all war pensioners to whom they would prove advantageous.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): About 50 patients have been wearing artificial legs fitted with suction sockets for varying periods ranging up to about two years. As a result of observations made during these trials a number of modifications have been made, especially in connection with the valve. A supply of the improved valves has just been received and I now intend to ask a number of limbmakers throughout the country to fit suction sockets to their particular
    1032
    make of legs for trial by not less than another 100 patients.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that these trials have been going on for some time now, and that certain hopes have been held out to the limbless that this may be a much improved limb, if he can give any definite information at a near date whether these limbs are likely to be approved or not, anyhow in principle?
    Mr. Marquand: The trials have been satisfactory so far, but it has been possible during this period of trial to make sundry improvements, and we naturally wish to issue the limb generally only when we are satisfied that every possible improvement has been made. I would not like to commit myself to a definite date at this moment.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresbyasked the Minister of Pensions how many mechanical hands, and types of hands, are undergoing trials by selected armless patients; for how long the trials have been proceeding; and when the mechanical hands are likely to be made available to all armless war pensioners.
    Mr. Marquand: Six mechanical hands of one type have undergone trials by selected amputees since April of last year, and reports are now available for consideration by the Standing Advisory Committee on artificial limbs at their next meeting which will probably be held late next month. Another type of mechanical hand has now been produced and is at present being tested. If the Standing Advisory Committee are satisfied with the performance of either or both of these types of mechanical hand, they will be made available to all disabled war pensioners and National Health Service patients for whom they are suitable.

    Widows
    Lord Willoughby de Eresbyasked the Minister of Pensions what are the provisions available for the widows of totally disabled and unemployable ex-Service men in cases where his Department cannot award a widow's pension, and there is no entitlement to a pension under National Insurance because of the man's inability to contribute by reason of his extreme disablement and unemployability.
    Mr. Marquand: I have no power to award a pension to the widow of a war pensioner whose death was not in any way related to the effects of his war service. I understand from my right hon. Friend, the Minister of National Insurance, that though a widow's pension can be awarded under the National Insurance Act only if the necessary contribution conditions are satisfied, he is prepared to review the circumstances of any case which the hon. Member has in mind to see if the insurance conditions can be regarded as satisfied. As I said in the course of the Debate on 26th April last, however, a widow who is ineligible for either pension may, if she is in need obtain assistance from the National Assistance Board.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Could not my right hon. Friend go a little further and produce some definite regulations on this point, in view of the fact that it is the general wish of everyone in the country that the widow of a man who is 100 per cent. disabled and disqualified from coming under the provisions of the National Insurance scheme should not have to go to the National Assistance Board when her husband dies?
    Mr. Marquand: As I said recently, we have made one advance in abolishing the distinction which existed previously between a death hastened by, and a death caused by war service. At the moment the number of cases coming forward of the type which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is comparatively few, and I have no evidence to show that if they go to the Assistance Board they are not received in a most sympathetic way.

    Benefits (Minister's Letter)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Pensions what the response has been to the personal letter and leaflet he sent to pensioners informing them of the benefits to which they were entitled.
    Mr. Marquand: The response to my letter to pensioners has been gratifying. I estimate that about 80,000 letters or interviews have so far resulted. In a substantial proportion of these cases, I have been able to help the pensioners in one way or another.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is my right hon. Friend now satisfied that everything is being
    1034
    done to bring to the notice of pensioners many improvements which have taken place in the last few years, and is his Department able to cope with the tremendous increase which has come about through this?
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I can think of no other way now that remains by which we could make it better known. A letter to every individual plus a good deal of publicity in the newspapers, has, I think, brought it home to every pensioner. As for coping with the work, the consequence, of course, has been a certain delay here and there in answering every letter, but we are over the peak and I think we have done quite well.
    Mr. Symonds: Would my right hon. Friend consider making a small stock of the leaflet available to the various voluntary organisations open to ex-Service men, so that should an ex-Service man lose, or fail to receive through the post, his own personal copy, he will have no difficulty in getting one locally.
    Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. I thank the hon. Member for that suggestion, and I will adopt it with pleasure.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Tank Exercises, Merioneth (Damage)
    Mr. Emrys Robertsasked the Secretary of State for War why three heavy tanks from Trawsfynydd Camp, Merioneth, were recently driven over neighbouring roads and bridges which were too narrow for them, causing serious damage to roads, bridges, walls and ditches; why the tanks were driven through a boundary wall on to private agricultural land; and why tank exercises were then carried out on this land without any permission having been obtained or any explanation being given.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Three tanks were moved by transporters from Chester to Trawsfynydd to ascertain whether the area was suitable for tank training. A transporter on the route, which had been previously reconnoitred, had difficulty in negotiating two very sharp bends and blocked the road. While endeavouring to clear it damage was caused to the wall of a bridge. Because of this, the other two

    1035
    transporters were re-routed but these unfortunately also got into difficulties and caused damage to the road and a wall. Owing to a misunderstanding, one tank did go a short distance outside the boundary of War Department land but returned almost immediately and caused no damage to wall or fences. Apart from this no tank exercises were carried out on private agricultural land.
    Mr. Roberts: Does not the Minister agree that the experience of these three tanks with their transporters, which local people believe weighed over 100 tons apiece, shows that this area is totally unfitted for the type of training which the War Office proposes should take place there?
    Mr. Shinwell: I think not.

    Land Requirements, Scotland
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War to what extent it is his practice to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland before he acquires for the use of his Department land needed for food production.
    Mr. Shinwell: In accordance with the White Paper on needs of the Armed Forces for land for training and other purposes it is the policy of my Department to consult with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland before land is acquired.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask the Minister if, when he consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland about the acquirement of the lease of the land near Lanark, he was informed that 24,000 gallons of milk and 100,000 rations of meat a year would be lost as a result of this action?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of that, but no doubt I acquired all the relevant information.
    Mr. James Stuart: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Secretary of State for Scotland is satisfied about the proposed acquisition of farming land in Morayshire?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is another Question on that.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an alternative to the large area of productive land
    1036
    recently acquired in Morayshire; a large area of moorland, which could be equally well used for the same purpose?
    Mr. Gallacher: I should like to ask the Minister if the Secretary of State for Scotland is free to refuse him the right to come into Scotland and occupy land for this purpose, or whether the Minister is able to force his will upon the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there were a Secretary of State for Wales, he would tell him how to avoid getting his tanks into difficulties?
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War how many acres of land he is acquiring in Morayshire; how many families are to be removed from their farms; and if he has consulted the Departments concerned as to the effect such action is likely to have on food production.
    Mr. Shinwell: We propose to use for training some 330 acres in Morayshire, which is not expected to lead to any families moving from their farms. The Departments of Health and Agriculture for Scotland have agreed to these proposals. There is a further military requirement for about 2,500 acres of land in the county for use as a week-end training centre. My Department have made a reconnaissance with the Departments of Health and Agriculture for Scotland, with a view to finding a suitable training area. No firm proposals have yet been made.
    Mr. J. Stuart: In view of the fact that this matter affects my constituents very deeply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider representations, if made to him, about using other land in the vicinity which would be less disturbing to food production and to the people living and working there?
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, certainly.

    Huts, Stanmore
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for War how many unauthorised families are still occupying huts belonging to his Department on land at Kestrel Grove, Stanmore; for what purpose his Department intend to use the site; and when it is intended to begin work on it.
    Mr. Shinwell: Six unauthorised families are occupying huts belonging to my Department at Kestrel Grove, Stanmore. The site will be used to provide a permanent part of a large headquarters, replacing a property now held on requisition. I am not yet able to say when work will begin.
    Mr. Gallacher: What is an "unauthorised family"?

    Personal Case
    Mr. Odeyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the wife of Staff Sergeant Mills of 32 (EA) MP and DB, P.O. Box 3017, Mombasa, Kenya, has been refused a public passage from Durban, where she now is, to Mombasa, unless she returns to the United Kingdom first, although this will involve extra cost both to Staff Sergeant Mills, and to his Department; and what steps he proposes to take to rectify this situation.
    Mr. Shinwell: Staff Sergeant Mills' application for a public passage for his family from Durban to Mombasa has been under consideration in the War Office and no reply has yet been sent. He may, however, have been told by the local military authorities in East Africa that he is ineligible for such a passage as, in fact, he is. The grant of family passages is for the purpose of enabling families to be united for as long a period as is reasonably possible. It follows that entitlement to a passage at public expense is only recognised between the stations to which a soldier may be posted. If a family goes by private arrangement to some other place overseas it must find its way at private expense direct to the husband's duty station or to the United Kingdom or alternatively to some point on the normal passage route to the husband's duty station either from the United Kingdom or from his previous station, at which the ship can pick up the family.
    Mr. Odey: Would not the Minister agree that it is quite absurd to bring the wife of Staff Sergeant Mills home to this country in order to send her to Mombasa?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are not responsible for bringing her home to this country. If she wishes to return to this country that is a matter that suits her own convenience.

    Trooping Voyages (Landing Facilities)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War (1) at what Empire posts between Great Britain and Hong Kong formed bodies of troops are permitted to land for the purpose of exercise; in which cases landing charges are made; and from what source these are met;
    (2) if, in the interests of health and efficiency, he will amend the regulations which forbid the landing of formed bodies of troops at Aden for exercise during trooping voyages to the Far East.
    Mr. Shinwell: The only point on Commonwealth territory at which formed bodies of troops are allowed to land for the purpose of exercise on the voyage from the United Kingdom to Hong Kong is Colombo. Landings are, however, also allowed for this purpose at Port Said. At both these places landing charges are made, but these charges are met from public funds. Voyage regulations generally are under review at present.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why Aden, which presumably is still to be considered under British jurisdiction, does not give these facilities, as that is a very suitable point in a long voyage, whereas actually when such arrangements are made by commanding officers on their own initiative they have, I understand, to pay the cost from regimental funds?
    Mr. Shinwell: The question of whether Aden should be used for this purpose will come under review in the general examination.

    Forces, Hong Kong
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to avoid sending commissioned officers and men again to Hong Kong who suffered at the hands of the Japanese in prison camps following capture in Hong Kong by the Japanese during the recent war, since some of these men are still suffering from the effects of their long internment; and if he will have any such cases already brought to his notice looked into.
    Mr. Shinwell: From the end of the war until August, 1947, no officers or men who had been prisoners of war in Japanese hands were sent to the Far

    1039
    East. Since that date there has been no such general restriction, nor do I think it is necessary to impose such a restriction as soldiers put under orders for the Far East are, of course, medically examined to ensure that they are fit for service there.
    Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend realise that long exposure to the brutalities of the Japanese during the war has well nigh permanently affected some of these men by the terms they served in prison camps and under forced labour schemes? Does he not think it inadvisable to add to their sufferings by sending them out again to renew their acquaintance with the scenes of their previous tortures?
    Mr. Shinwell: If they have been adversely affected by their experience, I think that would be ascertained in their medical examinations.

    Transport Vehicles, Tripoli
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War what action he has been able to take following on the information recently put before this House as to the condition of equipment and transport vehicles in possession of the British troops in Tripoli; and whether he can give an assurance that these are now in all respects in a serviceable state.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware of the information to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. In common with the rest of the Army, units in the Middle East have been maintained on wartime stocks of vehicles so as to reduce demands on the civil production programme. These units will be supplied with a large proportion of the vehicles which are expected to be delivered from the large scale programme for the rebuilding of vehicles now in progress.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only are our equipment and vehicles in bad order at this station, due to fair wear and tear, but that also there are deficiencies in equipment and even of paint necessary to put them into some sort of decent order? Will he accelerate the provision of spare parts and paint?
    Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be in possession of
    1040
    information not available to me. In those exceptional circumstances, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have the information.
    Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the disturbed state of affairs there has been in Tripolitania recently, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make sure that all available equipment is of the best?
    Mr. Shinwell: We always try to provide what is the best, and as far as I know, that is precisely what is done.

    Rations
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War the amount of the daily ration of food granted to every soldier at home and abroad, respectively.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am sending the hon. and gallant Member this information.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ration, both at home and abroad, prior to the war was ¾ 1b. of meat and 1 1b. of bread per day, per man? Is not the present ration very much less than that and definitely insufficient to keep young men in the high physical condition necessary?
    Mr. Shinwell: According to our information the physical condition of the men is excellent.

    Middle East Forces (Home Leave)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the reintroduction of home leave for men serving three years in the Middle East Land Forces and if air transport will be used for this purpose where adequate shipping is not available.
    Mr. Shinwell: There is no intention of re-introducing a period of home leave during a normal tour of service in the Middle East Land Forces which is at present three to three and a half years.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is considerable discontent at this decision in view of the home leave given to Forces sent abroad but to places nearer to this country?
    Mr. Shinwell: Naturally there is a distinction, due to transport difficulties and

    1041
    other circumstances, between the troops in North-West Europe and those in the Middle East.

    Fever Cases, East Africa
    Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the deaths by suspected typhoid fever of two British soldiers at Mackinnon Road Depot, East Africa; and on what date these men were last inoculated against typhoid.
    Mr. Shinwell: Thirteen cases of fever which clinically resembles enteric have been reported. I regret to say that two of the cases were fatal and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with the relatives. The local military authorities are taking all proper steps to control the outbreak. I have called for a full report and will communicate to the hon. Member as soon as possible the information requested in the last part of the Question.
    Mr. Gammans: Would it be advisable for the right hon. Gentleman not merely to communicate with me, but to make a public statement on this subject, in view of the fact that otherwise people may be extremely worried about the conditions in this camp and begin to doubt the efficacy of inoculation against enteric?
    Mr. Shinwell: The courtesy I desire to extend to the hon. Member, can be extended to all hon. Members.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what doctors are available at Mackinnon Road Depot?
    Mr. Shinwell: Not without notice.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY

    Wage Allowances
    Colonel Stoddart-Scottasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that not all men who volunteer for the Territorial Army have their wages made up by their firms when they attend the summer camps and, in view of the need for recruits, what steps does he intend to take to rectify this situation which is acting as a deterrent to prospective recruits.
    Mr. Shinwell: As has been indicated on many occasions, it is hoped that all employers who can will make up the difference between civil and Army pay, in
    1042
    cases where the former is higher, for employees who attend camp as volunteer members of the Territorial Army. I do not, however, consider that it would be desirable to attempt to use compulsion in this matter.
    Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Is not the Minister wrong in putting the onus upon employers of labour? After all, this House has voted £700 million for Defence, and out of that sum could not the right hon. Gentleman ensure that these men are not at a disadvantage when they go to camp?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is no question of putting any onus on anybody. It is a question of responsibility, which we all share.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would not the best encouragement be that all Government Departments and local authorities should set the example in carrying out that policy?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely what they have done. Every Government Department has agreed to provide leave with pay; so have many of the nationalised industries. Where they have not yet agreed, the matter is under consideration. As regards municipal authorities, so far as I know there are no exceptions to the rule.
    General Sir George Jeffreys: Is it not the case that the Government Departments who grant leave with pay do so at the expense of the taxpayers, and is there any reason why private employers should not similarly be able to give these men their pay at the expense of the taxpayers?
    Mr. Shinwell: The Government have accorded this privilege and it is working quite satisfactorily. If employers are prepared to do as Government Departments are doing, very well; but if they are not prepared to do so, then we must suffer.
    Mr. Speaker: This Question dealt with firms and not with Government Departments, I think.

    Rifle Range, Horncastle
    Commander Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for War why he has appointed a full-time warden for the miniature rifle range at Horncastle, Lincolnshire.
    Mr. Shinwell: The range at Horncastle is a 400 yard range with a miniature range attached. The warden was appointed by the local military authorities to keep it in good condition and prepare for firing practice. I am, however, investigating whether this can be done in some more economical way.
    Commander Maitland: Is the Minister aware that there was no warden before the war, and will he ensure that economy is made in this matter?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely what I wish to investigate.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    Rehousing (New Towns)
    Captain John Crowderasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning how soon he estimates that some 6,000 applicants for houses in the Finchley area, for whom the borough council will not be able to find accommodation, can be rehoused in one of the new or expanded towns.
    The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): The rehousing of the excess population of the inner London authorities depends upon the building of the new and expanded towns, and the rate at which this can take place depends on general housing policy and on the overall investment programme. Detailed arrangements for associating particular new towns with particular congested areas are under consideration, and the claims of Finchley will be taken into account; but I am unable to say when their total needs will be met.
    Captain Crowder: Is the Minister aware that an important officer in his Department wrote to the town clerk last October saying that he would give a detailed reply as to how these people could be re-housed very early this year? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when some answer, or further letter, will be sent by his Department to the borough council?
    Mr. Silkin: This is under active consideration and I hope it will not be long before a reply can be given.
    Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether particular
    1044
    new towns, or parts of new towns, are being allocated to particular boroughs or areas in central London?
    Mr. Silkin: That is the point of the examination. I think it will be done in part, but it might be a mistake to allocate the whole of a new town to a number of particular authorities.

    Gravel Workings, Lea Valley
    Mrs. Leah Manningasked the Minister of Town and Country Planing (1) what conditions he proposes to lay down in connection with the request of the St. Albans Sand and Gravel Company for permission to develop further gravel diggings in the vicinity of the Lea Valley tomato and cucumber industries; and, in particular, if one of these conditions will be excavation by means of wet grabs;
    (2) when he expects to announce the result of the inquiry, held in January of this year, into the application of the St. Albans Sand and Gravel Co. to extract gravel dry from pits in the vicinity of the Lea Valley tomato and cucumber glass houses.
    Mr. Silkin: My decision to allow a limited form of wet working by the St. Albans Sand and Gravel Company at Nazeing was issued yesterday. As the decision letter is somewhat long and detailed, with my hon. Friend's permission I am sending her a copy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is issuing a licence limiting the amount by which the subsoil water level may be lowered.
    Mrs. Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this long delay has very well suited this company, since they have been pumping from their old pits and, although they gave eight million gallons of water as the estimate, they have been pumping 12 million gallons from their old pits, the subsidence of the houses is increasing, and tomato growers have not the water necessary for heavy waterings at this time of the year?
    Mr. Silkin: I can assure my hon. Friend that such delay as has occurred was not for the benefit of the applicants. All the other facts will be taken into account in arriving at a decision.
    Mrs. Manning: May I ask my hon. Friend why he has given this facility to this particular company, and why, while

    1045
    every other new company in the area has had to observe the three directives he gave to gravel diggers, this company has not had to observe them?
    Mr. Silkin: I think my hon. Friend ought to read the letter giving the decisions.

    Churchyards (Headstones)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware of the threat to the beauty of English churchyards from black stove-enamelled headstones and other monuments devised in stone or marble imported from abroad; and what action he proposes to stop their erection.
    Mr. Silkin: I am quite content to leave this matter to the judgment of the church authorities concerned, and I would deprecate any attempt to use the powers of the Act to interfere in a matter where personal feelings may be so deeply and intimately concerned.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: As I am sure my right hon. Friend would be one of the first to turn in his grave if one of these headstones was put up to his memory, will he make personal representations to the Church authorities to enforce the regulations and to use such facilities as are available to them to prevent the widespread desecration of the countryside by the erection of these headstones?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not think I should interfere.
    Mr. Keeling: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be well for his hon. Friend to name the dioceses he has in mind, so that the diocesans, chancellors and incumbents may be aroused to their rights and responsibilities, if they are not already alive to them?

    Ironstone Workings
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will make a statement as to the rate of progress of ironstone excavations in the Kettering rural district; and when he proposes to impose conditions to insure the restoration of the land.
    Mr. Silkin: Excavation is progressing at about 150 acres a year. In reply to
    1046
    the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the concluding paragraph of the reply which I gave him on 31st January. I am not yet able to add anything to that reply.
    Mr. Mitchison: Can the Minister give no idea of when he thinks he will be imposing restrictions ensuring restoration?
    Mr. Silkin: We are imposing restrictions as we go along, but that is not the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the ever increasing rate with which this despoliation is taking place owing to the increased size of machinery? Is he aware that it is quite easy, if properly organised, to replace the top soil, and that though it costs more, it ought to be done?
    Mr. Silkin: It is not so simple as my hon. Friend imagines. It does involve the provision of very heavy and expensive machinery.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of imposing restrictions as he goes along. Is he taking any action with a view to the restoration of the land already excavated?
    Mr. Silkin: I have no power. That land was excavated at a time when there was no planning control. I have no power to impose conditions in regard to what was done before planning control came into effect.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is it not the case that a great deal has been excavated since there has been planning control?
    Mr. Mitchison: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that this excavation is going on without any conditions to ensure restoration? Does he realise that this is an urgent matter and that it is provoking a great deal of well justified feeling and apprehension in the whole of Northamptonshire? Cannot my right hon. Friend give us some idea of when these conditions will be imposed?
    Mr. Silkin: My hon. and learned Friend really ought to understand the position. A good deal of work is going on today as a result of the fact that there were no restrictions until about two years ago. It is possible to impose conditions as regards any new excavations.
    Mrs. Manning: Then why does not my right hon. Friend do so?
    Mr. Silkin: That is not what I am asked in the Question, but in fact we do impose conditions on new workings. The difficulty that arises, and the difficulty inherent in that question arises, from those workings which were begun before control was effective, and I am powerless as regards them.
    Mr. Mitchison: Does not my right hon. Friend recollect that he told the House that workings were proceeding at present over a large area without any conditions ensuring restoration, and when will such conditions be imposed.
    Mr. Silkin: That is exactly the question which I am answering. The workings which are taking place without conditions are those which were begun before planning control came into effect, and I have no power in regard to them. I hope that it may be possible to make some agreement about them, but they are not affected by the planning control.
    Mr. Mitchison: What about the present excavations to which the Minister has just referred? Cannot some conditions be imposed as regards them as well as excavations in the immediate future?
    Mr. Silkin: That is just the Question that I am answering. I take it that the present excavations are the work which is going on as a result of mineral workings which were started before planning control came into effect. As regards any new workings, conditions are imposed.
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning on what dates since 3rd February, 1949, the Standing Conference on Ironstone in the Midland Field has met; with what results; and when he expects a report.
    Mr. Silkin: Meetings were held on 17th March and 28th April. Working parties were set up at those meetings to consider certain special aspects of the problem, and reports from some of these working parties have been discussed. I cannot say when the Conference will be able to reach considered conclusions.
    Mr. Mitchison: Will the Minister consider the advisability of publishing some of the proceedings and some of the results emanating from this standing conference?
    Mr. Silkin: I do not see much value in publishing partial discussions until decisions have been reached.
    Mr. Stokes: Will this conference report to my right hon. Friend on the advisability of making regulations to stop the existing workings continuing in the absence of replacement of the top soil? Are they making any report on that point?
    Mr. Silkin: They are being asked to report on future workings.
    Mr. Stokes: But future workings and present workings are the same. They go on for years and years.
    Mr. Mitchisonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what are his reasons for proposing to set up a second and parallel Standing Conference on Ironstone in the Midland Field; and what purpose the body will serve.
    Mr. Silkin: These discussions are to enable me to have advice from the interests concerned in the industry on problems relating to development plans, restoration of worked-out land and so on. Because it was impossible to persuade the producers and the royalty owners to sit down together we are obliged to have separate discussions with both sides. My Regional Controller is in charge of both discussions.
    Mr. Mitchison: Is it called by the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary a parallel conference because it never meets the other one?
    Mr. Silkin: They do in fact meet under the chairmanship of the Regional Controller.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that proceedings will not be projected into infinity?

  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Pensionable Age
    Mr. John Patonasked the Minister of National Insurance the numbers of men and women, respectively, insured persons who, although beyond retiral age on 5th April, 1949, were continuing in full employment.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The latest information indicates that of all insured persons reaching pensionable age who could have qualified for retirement pension, about 64 per cent. of the men and 50 per cent. of the women continue in employment.
    Mr. Paton: Are these percentages more or less stationary or are they showing a tendency progressively to increase?
    Mr. Griffiths: These percentages apply to an inquiry which we made a few months ago. Another inquiry is in progress as a result of which we shall have more information about the operation of the new Act. I hope to have these figures available in a few weeks' time.

    Supplementary Allowances
    Mr. Patonasked the Minister of National Insurance the numbers of men and women, respectively, in receipt of retirement pensions on 5th April, 1949, who were receiving supplementary allowances on the maximum scale.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Supplementary grants made by the National Assistance Board vary according to need and there is no figure which could properly be described as a maximum grant. I regret therefore that I am unable to give the information for which my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. Paton: Is it not the case that there are maximum scales and an uppermost limit which can be granted by the National Assistance Board, and since those limits are applied to people without resources is my right hon. Friend satisfied that existing scales, which were fixed at a time when the cost of living was six points lower than it is now, are satisfactory in existing circumstances?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am not sure that my hon. Friend's figures are correct. The existing scales were fixed last July, and represented a substantial advance on the previous scales.

    Ships' Officers (Holiday Periods)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that his regulations treat a ship's captain who goes on a legitimate and agreed temporary holiday as an unemployed person; and as this practice inflicts
    1050
    hardship and injustice on such captains, if he will amend his regulations in this respect.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Liability to pay contributions during holidays varies according to the circumstances, and I should want to know all the particulars before I could say what the position is in a particular case. If my hon. Friend has a case in mind and cares to let me have the details, I will look into it.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend recollect the case of Captain David Baxter of Footdee, Aberdeen, about which I have had some correspondence with his Department? Will he address his mind to that case with a view to giving me a satisfactory answer?
    Mr. Griffiths: I will look at the case again and reply again to my hon. and learned Friend.

    BROADCASTING (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY)
    Mr. Cooperasked the Lord President of the Council what are the qualifications of the members of the Radcliffe Committee which caused them to be appointed to investigate the affairs of the British Broadcasting Corporation, other than those who are Members of Parliament.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): What was needed for this purpose was a committee not of specialists, but rather of persons of broad approach and a capacity for balanced judgment. All the members were chosen because of experience and personal qualities which fitted them to serve on this important inquiry.
    Mr. Cooper: In view of the recently disclosed food irregularities which the B.B.C. is now investigating at several of its 52 canteens, which automatically call into question the system of internal auditing and accounting, will my right hon. Friend consider adding to the Committee a qualified accountant so that these matters may be considered by an independent expert in accountancy on the Committee?
    Mr. Morrison: I do not think so. It would be a legitimate subject for inquiry by the Committee, but I should think that

    1051
    if they consider that they need accountancy assistance some arrangement could be made to that end.
    Mrs. Manning: Is there a panel of people who are permanent "sitters-in" to Government Committees?
    Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. But if there was such a panel my hon. Friend would, of course, be eligible to make application to be included in it.
    Mr. Carmichael: In view of the fact that the Committee has been elected because of qualifications, may I ask the Lord President if he will consider the appointment of some additional member from Scotland, other than the Earl of Elgin, because in my view the people of Scotland cannot be properly represented by the Earl of Elgin.
    Mr. Morrison: Scotland is not represented as such. I sought to get a committee which was broadly representative of the general life of the nation. If I may say so, I deprecate these over-localisations in relation to the personal criticism of individuals.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Palmerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in taking to the courts the refusal of some manufacturers of model aircraft accessories to charge Purchase Tax on goods sold to the public under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1948, which delay is placing firms which accept the Treasury interpretation of the law at a disadvantage in relation to their competitors.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): It has been necessary to agree a comprehensive list of the products of the industry to be made the subject of this "test" action. Agreement has now been reached and a Declaratory Judgment of the High Court will be sought in the near future.

    Tax Repayment (Legal Decision)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now come to a conclusion on the observations
    1052
    of Mr. Justice Vaisey on 16th March in Sebel Products Limited v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise; and whether he will indicate his future policy with regard to the retention by the Crown of tax paid under mistake of law.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. The judge expressed the view that there was no reason why, in appropriate cases, the Crown should not refuse to repay money paid voluntarily under a mistake of law, but gave his reasons for thinking that it was a defence that ought to be used by a Government Department with great discretion. The Government endorse this view, which indeed accords with the practice generally followed by Departments in the past, and the Treasury is issuing a circular to ensure that the practice of Departments continues to conform with it in the future.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman review the collection by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise of Purchase Tax on car radios, which was collected without any statutory sanction whatsoever? Will he see that that question is reviewed in due course?
    Sir S. Cripps: I do not think it is necessary to review that again. As the hon. Member knows, it was reviewed many times.

    Gold Payments (Switzerland)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts of gold have been paid to Switzerland under the Anglo-Swiss Payments Agreement in 1949.
    Sir S. Cripps: £4,575,000 to date.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As this drain on gold arises from the temporary movement of sterling, due to people purchasing Swiss francs for their holidays, would not it be right and proper to offer to modify the Anglo-Swiss Agreement so that the immediate balance was not taken into account, but purely the final balance over a period of time?
    Sir S. Cripps: Unfortunately an agreement requires the consent of two parties.

    Belgian Exports (Sterling Payments)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the

    1053
    recent decision of the Belgian Government that Belgian exports to certain countries outside the sterling area can be paid for in sterling will, under the terms of the Anglo-Belgian Payments Agreement, entail any loss of gold to this country.
    Sir S. Cripps: Our present arrangements with Belgium provide for a limited amount of sterling transfers from third countries. These transfers do, of course, add to the amount of the deficit which has to be settled in gold. The arrangements expire on 30th June next.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether in all cases this sterling comes from current accounts and not through releases from blocked sterling balances.
    Sir S. Cripps: It all comes from current trade.

    Income Tax (Allowances)
    Colonel Hutchisonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since many individuals do not understand what claims they are entitled to set against their taxation, he will have printed prominently on each Income Tax notice words drawing attention to the fact that there is at every taxation office an adviser who will advise on what they are entitled to claim in order to reduce their tax where justified.
    Sir S. Cripps: Every taxpayer is given a simple statement—with both his return form and his coding notice—which explains the allowances and reliefs available to him. Also the return form, the coding notice and the assessment notice invite him to call at the tax office if he wants any information. I do not think any extension of these arrangements is necessary.
    Colonel Hutchison: While I agree that a great deal of information and explanation is given on the notices, much of which is very difficult to understand, would it not be helpful if there was added to this form a notice reminding the bewildered victim that he has a friend in the tax office who is on his side?
    Sir S. Cripps: As I have said, he is invited to call at the tax office if he wishes for any elucidation; and in one
    1054
    week after the 5th February, 250,000 persons availed themselves of that invitation.
    Mr. Mitchison: Why is it that the Scottish notice of assessment contains a form of appeal and the English one does not?
    Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will put that question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Referring to the original reply, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that if the Opposition had had their way last night nobody would get any information at all.

    International Loans and Gifts
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount in gifts and loans Great Britain has received since August, 1945, to date, from other countries; and the total amount in loans and gifts which Great Britain has made to other countries during the same period.
    Sir S. Cripps: From August, 1945, to date, the United Kingdom has received from other countries gifts and loans to the value of £1,278 million. In addition, E.R.P. aid to the United Kingdom amounted to £275 million up to the 21st May, 1949, and drawing rights exercised by us under the Intra-European Payments Agreement were £7½ million. During the same period the sum of £885 million was made available to other countries by the United Kingdom and drawing rights exercised on us by other countries totalled £41 million.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Having due regard to our financial position, does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that these figures reveal that no nation in the world has been more generous to other countries than has this country, and will he see to it that in future publications what we have done for the world is given equal publicity with what America is supposed to have done on our behalf?
    Sir S. Cripps: I think that the American people have been extremely generous in their assistance to the world, and we have done our best to help others, too.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear these figures in mind and call attention to them when he and his colleagues draw comparisons between the post-war Government after the first war and the post-war Government after the last war?
    Sir S. Cripps: Certainly, Sir. We bear everything in mind when we make such comparisons.

    Gold Exports (Price)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of gold exported from the sterling area to the United States of America during 1948; and the average amount paid per fine ounce.
    Sir S. Cripps: I regret that I cannot disclose details of the operations of the Exchange Equalisation Account. All our gold transactions with the United States are on the basis of the official price of 35 dollars per fine ounce.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the market price today is not £24 per fine ounce, and will he explain to the House why it is that there is such secrecy over this matter? The amount of gold shipped used to be announced in all publications before the war. It was stopped during the war, but now we are supposed to be at peace why should we not know the truth?
    Sir S. Cripps: Because it has never been customary to disclose the operations of the Exchange Equalisation Account.
    Mr. Stokes: I am not talking about exchange equalisation fund. I am asking a perfectly simple question; what amount of gold is exported from the sterling area? That was always published before the war, and why should not we know now?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid, as regards the sterling area, we are not in control of the export of gold. I am not responsible for the gold that goes from other parts of the sterling area.
    Mr. Stokes: If I put down a Question which my right hon. and learned Friend can answer, will he endeavour to do so?

    Prices and Profits
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in
    1056
    view of the failure of the Federation of British Industries and associated organisations to produce any effective plan for price and profit decreases, as requested by him in February of last year he will now announce what steps are to be taken to enforce early reductions of swollen prices and profits
    Sir S. Cripps: As I told the hon. Member on 22nd February, the request for a voluntary reduction of prices and so of profits was addressed to the country generally. I said that although it was not possible to place any numerical evaluation upon the response to my request I had had evidence of many price reductions resulting from it and of higher costs absorbed into prices without increase. On 24th February I circulated the text of an exchange of letters between the Federation of British Industries, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the National Union of Manufacturers and myself, indicating that industry was prepared to co-operate for one more year in avoiding any general increase in the level of dividends. I do not at present propose to add anything to what I said in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 18th May, but I shall, of course, continue to watch the position with keen interest.
    Mr. Chamberlain: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer now agrees with me that profits are "frightfully high"—to use his own expression—that they drag up prices with them, and that the Federation of British Industries has done nothing effective whatsoever, does not he think that his strong and vigorous words should now be matched with equally strong and vigorous action?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that as I do not agree with the hon. Member's analysis of what I think, I do not agree with what he thinks I should do.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Has the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman been drawn to the statement made yesterday by the Postmaster-General, that a prudent business man when he sees his profits declining should immediately—as has been done with the Post Office—increase the cost to the consumer; and does he agree that that example set by

    1057
    a Government Department is one which a prudent business man outside ought to follow?
    Sir S. Cripps: It depends very much on the circumstances. If he finds that he is charging very much less than currently is charged for other goods it may be advisable for him to increase his prices.

    Company Reserves
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was last year put to extra reserve by companies after allowing for taxes.
    Sir S. Cripps: The figure has already been published in Table 6 of Cmd. 7649.
    Mr. Keeling: As the amount reserved for taxation is not available for the reduction of prices, was it not misleading of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the other day to include it in the amount so available?
    Sir S. Cripps: Of course, it is available for a reduction of prices, because if it had not been earned there would not have been any tax to be paid.
    Mr. Chamberlain: If the Chancellor disagrees with what I said on the last Question, which is also relevant to this Question, would he oblige by reading his Second Reading speech on the Finance Bill last week?
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that his statement that £1,215 million profits were available for price reduction would, in the light of what he has just said, possibly tend to mislead one or two people?
    Sir S. Cripps: I should have thought not. The whole of these extra profits came out of the prices for which goods were sold. If those prices had been reduced by whatever the sum was, there would have been £1,215 million less profits and, therefore, there would have been £700 million less tax to be paid on the profits. The tax was paid because the profits were earned.
    Mr. Stanley: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how he would
    1058
    have raised that £700 million if that tax had not been paid?
    Sir S. Cripps: Had prices been reduced it might not have been necessary to have so disinflationary a Budget.
    Mr. Molson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "By whatever sum prices would have been reduced." No doubt before he made the statement in his speech he had got some estimate as to how much they could have been reduced. Will he now tell the House and the country by how much they could have been reduced?
    Sir S. Cripps: I have no such estimate and naturally should not have. What I did say was that there was in some cases a surplus which could have been used for price reduction.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: If prices had been reduced not only to the extent of eliminating profits, but also to the extent of producing losses, would that have been a good thing in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion?
    Sir S. Cripps: It is very difficult to say. If the hon. and learned Member will give me an exact instance of what he is thinking, I should be able to answer the question.
    Mr. Austin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be a little more consistent in this matter of profits by backing up his strong views with a little more resolute action?
    Sir S. Cripps: I consider that taxation up to 60 per cent. of profits is quite resolute action.
    Mr. Nicholson: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman apply his peculiar and tortuous argument to Purchase Tax in this connection?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that that has nothing to do with the point we are now discussing.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that he was guilty of making a highly Jesuitical statement?

ADJOURNMENT DEBATES (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Frank Byers: I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you could clarify for the House the rule concerning the conduct of Adjournment Debates. On 24th February, as reported at column 2036 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, you stated that you felt that when a particular subject was under discussion it was a great pity to go away from it, but that officially anybody could talk about anything he liked on the half-hour Adjournment provided that it did not involve legislation. On Friday, 20th May, a Ruling was given that the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes):
"… must relate his remarks to Government or Ministerial responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1949; Vol 465, c. 843.]
It was also stated that only matters for which the Minister of Labour was directly responsible could be raised in that Debate. This Ruling confined the Debate very narrowly indeed, and it was clear that there was considerable misunderstanding of the position in all quarters of the House. I feel that some clarification is required as to whether matters for which there is no Minister responsible can or cannot be raised on the half-hour Adjournment.
Mr. Speaker: The reference which the hon. Member makes to what I said is, of course, rather out of its background, because there I was objecting to an Adjournment Debate being initiated when a Minister was not present in order that one might be initiated for which a Minister was present. Therefore, Ministerial responsibility had very much to do with that point. As regards what was ruled by Mr. Deputy-Speaker on Friday, he was perfectly correct in what he said. That has my full approval. Perhaps now I might clarify the situation by giving this Ruling.
The rule against debating matters on the Adjournment which involved no Ministerial responsibility is a particular application of the general rule of relevancy which is fundamental to our proceedings. The old practice of the House still remains that on substantive Motions there is practically no limit to the subjects which can be debated—on substantive Motions. But Debate on the Adjournment is governed by two rules that bar
1060
the discussion of matters involving legislation and matters for which no Minister is responsible.
The considerable increase in recent years of Debates on the Adjournment has naturally produced a number of instances where decisions on this subject have had to be given by the Chair. These have been consistent in maintaining the rule, though considerable latitude has been exercised on occasions in the past. But where discretion has been so exercised a tendency to irregular Debate has developed. Such a course if followed frequently tends to impair the value of Adjournment Debates in raising grievances for remedy by administrative action.
On 31st January, 1940, Mr. Speaker FitzRoy said:
"There is a very sound rule in this House that questions for which the Government have no responsibility cannot be raised on the Adjournment, and I think the House will realise that once we depart from this rule, it might lead to dangerous courses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1940; Vol. 356, c. 1228.]
In the next two columns he further clarified the point. Similar Rulings were given on 28th April, 1944, at columns 1161 and 1166, and on 14th October, 1946, at column 752. On 10th December, 1946, at columns 991–2, I gave another Ruling to the same effect, which I had prepared after giving careful consideration to the matter.
Mr. Byers: Thank you very much, Sir, for giving that Ruling and clarifying the position. I think you will appreciate that that Ruling limits very narrowly indeed the number of occasions when subjects for which no Minister is responsible can be raised in this House. I do not know whether at some future occasion it would be possible to suggest how those occasions might be increased. On Friday the Minister of Labour did in fact accept responsibility at an early stage in the Debate for the subject which was being raised. I wonder whether it would be possible on those occasions which are marginal cases where there is a dispute, that guidance could be given by the Chair after having ascertained in advance exactly what the scope of the Debate is. In those circumstances, I think it would help the House.
Mr. H. D. Hughes: Last Friday's Adjournment Debate arose from a Question which I asked the Minister of Labour on 3rd May about whether he would come to a general agreement with firms on a particular matter. The Minister replied on that occasion:
No, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 802.]
That is, he would not take steps to come to a general agreement. That was interpreted by the Chair last Friday as meaning that the Minister had no responsibility. I think on consideration, Sir, you will realise the difference between a statement by a Minister that he is not taking, or does not intend to take, certain action, and a Ministerial disclaimer of responsibility. I trust that the former will not rule out further discussion on the question.
Mr. Speaker: It is very difficult for the Chair to know what a Minister is going to say. Very often it would be a great help if the Minister would get up and say exactly where his responsibility lay. I do not think that it is possible for the Chair to give a Ruling in advance. He must let the subject come before the House and then, if it is out of Order, it is very difficult not to say that it is out of Order. I am bound to say that the occupant of the Chair last Friday obeyed the rule very well indeed.
Mr. Eden: I agree entirely with what you have been saying, Mr. Speaker, as far as we can follow this rather difficult discussion. On the other hand, if a Minister takes responsibility by answering a Question then clearly that responsibility cannot later be divorced, can it?
Mr. Speaker: The answer to the Question was that the Minister would take no action. I do not think that he admitted any responsibility.
Mr. Eden: Once a Minister answers a Question saying that he does not propose to do a certain thing, even if it is an answer showing inaction, he takes responsibility by having answered the Question.
Mr. Speaker: No; I would not accept that as a definite rule. I do not think that by answering a Question saying "No," one is accepting responsibility.
Mr. Eden: Will you consider the point a little further, Sir? I think this raises a question of some importance. A
1062
Minister can say that he has no responsibility and, therefore, he declines to answer a Question. If he answers a Question saying, "I propose to take no action on the matter," I suggest that by his reply he is taking responsibility.
Mr. Speaker: I should like to know exactly what the wording of the Question was before deciding on that, I confess that I do not carry them all in my head.
Mr. H. D. Hughes: May I submit the wording of the Question to you, Mr. Speaker? On 3rd May, I asked the Minister of Labour—
"before making the facilities afforded by his Department available to commercial firms, he will come to a general agreement with them that no political tests shall be imposed on employees supplied by him."
The Minister's answer was:
"No, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 802.]
May I submit that that answer was not a disclaimer of responsibility, but purely and simply a statement that he did not propose to come to an agreement with these firms. In these circumstances, I submit that further discussion should not be ruled out of Order.
Mr. Byers: Reverting to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), is it not a fact that, if a Question gets past the Table, it has in fact been accepted as one for which a Minister is responsible, because I have had numerous occasions when Questions have been turned down on the ground that the Minister refused responsibility? If the Question is accepted and answered, and there is no positive disclaimer of responsibility, should we not then be allowed to raise the question on the Adjournment?
Mr. Speaker: Very often, a Question put down is allowed by the Table as a sort of scout in order to find out what the answer will be, and if the answer is in the negative—that the Minister is not responsible—we do not allow any more. Very often, a Question gets through merely for finding out whether a Minister is responsible or not.
Mr. Stokes: Are we to understand from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that whenever a Minister chooses to say "No, Sir," as he very often does, automatically

1063
he disclaims responsibility? Surely, that is most unsatisfactory? The majority of my Questions get "No, Sir" for an answer.
Mr. Speaker: Sometimes we have to be very firm with Ministers; sometimes they are quite prepared to answer Question and we have to say to them, "You have no responsibility, and you ought not to answer it." We must stick to the Rules of the House.
Mr. Pickthorn: Does it not follow from your last answer, Mr. Speaker, that a Minister's disclaimer of responsibility is not conclusive, but merely evidence against the view that he is responsible, and that it is by no means conclusive that he has no responsibility?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think I agree with that, but the responsibility itself must remain with the Chair as to whether there is Ministerial responsibility or not.
Mr. H. Strauss: While I appreciate what you have said about the difficulty that arises in Adjournment Debates, Mr. Speaker, when it is decided by the Chair that the scope is strictly limited, am I not right in saying that precisely the same limitation applies to the Minister who replies as to the hon. Members who take part in the previous Debate?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, that is perfectly true, but I cannot say that it is always observed.
Mr. Driberg: You have in the past ruled on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, that the rules governing the Motion for the Adjournment are considerably wider in their scope than the rules governing Question time. This is particularly the case in regard to the difficult and important problem of Questions to Ministers about the conduct of nationalised industries. Can we take it that your Ruling today does not mean that the rules governing the Adjournment are being, as it were, tightened up and assimilated precisely with the rules governing Question time?
Mr. Speaker: It has always been the case that the conduct of nationalised industries could be discussed on the Adjournment, and that is not interfered with in the slightest degree.
Mr. S. Silverman: While it is perfectly clear that the Minister of Labour
1064
has no responsibility at all in respect of a Question concerning a particular contract of employment between particular employees and employers, is it not true that his powers of conciliation in industry, his responsibility for it and his control of unemployment benefit and of employment exchanges make him answerable in this House for any question which involves the general principle of employment, such as was involved here?
Mr. Speaker: This was a particularly difficult case, and I thought it had been handled very well by the occupant of the Chair, if I may say so. In such a difficult case, would it not have been of some assistance to the Chair and the House if, right at the beginning, the Minister had stated whether and how far there was any responsibility? That is always a great help to the Chair in these matters.
Mr. Benn Levy: As you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the Chair has an overriding responsibility in regard to whether the Minister is answerable or not on a particular subject, in this case, the Chair presumably had already decided that the Minister was responsible when the Question was accepted, and, that having been the case, could we be told why the Chair changed its mind in the interval before the Adjournment?
Mr. Speaker: I never said that the Chair had decided that the Minister was responsible. We allow Questions in order to find out what the answer will be, and the answer in this case, was "No, Sir."
Mr. Clement Davies: While it is clear that the House cannot debate any question unless there is Ministerial responsibility for it, the difficulty seems to arise if the Minister answers the Question in the negative and merely says "No, Sir." That might have two meanings; one, that the Minister accepts responsibility but does not propose to take any action in the particular case, or, two, that he does not accept responsibility. How is the House to know whether he accepts responsibility or does not accept it, and how are we to know whether we may debate the matter or not?
Mr. Speaker: That was exactly my difficulty and the difficulty of the Chair, but, judging by the case, I came to the conclusion that there was no Ministerial responsibility in the matter.
Mr. Byers: In fairness to the Minister of Labour, it should be pointed out that early in the Debate, in the middle of the speech of the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes), the right hon. Gentleman did answer a point of Order raised by me, and said that the Minister of Labour certainly had a responsibility, and he went on to define it. I think that was of some assistance, but there was a good deal of misunderstanding, which I think we must recognise.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think we should pursue this discussion further. I think we have clarified the position somewhat; at least, I hope we have.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings in Committee on National Health Service (Amendment) [Money] and on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.59 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The purposes of this small but complicated Bill are broadly three. First, to clarify and as far as is necessary to amend the application to partnerships of those sections of the National Health Service Acts which prohibit the sale of practices by doctors in the Service, and which compensate them for the resulting loss of the selling value of the goodwill. Secondly, to carry out certain promises of amendment made to the medical profession in the discussions on the application of the Acts, both before and since the beginning of the Service. Thirdly, to make certain minor administrative changes which experience has shown are desirable for the smooth working of the machine. The Bill is essentially a minor Measure which embodies no change of principle or policy. It makes no fundamental alterations, since experience does not suggest any respects in which major amendments are required.
  The sections of the Acts dealing with the sale of medical practices gave rise to certain doubts in their application to partnerships, and, with a view to clarifying the position, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Slade on 20th April, 1948, to consider the whole position and to recommend what changes, if any, were required to clarify the application of the principal Act and to secure an equitable result between the partners. The committee included an eminent Scottish King's Counsel, and the position in Scotland was brought under review as well as the position in England and Wales. The committee reported in November, 1948, and my right hon. Friend announced the Government's acceptance of the recommendations on 16th December, 1948. Part I of this Bill applies the recommendations of the Slade Committee in full, and I take this opportunity of thanking that committee for the work which they did in this matter.

  1067
  I do not propose to go in meticulous detail into the Clauses which give effect to the Committee's recommendations, but I shall endeavour to outline the broad general principles on which the solution of the problem proceeds. I am afraid that the permutations and combinations of interests between listed, new listed and outside partners are so widespread that I require to deal very briefly with the general position of each of these classes in turn. In order to understand how the different classes are affected by the proposals in the Bill, it is perhaps desirable that I should endeavour to explain to the House exactly what is meant by each of these categories.
  A listed partner, as defined in Clause 1, and as extended in Clause 3, is a partner who has entered his name on a list of medical practitioners undertaking to provide general medical services either (a) before the originally appointed day, or (b) prior to a deferred appointed day, which will be two months subsequent to the passing of this Bill into law.
  A new listed partner, however, is a medical practitioner who has not entered his name on the list prior to this second deferred appointed day, but who has done so between that date and what is known as the relevant date, that is, the date on which an obligation to acquire a share in the partnership under the partnership agreement matures, or an option to acquire such a share is exercised. An outside partner is someone who is in neither of these two categories.
  It is intended that the provisions of partnership agreements should be interfered with as little as possible, and that the rights and obligations which operate in the future should be fulfilled subject to the necessary modifications entailed by the operation of the scheme. Clause 1 (3), for instance, provides that there is no prohibition on the sale of practices where that is required by partnership agreements in force before 5th July, 1948. In terms of Clause 1 (4), compensation payable to members of such partnerships under Section 36 of the principal Act should be fixed once and for all on the appointed day, without regard to future rights and obligations existing at that date.
  I will now turn to consider, in the first instance, the position of listed partners.
  1068
  In the first place, where one listed partner in the Service sells the goodwill of his share in the practice, or any part thereof, to another partner in the Service, the compensation payable under the original Act is substituted for the contract price in the partnership agreement, and becomes payable immediately or as soon as practicable on the transfer taking place. That compensation is payable out of the general fund of £66 million set up under the principal Act.
  In the second place, when an outside partner is obliged to buy a share of a listed partner in the Service, which may be of little or no value to that outside partner, depending on the circumstances of the case, that obligation to purchase is turned into an option to purchase. If the option is exercised, and the listed partner is paid the purchase price in respect of that share, he is no longer entitled to compensation in respect of that share out of the £66 million provided under the principal Act. Thirdly, where a partner in the Service is obliged to buy the share of a partner outside the Service—and in that case the purchaser cannot normally sell that practice again—the partner in the Service gets compensation calculated at the same rate as the original compensation would have been calculated out of a new fund which is being set up over and above the original fund. But, in that type of case, provision is made that in no case can the compensation exceed the purchase price.
  Again, in this type of case, the compensation is payable forthwith. It is impossible to state exactly what this particular provision will involve—the setting up of this new compensation fund—but as there are only 50 mixed practices, only one of which exists in Scotland, it is unlikely that the sum involved will be large, and, in any event, there will fall to be set off against this figure any sum saved out of the £66 million by the operation of Clause 1 (7) to which I have referred. That, I think, exhausts the various conditions under which a listed partner might be involved under the Bill.
  If we now come to consider the case of new listed partners, we find that they are affected in certain ways, but I would point out to the House that new listed partners do not participate in compensation. Under Clause 1 (5), however, if a new listed partner acquires the share of a

  1069
  listed partner, the transfer will be effected without any payment, but the seller, that is, the listed partner, will be paid forthwith the appropriate compensation allotted to that share out of the £66 million.
  The second type of case is where an outside partner is under an obligation to purchase the share of a new listed partner, or for that matter, of a listed partner, of the goodwill of the partnership, or where one new listed partner is under a like obligation to purchase the share of another new listed partner. In those cases, the obligation under the partnership agreement is translated into an option exercisable on three months' written notice. The reason for this is that the purchasing partner might be acquiring something less than he originally bargained for under the principal Acts, and possibly something which in certain circumstances might be of little or no value to him, and, accordingly, the obligation under the agreement is translated into an option under the agreement.
  Thirdly, when the share of a new listed partner or of an outside partner is bought by a listed partner in terms of Clause 1 (8), to which I have already referred, the purchase price under the agreement will be paid to the seller subject to the proviso contained in Clause 1 (8) that, in the case of a seller who is a new listed partner, the purchase price payable cannot exceed the compensation payable to the purchasing listed partner.
  Finally, I come to consider in this respect the position of the outside partners. With regard to these, the position is that in cases where they are under an obligation, in view of the terms of the partnership agreement, to acquire the share of a listed or a new listed partner, that obligation is translated into an option, and where they are sellers under the partnership agreement they are entitled to the purchase price referred to in the agreement. The principles which I have tried to enunciate will apply with appropriate effect where the transfer of only part of a share is involved or where more than one partner is involved in the acquisition of the share. I appreciate that this is a very complicated matter, but I have tried to reduce it to the simplest possible terms consistent with the various permutations and combinations which are liable to arise.
  1070
  I now pass on to the ancillary provisions of Part I of the Bill. Clause 2 provides that alterations to partnership agreements which do not substantially alter the provisions of the agreement relating to the purchase will not deprive the partners to that agreement as on 5th July, 1948, from the benefits of this Bill. In view of the uncertainty which attached to the legal position of partners at the appointed day, we feel it is only but fair to give to all members of partnerships who have not heretofore joined the Service the opportunity of doing so now. They are accordingly given a further right and opportunity to join the Service prior to the second appointed day which will be, as I have already explained, two months after the date on which this Bill becomes an Act. Those members of the profession who enter the scheme prior to that second appointed day will not be obliged to seek the consent of the Medical Practices Committee, and they will qualify for compensation in respect of loss of goodwill.
  Where, however, there has been a sale of goodwill under a partnership agreement between the first appointed day and before the passing of this Act, the seller under that sale will receive the price paid and the purchaser will qualify for compensation in terms of the principal Acts, but that compensation will be payable forthwith, subject to this proviso that if the compensation exceeds the purchase price under the partnership agreement the balance will be repaid to the seller. The reason for payment forthwith in this and analogous types of cases is that the purchaser has been out of pocket and it is only but right to recoup him and grant him restitution forthwith.
  I have already dealt with the effect of Clause 5 in so far as it converts an obligation on an outside or a new listed partner to purchase into an option. Clause 6 deals with the position of assistants. The Slade Committee recommended that assistants should be treated in the same manner as partners, and effect has been given to that recommendation in this Clause. I shall not attempt to rehearse the manner in which these cases are dealt with, as they are mutatis mutandis with the cases of partnerships.
  It is realised, however, that despite all our efforts to secure justice as between one party and another, there might emerge the odd case, the casus improvisus, where

  1071
  the party may feel that the operation of the principles to which I have referred produces hardship. Provision is accordingly made for arbitration to be available in such cases to adjudicate on the matter and to make awards. The arbitrator will be an agreed on person, and, failing agreement on the person between the parties, the issue will be referred to an arbitration committee consisting of a legal chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor in England and the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, a medical practitioner appointed by the President of the British Medical Association, and an accountant who will have the qualifications set out in Clause 7 of the Bill. The powers of the arbitration committee are very wide. For instance, they can modify the Act or the regulations made under the Act, or they can recommend the dissolution of the partnership if such courses are necessary to prevent the occurrence of hardship. They cannot, however, alter the total amount of compensation payable in respect of the partnership practice.
  Finally, in Part I of the Bill, to remove any doubts which exist, it is declared that Section 35 of the principal Act, or Section 36 of the corresponding Act in Scotland, does not prevent a doctor who has never been in the Service from selling the goodwill of his practice even although part of that goodwill was acquired from a partner inside the Service itself. That concludes my review of the provisions of Part I of the Bill which set out to deal with the recommendations of the Slade Committee.
  Part II of the Bill deals with the promised amendments and minor administrative changes to which I referred in my opening remarks. In the first place, in the early part of 1948 when there was a certain amount of opposition to entering the new Service among medical practitioners, it appeared that one factor in particular was causing the profession some misgivings, namely the fear that either immediately or by degrees a whole-time salaried service would be introduced as it is possible to do by the regulations under the principal Acts, and, in point of fact, as it has been possible to do by regulations under the National Health Insurance Acts ever since 1912.
  It was made quite clear in the Debates on the principal Acts that the present
  1072
  Government had no intention of introducing a whole-time salaried service, but in order to put the position beyond all doubt, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health gave a pledge in this House on 7th April, 1948, that it would be made clear in legislation that a full-time service could not be instituted by regulation alone. That pledge was repeated in correspondence with the medical profession on 26th May, 1948, and it is here carried out in this Bill in relation to general practitioners by Clause 10, and in relation to specialists by Clause 11.
  Another point which arose in the course of the discussions was that under the principal Acts tribunals of three members are set up to consider those cases where the executive councils recommend that doctors, dentists, pharmacists or opticians should be disqualified from further participation in the Service. The tribunal consists of a legal chairman, an executive council representative and a member of the profession concerned. The medical profession urged that the professional members should be drawn from a standing panel of members of the profession selected to cover the different types of practice involved, whether it be rural, industrial or some other type, and not, as required by the principal Acts, a fixed individual. Similar considerations arise in relation to the other professions, and it was, therefore, agreed that the principal Acts should be amended to allow this change taking place. A promise to this effect was given to the medical profession in correspondence as far back as May, 1948, and this promise is now implemented by Clause 14.
  Another matter which gave rise to a certain amount of concern was the position of local professional committees and their expenses. The medical profession urged that, as under the National Health Insurance Acts, provision should be made that the costs of local medical committees should be met by a block deduction from the remuneration of the doctors in each executive council area. Similar requests were made by the dentists and pharmacists and a promise was given to the profession on 26th May, 1948, that this amendment would be proposed and carried into effect; and that is implemented in the Schedule to this Bill.

  1073
  Again, in relation to executive councils, under the principal Acts the chairmen were appointed by the Minister. It was agreed with the medical profession that, now that the scheme has settled down and the councils are effectively launched, it would be reasonable to allow the councils to elect their own chairmen from among their own members; and the promise to that effect is implemented in this Bill, once again in the Schedule. In the course of the various discussions in the matter another difficulty was pointed out to my right hon. Friend, and that is that considerable inconvenience is caused at present to everyone under the scheme by the absence of any power to take off the lists of executive councils doctors or others who have removed from the district and who are not, in fact, available, for that or any other reason, to provide services in that area. Clause 13 enables that anomaly to be dealt with and provides for the removal of such persons from the lists.
  In considering the relative position of various professions under the scheme, the dentists pointed out that while, under the principal Acts, doctors who were on the staffs of hospitals in the service had the right to treat private patients in private beds at the hospitals, that right was denied to the dental profession in similar circumstances, and the dental profession urged that they should be provided with a similar right. My right hon. Friend promised that effect would be given to that representation, and that promise is here carried into effect, once again in the Schedule to the Bill. There are other minor matters, such as the period for claiming fees under the Midwives' Act, which has been extended from two months to three months to meet one further complaint.
  I think that narration concludes the list of amendments which are made in order to fulfil the undertakings or promises made by my right hon. Friends in the course of the negotiations with the medical profession. That brings me to the third category of cases to which I originally referred. The remaining provisions of Part II of the Bill are all minor in character and are designed simply to remove doubts or difficulties that have arisen in the administration of the principal Acts or to confer additional powers
  1074
  necessary for the proper carrying on of the Service.
  The principal amendments contained in these Clauses are, first, that under Clause 12 we put the coping stone on the structure of Whitley Councils which are built up for the negotiation of the terms and conditions of service of all of the many types of officers engaged in the National Health Service by enabling arbitration machinery to be set up where disagreement arises between the official and the staff sides. The intention is to set up a tribunal for the Health Service on the lines of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, the details of its constitution and procedure to be settled by the terms of an arbitration agreement made between the two sides.
  Then, in Clause 15, we remove certain doubts which have arisen in that the right of the Minister to make certain regulations has been challenged in relation to the regulations prescribing qualifications for opticians and others, which consist of a requirement that they must satisfy an expert committee on their competence and experience. That is manifestly a desirable manner in which to decide whether or not a person has a qualification and the right to prescribe that in regulations should be beyond any dispute at all. Provision is made for that in Clause 15.
  In Clause 16 we make provision for the voluntary transfer of property of nursing associations, because it might well be, in view of certain restrictions in trust deeds, that there would not be that free transfer of assets from a district nursing association, who wish to transfer their assets to a local health authority, without resorting to complicated legal processes and, as hon. Members appreciate, we always try to avoid complicated legal processes.
  We go on in Clause 17 to deal with the position of the mental health profession. Clause 17 requires local authorities to pay fees in certain cases for examinations and reports made by doctors in connection with admission for treatment under the Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Acts; and Clause 18 goes on to validate certain detention orders made under the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, which have now been found to be invalid. These provisions do not extend to Scotland,

  1075
  which has a separate form of legislation for this type of case.
  Clause 19 introduces the permissive power for a charge to be made for board and lodging to hospital patients who are able, and do, go out to work and earn a remuneration. Finally, in the Schedule we make provision for a payment to members of the various bodies involved in the service for loss of earnings or travelling or subsistence expenses. It was felt that these people were entitled to receive due remuneration for loss of earnings and for travelling and subsistence expenses just as are local authority members. Accordingly, provision is made for payment to these people of remuneration on the same basis as that on which payment is made to local authority members under the recent Local Government Act.
  I think that surveys the ground we have set out to cover in this Bill. I do not pretend that in some respects this is a very easy Bill to follow, but I have tried to reduce, as far as possible, to comprehensible terms what exactly we are trying to do in this Measure. In effect, this Bill should go a long way not only to remove from doubt certain legal difficulties which arise out of the principal Acts, but to remove those doubts which have lingered in the minds of certain people as to the position of the medical profession under the scheme.
  My right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland have never spared themselves in their endeavours to create a smooth-working and harmonious scheme which would do justice both to the beneficiaries and to those who were called upon to operate it alike. This Bill is an earnest of their intention to carry on that policy and to remove obstacles or difficulties which might militate against its smooth working. In so far as it achieves this, I am confident that it will receive support from all sides of the House, because I am sure that all hon. Members, even including those who voted against the original Act, must realise that this is but a further step in the development of a scheme which, in its short span of 10 months, has already evoked the admiration and respect not only of the people of this country but of the people of the whole world.
  4.19 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I am sure the whole House would wish to congratulate the Lord Advocate on the fluency and speed with which he has covered the provisions of this Bill. I think I may also say "skated over" the provisions of this Bill, because there was a good deal of thin ice which he wisely passed over very quickly. I should be disingenuous if at this stage I congratulated him on the clarity of his statement. The matters with which he has dealt are so technical that it will be essential for us carefully to consider what he has said, and we hope that his comments will be invaluable when we come to consider the Bill in Committee.
  This Measure—one might not have supposed so from the Lord Advocate's remarks—is of an unprecedented character. Normally, an amending Bill corrects oversights and makes improvements in the machinery of the principal Act in the light of the experience of working the Act in the first year or two. This Bill is largely concerned with defects of the principal Act which were plain, not only before that Measure went on the Statute Book, but before it went to Committee upstairs. We pointed out during the passage of the National Health Service Act through this House that Sections 35 and 36 of that Act—the Sections dealing with the sale of goodwill—were unworkable. We said they were unworkable, quite apart from any question of the general principle involved, namely, the desirability of retaining or not the power to sell goodwill.
  I think it would be proper to say something of my views on that general principle at this stage. I personally do not feel strongly about the retention or otherwise of the power of a doctor to sell the goodwill of his practice. I do not believe that that is really a question of principle at all. I believe that is a view very generally shared by hon. Members on this side of the House. The members of some professions have been able at all times to sell and to buy the goodwill of their practices. The members of other professions have not been so able. The obvious example is the profession of the learned Lord Advocate and the profession which I myself practised at one time, that of a barrister. A barrister has

  1077
  never been able to buy and sell his goodwill. On the whole, I think, it is a pity that that has not been the state of affairs in the medical profession. Unfortunately, it has not been so.
  The question which we on this side asked ourselves, when we came to consider those two Sections, was whether or not any useful purpose was to be served by abolishing the right of a doctor to buy and sell his goodwill. Of course, the answer to that question is simple if one holds the view which is undoubtedly held by many Members opposite—if one believes that a full-time, salaried medical service is a desirable thing. Quite clearly, one cannot retain the power to buy and sell goodwill and have the full-time salaried medical service together.
  Our approach to this question was based on quite different principles. We said that it was essential to preserve the freedom of the patient to choose his own doctor, and we said it was essential to preserve the freedom of the doctor to work where and with whom he chose. Those were the essential principles on which we approached this question, and it was in the light of those principles that we sought to amend Sections 35 and 36 of the principal Act when the Measure was in Committee.
  I do not want to weary the House with technicalities in this matter, but I think it is important that the House should be reminded of the arguments put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the then Member for North Croydon, Mr. Willink. Mr. Willink pointed out that the Sections refer only to the goodwill of a practitioner as an individual, and he pointed out that in English law—I think the same is true in the Scots law—the goodwill of doctors in partnership is not their separate property as individuals but the joint property of the partnership. He asked on that, what was to happen in the case of existing partnerships which were not covered by the principal Act at all.
  Mr. Willink further drew attention to the provisions of Section 35 (4), which provide that certain terms almost invariably found in partnership deeds are to be treated as the sale and purchase of goodwill. That subsection refers to all partnership agreements, and so presumably includes agreements already in force at the time of the coming into operation of the Act. Mr. Willink pointed out quite clearly that the effect of that subsection
  1078
  would necessarily be to make all existing partnerships illegal, and so it would be essential to dissolve them before the coming into operation of the Act. Finally Mr. Willink pointed out that there was nothing in the principal Act at all to cover the case of an assistant serving a doctor under an agreement which contained some provision which would, in effect, amount to an agreement to purchase that doctor's goodwill, or some part of it.
  There were other points which we raised in Committee on the principal Act. Every one of those arguments was brushed aside by the Minister of Health. Let me refer to his statements. I think they will be of interest to the House. He said during our discussions on that Section:
  "I see nothing obscure in the Clause at present. In fact, I have never before heard this Clause attacked on the ground of its obscurity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT: Standing Committee C, 20th June, 1946; c. 1658.]
  Later he said:
  "What we are concerned about is whether a partner who has not got a public practice at all can buy or sell a practice without hurt to the other partner, or whether a partner who is in the public service and in partnership with a doctor who having no panel can take compensation without hurt to the other partner. I am advised there is nothing in the Bill which prevents that being done. If I thought the effect of this language would be to bring about a general dissolution of partnerships we would try to seek protection against that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT: Standing Committee C, 20th June, 1946; c. 1659.]
  That was the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman when we were discussing this matter then. We pressed the right hon. Gentleman. We said his views were wrong. We asked him to reconsider this matter, and, under pressure, the right hon. Gentleman agreed that he would reconsider the matter. This is the important point which, I think, deserves close attention. On receiving that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Opposition did not divide against Clauses 35 and 36 standing part of the Bill. It was because of that assurance that the right hon. Gentleman would look into these very matters.
  The Bill then came before the House on Report. There were certain minor Amendments, which were put down in the name of the right hon. Gentleman or of his Parliamentary Secretary, covering some of the minor points which had been raised by my right hon. and learned

  1079
  Friend. There was nothing done to cover the main points we raised—to cover the matters included in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman made, if I may say so, his usual speech; I do not think that I should be discourteous if I said that he made his usual hubristic speech on that occasion. May I remind the House of his opening remarks?
  "I am really astonished at the heavy weather which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making about this. One would really have thought that we had not had a long Committee discussion on this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1946; Vol. 425, c. 1956.]
  That was his attitude, and again he refused altogether to consider the matter further. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) pressed the right hon. Gentleman to consult with the Law Officers on these very points, and he not only did not agree, but he did not even deign to answer that suggestion.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct the statement which he is now making to the House. The investigations of Mr. Justice Slade's Committee have in fact completely vindicated the statement which I made to the Committee. The statement which I made, and which the hon. Gentleman has just read out, was that I did not think the operation of these Clauses would result in the general dissolution of partnerships. That is the conclusion which has been reached after full investigation. All that has been decided is that it is necessary to amend the old Act in order to remove doubt in about 50 cases.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not think that the House would desire to go into the technicalities of this matter.
  Mr. Bevan: Does the hon. Gentleman deny what I have said? He has in fact almost accused me of bad faith; of having made a promise to the Committee and then of not carrying out the promise on the Report stage. I made investigations, and I satisfied myself that the Clauses would not bring about the general dissolution of practices which the hon. Gentleman feared. They have not brought about the general dissolution of practices. What has been discovered is that there are about 50 types of partnership where relief of doubt is necessary.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am quite prepared to leave this matter to the opinion of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said quite plainly that the Clause was clear beyond a doubt. I do not know whether he is suggesting that that was the decision of the expert Committee which he set up. If he is saying that, I should be delighted to hear him justify it in the course of his remarks when winding up the Debate. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman completely refused to listen to the criticisms which we made of this Bill and which are now fully justified by the expert committee which he himself set up. It was because of his refusal to listen to our arguments that we voted against these two Clauses standing part of the Bill, having agreed, without a vote, on his previous undertaking, to let them stand as a matter of principle. The right hon. Gentleman with the majority behind him can, of course, vote down all opposition in this House, but he cannot vote down the facts of life—and the fact that Sections 35 and 36 of the principle Act as originally drafted, and as they stood in the Act when it came here on Third Reading, were completely unworkable.
  Mr. Bevan: They have been worked.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the Opposition at the time of the passing of the principal Act, Clauses 1 to 9 of this Bill could have been incorporated in that Act. That would have saved an immense amount of trouble and, what is more, the right hon. Gentleman would have prevented a great deal of heat and suspicion arising. If these Clauses had been clear at the time the Act became law, he would have found it much easier to conduct the discussions with the doctors which so nearly brought about the ruin of all his schemes.
  It is, I think, right to remind the House of the history of the original Bill. After the principal Act was passed, lengthy discussions took place between the Minister and the doctors. The doctors had three main objections to coming into the proposed new Service. The first was the fear of a full-time salaried service. The learned Lord Advocate, in the course of his remarks, suggested that the doctors need have no such fear. I think that he can hardly be aware of the statements of his own colleagues on the Front Bench beside him at the time of the passing

  1081
  of the Act. My right hon. Friend the then Member for Hillhead, now Lord Reid, quoted the policy of the Labour Party in 1943 as follows:
  "In the Labour Party's opinion it is necessary that the medical profession should be organised as a national full-time salaried, pensionable service."
  The right hon. Gentleman intervening in that Debate made this remark:
  "There is all the difference in the world between plucking fruit when it is ripe and plucking it when it is green."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 392.]
  Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that that remark was calculated to allay the suspicion of the doctors that this was intended as a step at least in the direction of a full-time salaried service? I know that the right hon. Gentleman has said that it is not his intention to introduce such a service immediately, but he has never stated that as a long-term policy he desires never to see such a salaried service introduced at all. The doctors were, of course, suspicious in the light of those remarks that it was the intention of the Labour Party to introduce such a service. Indeed, hon. Members sitting behind the Government Front Bench are still quite candid in their views that such a service is desirable.
  Mr. Sparks: So are many of the doctors.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am obliged for the interruption. It only goes to prove what I was saying. The doctors objected to the good-will provision in the principal Act. They objected on the principle—I will admit—which I myself have disclaimed this afternoon, but I do not think that they were mistaken from their point of view. They took the view that as long as they were free to buy and sell their practices it would be impossible to have a salaried service, and it was because of that they objected to the abolition of buying and selling practices. They also objected in detail for the quite specific reasons which were submitted to the expert committee, and on which the committee gave their findings which are now incorporated in this Bill.
  Finally, the doctors had the fear that the Clause giving power to prevent a doctor working in an area already adequately doctored, could be used in a way to direct them to serve as doctors in particular parts of the country. There
  1082
  were a number of other relatively minor questions into which I do not think it is necessary to go. As a result of these objections by the doctors, deadlock was reached in the discussion between them and the right hon. Gentleman. The doctors quite properly and democratically, if I may say so, held a plebiscite or ballot, or whatever you may like to call it, at which the general practitioners voted by an overwhelming majority, of the order of 12 to one, against coming into the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman at the time suggested that that vote was based on misrepresentation. One of the matters which the doctors clearly had in mind was the interpretation of the goodwill provisions of the Act.
  In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman is doing this afternoon, is he now really saying that anyone was misrepresenting the situation when he said that those provisions were completely unworkable and would in fact bring about the dissolution of all existing partnerships? The fact of the matter is, it was quite plain that the doctors meant business; they could not be out-voted as the Opposition can be in this House, and the right hon. Gentleman gave way: he had to give way. He set up the expert committee which is the forerunner of Part I of this Bill; he promised legislation to give effect to any necessary recommendations made by that committee; he promised legislation making a full-time salaried service impossible; and he undertook that doctors should be allowed to set up in practice in all areas which were not already over-doctored. I think that is a fair statement.
  Mr. Bevan: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is now saying. There has been no departure at all from the original Act in that respect. There is no change at all in the situation.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not suggesting that there has been any departure from the original Act. As I understand the matter—indeed, it has been made public on a number of occasions—the right hon. Gentleman has told the doctors that it is not his intention that Section 34 of the original Act shall be used to bring about direction of doctors by negative means.
  Mr. Bevan: I will answer that when I reply.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If the right hon. Gentleman would deal with that matter in the course of his reply, it would help to clear the matter up. Certainly that is what I understand.
  Mr. Bevan: All I am saying is that no change whatsoever is made by this Bill. Nor was any change made on that matter in the passage of the original proposals through the House of Commons. The scheme which is in existence at the moment, and operating quite smoothly, is the scheme of the original Act.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The scheme of the original Act was, as were large parts of that Act, extremely elastic in form. The original Act referred to those areas which were already adequately doctored. Those were the words in the original Bill, and indeed those in the principal Act today. If the right hon. Gentleman were to use those provisions so as to exclude doctors from going to all areas except a few, they could be used, in effect, so as to direct doctors to go to particular areas. As I understand it—indeed, it has been mentioned in public on many occasions—the right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly plain that his intention is that those provisions shall be used only to exclude doctors from going to areas which are declared to be over-doctored.
  Mr. Bevan: That is not the position.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If that is not the position no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will clear it up in the course of his reply.
  Mr. Messer: Is it not a fact that the law as it stood after the passing of the original Act will be the law after the passing of this Bill?
  Mr. Bevan: Exactly.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I quite agree. I am not suggesting for a moment that this Bill deals with that. What I am dealing with is what happened between the Minister and the doctors when it was a question of whether or not they would come into the Service. My point is that on every principal objection which the doctors raised the right hon. Gentleman found that he had to give way.
  Mr. Bevan: No.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Yes, on every single one.
  Mr. Bevan: No, that is quite wrong.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman says it is quite wrong. He will have an opportunity of refuting that in due course. Those objections were identically the objections which the Opposition had raised in the course of the discussions on the original Act. The right hon. Gentleman's colleague now comes to the House and recommends this Bill to us. What a pity it is that he did not come here and make these recommendations two years ago. There are times when we are tempted to think that the Minister of Health is anxious that the Opposition should oppose his proposals. There are times when we are driven to the conclusion that he desires to be thought of in the country as a kind of knight in shining armour slaying the dragon of Tory reaction. That is the picture the right hon. Gentleman wishes to build up for himself in the country. Perhaps I might put it another way: He is the honest huntsman who is bent on exterminating the snarling vermin. Perhaps he would prefer that. The fact is, the only foxes in the right hon. Gentleman's coverts are foxes that he has brought in a bag, bought, paid for and put there himself. This Bill is a satisfactory Measure.
  Mr. Baird: If the hon. Gentleman says that, there must be something wrong with it.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Subject to detailed consideration in Committee, we think this is a good Bill, and we desire to give it our support. I propose, if I might, to draw the attention of the House to Clause 7, which deals with the removal of hardship in particular cases and, as the Lord Advocate has said, allows doctors in partnership, where hardship would be involved, to take the matter to arbitration. Subsection (2) provides:
  "On any such reference, the arbitrator or committee shall have power to modify the provisions of the agreement or the operation in relation thereto of the Act of 1946 or this Act or any such regulations as aforesaid in any such manner as he or they may think equitable for the purpose of removing or preventing such hardship, including a power to direct the payment or repayment of money by any such party to the agreement as aforesaid."
  I think that words such as those are wholly novel in any Act of Parliament.
  As far as I know, it is the first time that an arbitrator, an outside party chosen

  1085
  by private persons, is given a power to vary any Act of Parliament, and certainly the Act of Parliament enabling the arbitrator himself to be appointed. We could hardly have more definite proof of our contention in Committee on the principal Act, that that Act was unworkable, because these words have been inserted on the express recommendation of the expert committee. They had to be inserted, because even the expert committee itself was unable to devise words to give precise and fair effect to what was intended. We could hardly find better evidence to show that what we contended is the fact, and that the original Act, and the Act as amended by these Clauses, would be unworkable without some wholly exceptional and extraordinary powers.
  Clause 10 is perhaps the most important Clause from our point of view. It deals with the prohibition of a full-time salaried service. I do not for a moment suggest that that Clause does not fully give effect to the right hon. Gentleman's aims. I think it does. But it would be convenient and of great interest if he could deal a little more fully with that Clause. It says:
  "the remuneration to be paid … shall not … consist wholly or mainly of a fixed salary."
  I think that effect would be given to those words if the fixed salary did not exceed half the total emoluments. I imagine that "mainly" would limit the fixed salary element to not more than a half. I should like to know whether that is the opinion of the Government in this connection.
  Further, I should like to know when this Clause becomes law if it is the intention of the Government to alter the present arrangements with regard to fixed salaries. I am not for a moment pressing the right hon. Gentleman in favour of an alteration. As I understand the present scheme of salaries, it is regarded by the right hon. Gentleman as something of a temporary measure, and we should like to know whether it is his intention to change his policy in this matter in the immediate future.
  Mr. Somerville Hastings: To which fixed salary is the hon. Gentleman referring?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: To the £300 salary.
  Mr. Hastings: Basic?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, it should be the basic rate.
  The Title of this Bill is one which would allow any hon. Member to put down Amendments to cover a great deal of the ground which was covered in the original discussions on the National Health Service Bill. We could raise a number of those issues over again, but that Measure is now law and has started to operate. We do not regard this as an occasion to seek to make fundamental changes. If we tried to do so the only effect would be to delay the passing of the Bill, which we are most anxious to see on the Statute Book. Besides, tradition and necessity require that the Opposition of this country should accept schemes which they find in operation, and seek to amend and improve them as occasion permits.
  The fundamental trouble which we find in the Health Service Acts is that under the principal Acts the choice of priorities is all wrong. The Acts in our opinion are founded on two fallacies. The first is that unlimited money would be available and the second that it is only expenditure which is needed to provide a good health service. The hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has said:
  "If it is money or life that matters, then in our regard life must have priority."
  I do not think that I can do better than to refer to what was said on this subject in "The Economist":
  "This argument in terms of absolutes—money or life, tuberculous people dying because the estimate is wrong and so on—is superficial, vulgar and dangerous."
  Mr. Messer: Yes, but they did not prove it.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is a matter of opinion.
  "It may be politically effective, but it is the kind of thing which will quickly undermine the foundations of the Health Service itself."
  That is our view of the attitude of hon. Members opposite, and the way that this scheme is being developed. Our view is that where money is limited, its expenditure on matters of life must have priority over other matters, even though these are more popular.
  Mr. Messer: That is what I intended.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: We say these Acts are working the other way about. Free spectacles are admirable things, but are very rarely matters of life. The trouble with these Acts is the more free spectacles are available to the people the longer and longer become the queues at the hospitals. It is the hospitals which are the matters of life in this connection. That is our attitude. We appreciate that this Bill does not provide an opportunity for dealing with that. This change must be dealt with partly by administration and only partly by amendments, which must be made not by this Government but by some other Government which has a better attitude to these matters.
  Mr. Bevan: Subject to the Ruling of the Chair, it is perfectly competent for the Opposition to put down an Amendment to the Bill removing from the range of free issues any part of the Health Service. If they wish to do so they ought to take the opportunity now. There is laid upon the Minister of Health a statutory obligation to provide a free range of services. Until that Act is amended that obligation must be carried out. If the Opposition wish to constrict the range of free health treatment it is quite open to them to put down an Amendment.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that assurance. We shall look with the greatest interest to the series of Amendments which will be put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the reactions to them of the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer).
  4.56 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Byers: I shall not detain the House long, but I think hon. Members will agree with me that we have heard a very interesting, if not surprising, contribution from the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). I take it that this is a landmark in the history of the Conservative Party. They are now trying to escape from the blunder they committed in voting against the Second and Third Readings of the National Health Service Act. I do not blame them. It will take some time to get away from that stigma. I did not expect them to oppose this Measure in any way today.
  1088
  I do not think it does much good to indulge in recriminations about the National Health Service at this time, particularly if those recriminations are not accurate. I believe that what we want more than anything else is an atmosphere of national good will towards this National Health Service. We shall have some very difficult problems to solve in it. They will not be solved in one year or five years. This is a long-term project affecting the health of the nation for generations, and the sooner we get away from futile recriminations the better. Certainly, in my recollection, there was no giving in to the doctors on the question of buying and selling goodwill, or what was wrongly called direction of doctors. There never was, in my opinion, a case for the buying and selling of goodwill. If the Minister had given in on that, it would have had a very bad effect on the Service itself. The question of the direction of doctors, as far as I remember, was used as a sort of political propaganda stunt, when in fact it was probably the only way to ensure that, without positive direction, there should not be under-doctoring of one area and over-doctoring of another.
  Dr. Haden Guest: The hon. Member means negative, not positive, direction?
  Mr. Byers: I am referring to the machinery for getting the doctors in the right places without infringing their liberty.
  I was very interested in the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for South Hendon, when he was dealing with priorities. It is possible that priorities will have to be revised. That is always possible in any scheme, but I am not at all sure about the suggestion of abandoning the issue of free spectacles, or of any complete aspect of the National Health Service, in order to reduce the total expenditure on the scheme. Perhaps the hon. Member did not mean that the total expenditure on the National Health Service should be reduced at all. Perhaps he meant that the money saved by not issuing free spectacles should be used to assist other parts of the scheme, thus keeping the total expenditure the same. Can he give us some indication of which course he meant? Does he want to get rid of reckless expenditure or does he

  1089
  want to cut down the issue of free spectacles in order to spend the same amount of money on hospitals and other things?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: What I was saying was simply that if we wish to increase expenditure on hospitals and are not able to obtain more money for the Service as a whole, it will be necessary to reduce expenditure in other directions within the Service. I am not advocating any particular increase or reduction of the total expenditure. That is a financial matter which we ought not to discuss this afternoon.
  Mr. Byers: In that case I am very glad that the Conservative Party's view is that we are spending the right amount of money on the scheme, but that we are spending it in the wrong way. In that case, can we have an end to this ceaseless propaganda which goes on in every constituency saying that we must cut down the expenditure on the Health Service?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member is trying to put words into my mouth. What I said was that if it is wished to spend more money on particular aspects of the Health Service without increasing the total expenditure, then reductions must be made on other items. The question of the total amount spent on the Health Service is a financial question which cannot be pursued on the Second Reading of this Bill; it is a purely administrative question.
  Mr. Bevan: No, it is not an administrative question; it is a statutory matter.
  Mr. Byers: I am not putting words into the mouth of the hon. Member for South Hendon. I never said that the hon. Member said anything of the sort. What I am saying is that the Conservative Central Office, throughout the whole of the country—at any rate, in my constituency and in many others—are supporting a campaign of saying that there is reckless Government expenditure. They are linking that with the National Health Service and giving the impression that we should cut down the total expenditure on the National Health Service because we cannot afford it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member has no right to say that. We have done no more than
  1090
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer did on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
  Mr. Byers: I have a perfect right to say that. Look at the dishonest posters:
  "The Conservatives fought for the National Health Service."
  Whom did they fight They fought themselves. They were not fighting Socialists or Liberals. They fought for it—I have never heard of such nonsense.
  To return to the question of amending the Health Service, the Minister is right in the decision not to amend seriously the Health Service until it has been working for some time. There are adjustments which undoubtedly will have to be made, some of them by administrative action and some by legislation. On the whole, although there have been undoubted abuses by doctors, dentists, opticians and patients, considering the magnitude of the scheme those abuses are a relatively small minority. They will have to be dealt with in some way, but we have not yet sufficient experience to decide which is the right way to deal with them.
  On the general question of amendment, I should like to ask the Minister whether he can obtain the fullest possible information—if possible, impartial information—as to the working of the Health Service itself. There are many of us who do not agree with the Government on many other matters of politics but are vitally concerned that the scheme should work out properly. We should welcome an honest exposition of the weaknesses which are occurring, the suggested ways of dealing with them, and so on. That is another reason why I am so anxious that we should stop this tendency to use the Health Service as a political football.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Byers: If the Health Service is to be used purely as a political football, there will be a tendency on the part of any Government to cover up the weaknesses and not to give the fullest possible information to enable us to get everybody working in the scheme to put it right.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman himself should begin now.
  Mr. Byers: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity and I have no doubt that he will

  1091
  take advantage of it. The Conservative Party must make up their minds exactly where they stand—[Interruption.] Has it occurred to them that just now I have in the House about the same percentage of representation as they have? I have 10 per cent. of my party here, and there is about 10 per cent. of both the other parties.
  It is important that in this Debate we should get from the Conservative Party a statement of their attitude to the National Health Service and its Amendment, for this is a vital matter to the whole nation. At present the Conservative Party are trying to ride three horses. First, they want the National Health Service as a political slogan—they must have that in order to have something to put on their posters. Secondly, they do not want any money spent on it because they say it is reckless expenditure. Thirdly, every time there is a cut, they put Questions on the Order Paper. It is remarkable, when we get these suggestions that we must not spend so much money on the National Health Service, that as soon as a cut in expenditure is introduced, Questions appear on the Order Paper. I can remember the Question which was put immediately on one occasion by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg): "Will the Minister reconsider any cuts which he is proposing to impose on the Oxford Regional Hospital Board?"—and so on.
  When we come to look at the development of the scheme, we shall have to face the fact that it will cost money. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the lunatic fringe of the Conservative Party to act in this way. I would rather be without a policy than be saddled with theirs. We must seriously face up to the fact that this scheme will seldom be likely to cost less than it is costing today. We have got to face that. Any economies which are made in the administration of the scheme—[Interruption.]
  Mrs. Leah Manning: Cannot hon. Gentlemen opposite listen to an intelligent speech once in a while?
  Mr. Byers: I have noticed with in-interest, and have remarked outside the House—and I shall continue to do so—upon the extraordinarily ill-mannered behaviour of what claims to be the best educated party in the House.
  1092
  I was about to say that we shall have to face up to the fact that if we are to deal adequately with the health of the people, any economy we can make in the scheme—and undoubtedly we can do that, by eliminating waste—will have to be used to build things like health centres and to carry out otherparts of the scheme, so that we can get on to the preventive side of medicine quicker than we otherwise would do. Any idea of slashing the Estimates for the Health Service will merely retard the arrival of that period when we can reduce the cost naturally because we have put the preventive side of medicine into good working order. It is not a question of five or 10 years' time, but of 20, 30, or even 40 years hence. That is why I say it is a long-term project. Let us have constructive criticism by all means, but this irresponsible political sniping at the Health Service and the Government in their administration of it, using it as a political slogan on posters and so on, will serve only to conceal the weaknesses and lower the morale of the people in the Service.
  I say quite frankly that many things will have to be amended. The position of the rural doctor must be looked at again, not only from the point of view of his remuneration, but also because of the large lists to which he has to attend and the large area he has to cover. On the other side, I think that the position of the dentists will have to be fully investigated. I believe there has been a miscalculation. I do not know whether it requires legislation or whether it can be done by administrative action. I am quite sure that the sooner we take this scheme out of the field of party politics and get down to constructive criticism, the better. This Bill ought to be called the National Health Service (Amendment No. 1) Bill, because we shall want amending Bills Nos. 2, 3 and 4, and then a consolidating Bill. Do not let us go in for recriminations, but let us work together to see that the scheme is properly amended. I welcome this Bill as a contribution towards that end.
  5.11 p.m.
  Mr. Messer: The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) referred to a speech of mine in which I said, "If it is a question of money or life, then life should come first." That was taken up by the famous or infamous paper, "The Economist," in

  1093
  an article which attempted to read into what I said the meaning that money did not matter. No reasonable person, even on this most important service, is going to suggest that we should unnecessarily pour out money. That was never intended when I used those words. What I said was that so important is this Service that when it is a question of economising, it is the last thing on which we should do so. One cannot foresee what is to be the future economic position of this country, but if it is to be such that we cannot maintain the standard of life of the people as it is at the present time, then the last thing we should reduce is the standard of the Health Services, which is what I intended to convey. What "The Economist" did not say, in quoting me, was that I said the wealth of a nation is in the health of its people which has its economic value.
  I hope I have been able to disabuse the hon. Member's mind of any idea of false economics on my part. We have not got a bottomless purse, and I referred to that fact when I spoke last week on the Finance Bill. I am hoping that we shall be able to get a system of finance for this service which will not permit it to be a target for any future Chancellors of the Exchequer. It may be—one never knows what the people of this country are going to do, because sometimes they are most irresponsible—that at some future time there will be a Tory Government, and what a magnificent target it is, if we have a service like this, costing about £300 million.
  The hon. Member for South Hendon was most ungenerous to the Minister of Health. The Minister piloted through the House one of the most important Bills that has been introduced in modern times. Everyone agrees that he acquitted himself magnificently and showed a grasp of his subject. He gave explanations that were understandable, which had he been a professional lawyer would, no doubt, not have been quite so clear. The hon. Member for South Hendon said that his profession has no goodwill. Well, we know that.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I did not suggest that there was no goodwill, but that there was no goodwill which could be sold.
  Mr. Messer: The hon. Member says that the profession has no goodwill to sell, but there is goodwill the profession
  1094
  can show if they are prepared to do so. The Minister got the Bill through, and throughout the proceedings he said he was prepared to listen when the need came, and that there would be inquiries made. We cannot have an immense service of this description and of such complexity without going through an experimental period which will show need for changes here and there.
  The Minister has gone to the length in this Bill of giving the doctors more than most people would consider necessary. He gave an undertaking that he would not introduce a salaried service. One would have thought that that undertaking was enough; there was nothing beyond the possibility of a salaried service in the Act. But the Minister has now put into this Bill a statement that there will not be a salaried service. He makes that plain in Clause 10, and Clause 11 clearly states:
  "Provided that regulations made under this section shall not contain any requirement that all specialists employed for the purpose of hospital and specialist services shall be employed whole-time."
  Where is the need to say that something is not to be done? One would have imagined that the situation as it was in the Act would have been sufficient. This shows that the Minister has been prepared to concede that to those who had fears that were groundless, and there is nothing more in it than that.
  I want to say a word about the part-time specialist services. It will not do to imagine that the medical profession as a whole are completely agreed as to the encouragement of part-time specialists. During this week I received a letter which shows how clearly the part-time specialist services are tied up with the paid beds provision. One cannot help feeling that when they criticise the paid beds provision there is a danger that the position might be exploited. There were those of us who thought there would be a "freezing" of beds to the exclusion of the general public, that there would be hospital management committees that would set aside a certain number of private beds to which the public could not get admission. The Minister said quite rightly that we have it in the Bill that these paid beds can only be occupied when they are not required by people who need them for medical services.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member is speaking of Section 5?
  Mr. Messer: Yes. The letter I wish to quote was received from a doctor in my own locality. He is a general practitioner and is not a Socialist. The letter is dated 13th May and states:
  "I feel I ought to call your attention to a practice which seems to me to be becoming very common, and as nothing could discredit the National Health Service more, I should be very glad to have your views on the subject. On several occasions recently, I have sent children who require tonsillectomy to various local hospitals, their names have been put on the waiting list and the parents have been told that it may be anything from nine months to two years before the operation can be done."
  The letter goes on to speak of the distress of parents and continues:
  "They have been told in the office of the hospital, 'Oh, yes, of course the operation can be done at once if it is done privately by Mr. So and So' (the surgeon who has just seen them in the out-patients department under the National Health Scheme). The cost of the operation done privately varies from £30 to £50, which in most cases is outside the possibility of payment by the parents."
  That is one of the dangers of the part-time specialist. It means that the specialist on the staff of the hospital can take his paying patients in the hospital. I do not mind him doing that; if someone can afford to pay a high fee for an operation I see no reason why he should not pay, provided there is no hindrance to other cases which are awaiting operation. As I received this letter only recently I have been unable to go more fully into this case, but inquiries will be made.
  In my region we do our best to safeguard this position, but I suggest to the Minister that this case shows the need for regional boards to have rather more authority over management committees. It may well be that in the course of our experience we shall be able to establish co-operation which will enable us to exercise a greater degree of influence than at present. Full-time specialists in hospitals are by no means in complete agreement that the part-time specialist is the right solution to the problem. I can see that point of view.
  But I can also see the value in part-time specialists, especially those of character who are doing work of a type which is so important, and of whom there are so few. Take the type of man who is
  1096
  a specialist in thoracic surgery. Probably the most important operation that can be performed upon a tuberculous patient is thorocoplasty, lobectomy, or neumectomy. It is a very narrow speciality. There are not enough of these specialists, and it would be wrong of us to insist that every specialist should be full-time, for that would mean that we could not distribute his skill and ability over a wide area.
  That does not mean, however, that we should encourage the view that the part-time specialist service is the best we can provide. Members of the medical profession working in hospitals, who have considered this matter, feel that they are suffering from a comparison between their own position and that of the part-time specialist. They point out that there is a lot of travelling time for which the part-time specialist is paid at the rate at which he would be paid for doing his specialised work in hospital. They contend that that is a misuse of the time of the specialist. They also point out that the part-timer is allowed to undertake work which entitles him to 9½/11ths of the salary he would earn as a full-time specialist. He is also entitled to up to 800 guineas per annum for domiciliary visits; he is entitled to make special visits on behalf of the regional board, with whom he is not under contract, at 5 guineas per visit; he is entitled to work as a locum tenens at 5 guineas per half day; and he is entitled to work as a practitioner in his own private practice. There are other matters with which I will not weary the House, such as Income Tax allowances for expenses that the full-time specialist is not able to get. I mention these things because I think too much importance is being placed on the proviso in the Clause that in no circumstances will there be introduced a regulation which will make all specialists full-time specialists.
  The specialists' position is a very important one in the Health Service—and here I would like to have the ear of the Minister. Before the coming into operation of the Act the Ministry of Health were very generous in encouraging post-graduate study, the idea being that we should have potential specialists. The regional boards have a special interest in the specialist service because they are the authorities for providing that

  1097
  service. In a hospital, all the staff up to the rank of registrar are appointed by the management committee. Above the rank of registrar and specialist they are appointed by the regional board. The management committee appoint staff including supernumaries—those surplus to medical establishment requirements.
  It is of interest to the regional board that these post-graduate studies should continue, and I suggest that consideration might be given to putting on to the regional board the responsibility for the provision of facilities for post-graduate study. There is no question of one body wishing to obtain authority or superiority over another. But we have found, in certain areas of the country which are under-hospitalised, that a patient suffering from a complaint requiring immediate attention might have to travel 50 to 60 miles. Anyone in Wisbech who has appendicitis has to go 50 miles to Norwich or 60 miles to Cambridge. In the hospitalisation of these under-hospitalised areas there will be need for more specialists. The regional board, because it sits in a position from which it can take a wider view than the management committee, and a less centralised view than the Ministry of Health, is the right body to be entrusted with this task.
  As the Health Service expands, we must face the fact that it is very doubtful whether expenditure will decrease. Costly though it is now, we have not by any means got the service which is required. In 1944, there were 4,000 people waiting to get into tuberculosis sanatoria, in December, 1948, the number had risen to 9,000. My medical friends will agree with me when I say that if it is possible to deal with a lesion when it first shows, there is the possibility of the patient being restored to industry, or at least of his life being saved. If the cavity develops, and the infiltration gets bigger and deeper, so that the disease gets a greater hold, no medical skill will avail. Tuberculosis, unlike cancer, is primarily a young people's complaint; its victims are mainly those between the ages of 14 and 35 to 40.
  We cannot look for contraction; there must be expansion. The Minister has embarked on what is probably the most important social experiment of modern times. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Hendon was so small-minded in his attempt to use the Bill as an
  1098
  opportunity for saying, "I told you so." Even if it had been true, surely the Minister is right in having the courage to introduce an Amending Bill. If he had not done so, he would have been wrong and would rightly have been criticised for not doing so? This Bill does not alter the Act fundamentally. There will need to be amending Bills. There will need to be Bills giving some greater measure of elasticity to the different administrative bodies engaged in this work.
  We have the problem of the old people. At present there are in their own homes old people who cannot get a bed in hospital, and they are in homes which are not fit for people to be ill in. We find that problem in the case of hospitals where these old people can be discharged by virtue of the magnificent work done by the medical profession. I have in mind a hospital where there is a magnificent geriatic clinic. The woman doctor in charge of that unit is able to get out of bed 40 per cent. of the old people who go into the hospital, but when they are out of bed we cannot send them anywhere for there is nowhere to send them. The difficulty about admitting these old people into hospitals arises largely because we cannot discharge them from hospital. The Minister will have to turn his attention to this and many other problems. This is an expanding service, and it is the noblest service to which any Minister could put his hand.
  5.33 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: The House always listens with interest and attention to what the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has to say on the subject of health services. He speaks with exceptional knowledge over the whole range of the subject. Whatever "The Economist" may or may not have said about it, we on this side of the House appreciate his sincere desire to see this service improved. Whatever justification there might have been for the criticism of "The Economist," I think the hon. Member put it right in his opening remarks.
  He recognised, as everybody else does, that there is a danger to the Health Service in the mounting costs which are involved. That is a danger which we are to some extent seeing already in the cuts which have necessarily had to be made in

  1099
  some of the hospital estimates and which everybody regrets. I think that he recognises, as we all recognise, that if we are to enjoy a National Health Service in this country, no matter whether there is a Tory Government, a Liberal Government or a Socialist Government in power, in the long run we have to earn as a nation the benefits we seek to enjoy.
  I shall not follow the broad line of argument which has been developed about the cost of the Health Service, nor shall I enter into the more detailed matters to which the hon. Member for South Tottenham referred about part-time specialists and so forth. I make no complaint about the introduction of this Bill; indeed I rather welcome it, for a variety of reasons. In the main, the Clauses deal with matters which were to a considerable extent debated on the Committee stage of the main Act. These are second thoughts, and they are probably better thoughts. Nobody need apologise for having second thoughts about the various aspects of this Service. I agree with others who have said that we are bound to have a number of amending Bills. The Health Service covers a vast range of circumstances and details.
  If I have a criticism of the Bill, it is not so much about what is in it as about some of the things which have been left out. My regret is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Title is so wide and the Financial Resolution so generously drawn, that it will be possible to urge the inclusion of various other matters. I have no doubt that on the Committee stage we shall be able to discuss such things as whether appliances ought to be made available to foreigners entering the country. There are arguments on both sides in some cases, and these matters can well be debated at some other stage in the proceedings.
  There is one matter to which I particularly want to refer, a matter which I raised with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health a few days ago at Question Time. It is not analgesia in childbirth. It concerns firms who, under the Factory Acts, are compelled to have their employees under 17 years of age medically examined. At the present moment they are outside the scope of the Service. Not only have they to pay the insurance contributions, but they have
  1100
  also to pay privately an outside doctor to come and examine their juveniles. Nobody questions the propriety of the examination—it is very necessary that these young workers should be medically examined—but when I put down a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the other day he very kindly said that it would be impossible to do it without an amendment of the Act. It seems to me that this may be an opportunity—I hope the Minister will give due consideration to it—for some amendment of that kind which will overcome that anomaly.
  Mr. Bevan: And increase the cost?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall not make debating points about increasing the cost. Such a firm seems to be paying twice and the costs are going straight on——
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member makes the same mistake as is made over and over again. The employer makes no more payment in contributions than he has made over the last 30 or 40 years. He makes exactly the same contribution as was made before. He makes it like everybody else as a taxpayer. He makes no additional payment for the employee through insurance contributions.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has quite followed the point I made. The complaint is not the amount of the contribution but that the firm is paying twice. I do not want to debate this at length now—it is more appropriate to the Committee stage—but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look at it, because it is something upon which we might well improve the main Act. He rather suggested that amendment would be necessary.
  I now turn to a matter which concerns the provisions in the main Act with regard to analgesia in childbirth. The desire of all of us who have been associated with that matter has always been to have introduced a limited but, as we think, useful reform in the law on that matter. I am not in the least interested to make any personal or party point about this matter, and I believe that those of all parties who have been associated with me in this matter would concede that.
  I want to make a proposition to the right hon. Gentleman. There are two new Clauses on the Paper in the name

  1101
  of the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) concerning the provision of analgesia to women in childbirth. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept these on the Committee stage, I should be perfectly prepared to withdraw the Analgesia in Childbirth Bill. The proposed Clauses do not give me everything I could wish to have, but they deal substantially with some 75 per cent. of what we were seeking to do in that Bill. The Clauses to which I refer are not the earlier ones dealing with the provision of all necessary services. For 100 years people have been debating whether analgesia really was a necessary service and who on earth would decide whether it was a necessary or reasonably necessary service? The two proposed new Clauses would place a duty upon the local authority to provide analgesia and transport and drugs, and place the duty upon hospitals to have the apparatus there and in good working order.
  We contend now that in the principal Act, to which so much reference has been made this afternoon, while many duties are placed upon local health authorities, there is no duty to provide any service for analgesia. Section 23 of the principal Act says this:
  "It shall be the duty of every local health authority to secure … that the number of certified midwives so employed … is adequate for the needs of the area."
  It seems to us that that is a limited duty to impose upon a local authority. It would not appear that there is any duty to give the service which we demand, and we think that some such duty ought clearly to be imposed. One can always argue, and lawyers often do, as to the interpretation of a statute, but in order to check our own opinion I took the opinion of an outside counsel upon the interpretation of the original Act. I do not say for a moment that it is conclusive—no lawyer's opinion is ever conclusive—but I thought it was something which it was proper to do to fortify my own opinion and the opinions of those with whom I was associated.
  I am sorry that the Minister has gone, but I have no doubt that my remarks can be repeated to him. I shall read the conclusion that this independent counsel gave. He said:
  "(1) There is no clear and specific duty imposed on local health authorities in the National Health Service Act, 1946, to provide analgesia services.
  1102
  (2) The general duties imposed on local health authorities under sections 22 and 23 of the Act are not in my opinion wide enough to include a duty to provide analgesia services. But even if this is not accepted it must in any event be open to very grave doubt whether the duties are wide enough to include analgesia services.
  (3) If a duty to provide analgesia services is not specifically, or otherwise, imposed on local health authorities under the Act, the Minister has no power to require these services to be provided.
  (4) If, contrary to the views I have expressed, the Minister was entitled to require analgesia services to be provided, it would certainly be within his discretion whether he required that provision to be made or not.
  I have dealt with the position in England. The position would, so far as I am aware, be the same in Scotland, although the sections are not in all respects identical."
  We thereupon took the opinion of a well know Scottish K.C. on the position in Scotland. He went even further. He said that not only was there no obligation to provide these services but he doubted whether, strictly interpreting the sections, there was even any power to do so. Those are the opinions of those counsel on this matter.
  The position appears to be as follows: first, there is no duty under the main Act to provide analgesia services imposed upon the local health authorities, secondly there is no power on the part of the Minister to make them carry out those services, thirdly, even if there was a power, it is entirely optional to the Minister whether he exercises it or not. That is the law as far as I have been able to ascertain it. I may be wrong; people often are; lawyers do not always agree. I am not deriding the lawyers, for I am one myself. Surely, however, it is not even necessary for me to say that this is bound to be right. Surely, with that weight of legal opinion on that side, it is plain that such doubt must exist in this matter as to warrant the introduction of legislation in order to clarify the position.
  The Minister may say, of course, that it does not matter what the law is, that it is the performance which counts. And he will be able to say that since he has been in office, through his local health authorities and so forth, he has made considerable improvements in many areas as to the amount of analgesia which is being administered. I concede that straight away, I do not challenge it at all. I pay my tribute to the energy with which the right hon. Gentleman has been pursuing

  1103
  this matter, and to the energy with which everybody has been pursuing this matter, especially to some extent since attention has been called to it.
  There is no doubt about that but, equally, I think he would be inclined to concede—at least I hope he would—that the position even now is far from being satisfactory. The best areas are exceedingly good but some of the bad areas are very bad indeed. I think I can appropriately take Wales as an example. I asked the Minister of Health for the figures of the last convenient period, and I was given them for the period from 5th July to 31st December, 1948—that is for a six months period to the beginning of this year. In Caernarvon not one solitary woman had any relief whatever from analgesia. In Merioneth and Merthyr, not a solitary woman. There were others in which the percentages were very small indeed, such as Cardigan, eight women, Pembroke, 30 women. In parts of East Anglia the position is bad, in parts of the South-West it is bad. In Scotland it is almost tragic. I want to make it clear that the figures I was given are for 1947, the last ones which the Secretary of State for Scotland had conveniently. There, in area after area, no analgesia whatever was given.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to interrupt? I do not think he realises the position in Scotland. We do not have midwives. We have an Act in Scotland that permits mothers to have doctors and anaesthetics, not midwives and analgesia, as in England.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I am much obliged to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She has drawn attention to the perfectly fair point that there is a difference in treatment between England and Scotland. However, I have been meticulously careful to get figures for those cases where the midwife only was employed. Though I could argue the case of the doctor, I am not concerned with it because, if one considers the time during which the doctor is able to be present, it is not long. In these cases, no doctor was concerned, the midwife only was in charge, there were 26,000 of them, and only 120 had analgesia.
  Mrs. Mann: Not in Scotland.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, these are in Scotland. These are the figures provided by the Scottish Office. In Aberdeen County, not a solitary woman. In Argyll, not a solitary woman.
  Mr. Hastings: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if the midwives were in entire charge, or were they acting only as maternity nurses to the doctor as sometimes happens?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: Both in England and Scotland, quite clearly, there is a doctor who sees the patient beforehand and has to be technically in charge, at any rate to the extent that no analgesia must be administered unless there is a certificate that it would not do injury to the patient. No one would ever seek to challence that position. These were cases where only the midwife was in a position to administer the relief, that is to say, no doctor was there to give any other form of anaesthetic.
  Miss Bacon rose—
  Mr. Thorneycroft: May I finish my point and then I will give way? In those cases in 1947 there were only 120 out of 26,000. I want to be meticulously fair about this. In reply to a recent Question, I understood that the position improved somewhat in Scotland in 1948 because the figures for that year showed that as many as 800 out of 26,000 received some relief of this kind. Really, 800 is a very small number out of such a very large number of lives.
  I am not therefore saying, and I am not quoting these figures to indicate, that the Ministry of Health or the Minister of Health has been backward in efforts or exhortations. That is not my case. My case is that in some of the backward areas very little has been done. If a clear and specific duty were laid upon some of these areas I think the advance would be quicker than if we relied merely upon exhortation.
  Miss Bacon: Is the hon. Member making any distinction between the services available and the services used? I ask that question because in one area which I know very well, where 100 per cent. of the midwives are trained and where all the facilities exist, the actual percentage used was only 40.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: The figures I am quoting are for the cases used. As the hon. Lady is aware, one can never be entirely accurate with statistics of this kind. The inquiry was held to ascertain the average number of women who refused the service when it was offered. The figure given was some 6 per cent. It is extraordinarily unlikely that in county after county and burgh after burgh in Scotland not a solitary woman used the service if she could have got it. That is stretching the case too much.
  I must now say one or two things about transport. An independent Government inquiry was held on this subject. In their report, the recommendation was clear and specific. It was:
  "The right answer seems to us to be that every midwife, whether in town or country, ought to be provided with a car and given sufficient financial help to run it."
  A car is necessary for the transport not only of the apparatus but of the midwife to the patient, particularly in some of the large areas. It is not being done. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for coming back into the House. I can assure him that I have been most kind to him in his absence. I am not saying that the Minister has been inactive. In fact, the other day he was successful in getting an improvement whereby there might be more priority for midwives than otherwise in respect of cars, but until we order the cars we shall not get them. If one looks in the nursing journals one will realise that it is not unusual to see advertisements for midwives or maternity nurses specifying that ownership of a motorcar is essential to the appointment. People talk about the lack of midwives and of maternity nurses, but if one is to seek for them solely among the classes of the community that own their own motorcars, it is limiting the opportunities from the start.
  In these matters we would seek to place the duty upon local authorities to make this necessary transport available. The idea here is not to be critical of the Minister or of the Government. The idea is to strengthen the hands of the Minister. I would refer to and emphasise one point on which I touched earlier. The right hon. Gentleman is very energetic. We can all say that, whether we agree with his policy or not. He may not always be Minister of Health. Some local health authorities are admirable, but they do
  1106
  not always remain under the same management. If we are to get any continuity of policy in this matter surely it is better to have a clear duty imposed rather than to leave the matter in the air. If cuts are to be imposed, where are they most likely to be imposed? Not where Parliament has said that a clear duty is to be laid down. The cuts are most likely to be imposed where everything is all permissive, anyway. If the House feels seriously about the need to provide women with this relief from pain, at least let us put the matter in the same category of duty obligation as we do the dental care of mothers and young children.
  The only other matter is the question of the hospitals. We want to lay a duty on the hospital to have the apparatus there and to see that the apparatus is in working order. I am bound to say that I should have thought that was not asking too much. I want to quote one letter on that subject. It is a letter from two doctors. One is Dr. Minnitt, the inventor of the Minnitt apparatus, who has probably done as much as any other man in the furtherance of this branch of medicine. The other doctor is Dr. Elam of the Wellhouse Hospital, Barnet. Both of them are well-known in this field. This letter they wrote the other day to "The Times." I do not know whether "The Times" has published it yet, but I think I may quote it. It says:
  "The Medical Research Council has set up a committee to investigate methods for producing relief from pain in maternity. It would appear from our experience, that a more urgent necessity, is the proper supervision of present approved methods. A letter recently received by one of us, described the experience of a patient in a Metropolitan hospital. 'I was kept,' she says, 'in Ward S, until 10 minutes before the baby came. By the time I was taken to the labour ward and given the machine, my baby was born, after only one more pain. That means I was in labour from 8 p.m. on Sunday night until 12.50 p.m. on Monday. I entered the labour room at 12.40; baby was born at 12.45. The previous young girl was still there resting, and she told me the machine did not work for her, as it was empty.' This letter is not the only one we have received. About two years ago, we sent to the Ministry of Health a number of similar letters. We would like to suggest then, that as an immediate measure, it shall be an established rule in every hospital, that a staff anaesthetist shall be appointed to supervise the administration of analgesia, and that in domiciliary midwifery, the local authority shall make a similar appointment to enable the midwives to obtain the assistance they need."
  I quote from these two reputable doctors.

  1107
  Of course, in all these cases statistics are apt to be not very accurate. I am not saying that in criticism of the Minister or of anybody else. That woman mentioned in the letter is counted as having had analgesia in childbirth. Anybody who has had a whiff of gas in any stage is counted in.
  I am not going to keep the House any longer. I thank hon. Members for listening to me on a subject upon which I feel rather strongly. I would make an offer. I am prepared to drop my Bill if the Minister will accept the proposed new Clause of the hon. Member for Epping. I shall be sorry to lose my Bill because I have become rather attached to it in recent months, but if one wishes to get a reform through, what has to be studied is getting it through. I am not in the least interested, I ask the House to believe me, whether the reform is achieved by means of a Conservative Member's Private Bill or through a Socialist Member's new Clause in this Bill. If we get the new Clause we shall have made an important step towards removing some part of this suffering in this country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be big enough to take that step tonight.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Bing: After the excellent speech which we had from my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) it would be a pity if the Debate were to degenerate into a discussion merely on the question of analgesia. Though I am going to follow immediately the arguments of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) I hope we realise that there is much more in the Bill than the subject which the hon. Member has so ably raised. One might describe this Bill as a psychological Measure. It is concerned with psychiatric treatment applied by the Minister of Health and administered by him to the medical profession to relieve them of their unjustified anxieties. That was disclosed to us by the hon. Member for Monmouth, whose speech implied that everything would be quite all right so long as the present Minister is in that office—but who knows? He may be promoted.
  If the Minister is to go out, is it not really in the back of the hon. Gentleman's mind that he would like to insure the
  1108
  Health Act against the possibility of his own party being returned to power? He would like to re-insure it against an event which is unlikely to happen. There is no harm in indulging in such re-insurance if we are certain that it does not harm this Act. There are many arguments in favour of various sorts of relief and, indeed, before he got on to the subject of relieving pain in childbirth the hon. Member spoke of relieving the expenses of employers from the services which it is necessary for them to carry out in connection with the Factories Act. Those are two things which we may have to consider, but, whether we are considering employers' liability or childbirth, we should make the words wide enough for the purpose we have in view.
  We all have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) but the words she and other Members use in the proposed new Clause attempt to prescribe by Act of Parliament and to write into an Act of Parliament exactly what should be done in childbirth. They have dealt with one specific thing; instead of making the words of the Act as broad as possible they have made them as narrow as possible. This is a question which has received considerable popular discussion, but what we should attempt in this House is to make certain that not only analgesia but any other services which it is necessary to administer should be available. If it is necessary to deal with it, let us deal with the whole issue once and for all.
  This is not the time to discuss it, but some hon. Friends and I have put down a proposed new Clause dealing with the duty of local health authorities in connection with midwifery. I was glad to see that the first part of that new Clause secured the approval of the hon. Member for Monmouth, because he followed the first part of the wording. But, at a later stage, he branched off and differentiated very sharply in order to keep to the analgesia issue, while we tried to make it embrace other services. Actually I do not think any Clause is necessary because, although never before has there been such talk of the illegality or impropriety from a legal point of view of analgesia, there has never been at the same time such an amount of actual practical administration of it.

  1109
  If it is true, as suggested, that the Minister of Health is a law breaker, he has broken the law on a quite unbelievable scale in my own county and in the county of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping. In one half year after the introduction of the Health Act there have been more cases of administration of analgesia in England and Wales than in the whole period of 1939. If that can be done under the existing law, it does not seem that there is anything we need remedy from that point of view. But what there is a need to watch for is the administration.
  Already in Essex there is talk of economy in all sorts of services. The political power has passed from one party to another and I hope that the hon. Member for Monmouth will use some of his eloquence on the Essex County Council to try to persuade them not to cut down on services on which analgesia depends, not to cut down on ambulance services and to economise in all these ways because there is already great talk in Essex of his party standing for reform and retrenchment. I do not know where they picked up the phrase, but if those reforms and retrenchments are going to affect not only the medical service but everything which goes with it, ambulance service and the like, they will put an end to analgesia——
  Mrs. Manning: What a strangely illogical speech.
  Mr. Bing: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to deal with that particular aspect of it later and, knowing her, I am certain she will take full advantage of the opportunity. It would be very unfortunate if we were divided on any barren dispute as to form of words. It seems to me that it should be possible to devise a form of words which will embrace, not the narrow, but the broad issue. I do not say that the form of words of my hon. Friends and myself is ideal, but I cannot say that of the form of words of the hon. Member either. We should wish to remove all doubt on this subject and to make the Clause watertight from all points of view.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. David Renton: I trust that the hon. Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing), whose speeches I always enjoy, will forgive me if I do not
  1110
  follow him on the question of analgesia, because I have other matters to mention. One is tempted to ask the Minister to eat some of his own words, but it is very easy to ask him to do that and I do not propose to do so. However, I hope he feels he has learnt a valuable lesson, which has been a useful part of his political education, in the experience he has had over the original Act and this amending Bill.
  Hon. Members no doubt will recollect that when the National Insurance Bill, which became an Act in the same year as the Health Service Act, was before the House, it received a unanimous Second Reading. I think there were only two hon. Members who even called out against it. The whole question of National Insurance has been above party throughout this Parliament; and I wish that the Health Service had also been above party. I express the hope that now that we have this amending Bill, which cures the serious defects in the original Act, we can approach the question of the Health Service on a non-party basis.
  I welcome the provisions of Part I of the Bill, as I do other parts of the Bill, and should like to join in the tribute and to the work of Mr. Justice Slade and the committee over which he presided. I do that with great pleasure because 17 years ago I happened to be his pupil in my early days at the Bar and the report of his committee is typical of his orderly legal mind. In regard to Part II of the Bill, I speak as the son of a general medical practitioner, who also in his long medical life, was a surgeon, and I welcome the fact that in Part II we have some security for the future that the medical profession will be placed in a position in which it is in the best interest of their patients that they should be. There was a tag spoken three or four years ago, of which I would remind hon. Members. It was said to have been spoken by a general practitioner and was as follows:
  "I am the servant of my patient, while I'm master of my fate; but I'll be master of my patient, when I am a servant of the State."
  That would indeed be a very serious position, if it became established; but so long as we preserve a high degree of independence in the members of the medical profession, I think that undesirable situation can be avoided.

  1111
  I welcome the provisions of Part II of the Bill because they are likely to preserve to a great extent the independence of the medical profession. I sincerely hope, however, that during the Committee stage the vagueness of the proviso which is to be found in Clause 10, and which is to be added to the original Act, will be removed. Meanwhile, it would be most valuable if the right hon. Gentleman, in winding up the Debate, were to give the House some idea of what he at least has in mind when he says that in special circumstances the proviso with regard to there being no fixed salary or not mainly a fixed salary shall not prevail, because if these "special circumstances" are to be interpreted too broadly by a Minister with particular whims, the whole effect of this amendment will obviously go by the board.
  So much for the comments I have to offer on the Bill itself. I hope that I shall not be out of Order if I make one or two remarks about the way the principal Act is working out at the moment. I understand that hospital management committees and regional hospital boards have been asked to apply their minds to the question of reducing expenditure. No instructions given to these bodies have come our way, as Members of Parliament. It is time that the Minister told the House exactly what he has asked the hospital management committees and regional hospital boards to do. I look forward to enlightenment on that matter because I know that a great deal of anxiety is being felt by some members of these committees as to what these economies will involve.
  I shall endeavour to rebut the suggestion which is often made by the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and made with reason, that hon. Members are asking for expensive improvements in public services and at the same time are crying out for economy. There are many Departments for which the right hon. Gentleman is not responsible, and some part of the work for which he is responsible, in which economies could certainly be made and improvements of the service thereby carried out. In particular—the Minister has already been told about this in this House, but I should greatly welcome something more from him about it tonight, for he has had further time to consider the matter since
  1112
  it was last raised on the Supplementary Estimates—this service is obviously carrying heavy overhead costs of administration. That is well known, and the right hon. Gentleman has had time in which to apply his mind to the question of how those costs can be reduced. We want to know if he has made a serious effort to consider the matter; and, if so, what are the results of his deliberations.
  This service was originally proclaimed as being a service which was free to the individual in all cases, irrespective of contributions. There are two respects in which I have found, through experiences of my constituents, that it is not free. In the first place, people living in remote rural areas are often having to pay high transport charges to get to a hospital for treatment. Only three days ago I received a letter from a lady in a remote village; in fact it is scarcely a village, it is just a small hamlet, too small to be served by a bus service now or probably for many years to come. She was told by her doctor when he visited her, that she ought to go to hospital 10 miles away three times within one week for X-ray treatment. She has considered the matter, and she and her husband find that it will be necessary for them to hire a car costing in all £3 for the three visits in order that she may have that treatment.
  In other words, the service is free if one can afford to go and get it. That is how it works out for quite a number of people in rural areas. I understand that regulations have been made for the reimbursement of fares paid on public transport; but where private transport is necessarily hired, it appears that there can be no reimbursement whatever. That matter will have to receive attention.
  Then the families of men serving in the R.A.F. and living in Service quarters are in a most unusual position. In their case freedom of choice of doctor appears to be excluded. They are told, "You can receive the attention of the one doctor serving the station, but if you do not want his services and desire the services of another doctor living in the neighbourhood, you cannot have them, even though he is within the Health Service." Further, even though they go to the Service doctor they are told, so I am reliably informed, that they will have to pay for the medicines which he prescribes for them. If I am wrong about these facts, I shall

  1113
  be only too happy to learn that that is so; but, if I am right about them, it seems that an exception is being made to the general principle that the Service is free to the individual.
  A strange position has arisen in regard to pay beds. When the Minister took over the hospitals, he found that they had their private wards, etc. He was quite willing to make provision for pay beds when it was possible to do so. At least he has done so, but a condition has been attached that, if a patient entitled to all the rights of the service accepts pay bed accommodation, he or she must also pay full private fees to the medical practitioners and specialists attending. In some cases of which I know, that has worked out as a considerable hardship to members of the middle classes.
  I know a young professional man earning from £600 to £700 per year whose wife, while away from home, was taken ill with appendicitis and had to go into hospital quickly. When telephoned, he said, "Get her a private ward, if you can." He never for a moment expected that he would have to pay very substantial fees for the specialist and the other doctors attending her. He assumed that apart from the payment due for the private ward accommodation, his wife would be treated as a member of the public entitled to the services available under the National Health Service Act. Instead of that he has had a bill amounting to £70 or £80 for private ward accommodation and the specialist's fees. Nor am I blaming the doctors in this case, because the doctors, whether they wish to or not, are, according to the Minister's own regulations, as I understand them, being compelled to charge their usual private fees.
  Mr. Bevan: There is nothing in the Act of Parliament which compels a doctor to charge anybody a brass farthing.
  Mr. Renton: Then why is it that the Minister's regulations have been so worded that, if a patient accepts pay bed accommodation, he or she must do so on condition of not getting the rest of the Health Service attention free? It has to be paid for.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is quite wrong.
  Mr. Renton: I am at the moment in correspondence with the Minister about
  1114
  such a case. I shall look to a happy conclusion of that case if the practice is what the Minister says it is.
  It must be a great attraction to foreigners to come to this country hoping that they will get all the services free. They have not contributed to them, but that is beside the point if it is to be an attraction to foreign tourists. But we must make quite sure that it will be an attraction. We do not want foreign tourists to encounter any of the snags and difficulties which our own people have experienced, and on balance I should have thought that this was not a very wise provision, at any rate just yet. And in any event, if we want to attract the foreign tourist it would be far better to sack the Minister of Food.
  Now that we have got this matter of the original Act, which was obviously a bad one, thoroughly squared up—it is to be well amended as we can understand if we look at this Bill and at the Schedule in particular—let us hope that from now onwards both sides of the House can co-operate in making the National Health Service the success it ought to have been from the very beginning.
  6.21 p.m.
  Dr. Broughton: I welcome this Bill designed to weave loose threads into the fabric of the National Health Service Act. Some opponents of the Government claim that these amendments should have been included in the 1946 Act, and declare them to be omissions of hurried legislation. I cannot share that view. For years the country was in need of a comprehensive health service, but had to wait a long time before a Government would deal with the problem. The Conservatives talked about it, but took no practical steps towards its realisation. True to name and tradition, they conserved the old disorder. On this side of the House hon. and right hon. Members who knew the urgent need for reform are agreed that the National Health Service Act was not passed too quickly, nor was it brought into operation too soon.
  Not yet a year old, the Service suffers the inevitable troubles of infancy, and now my right hon. Friend promptly prescribes the remedies. Part I of the Bill clarifies the position of general medical practitioners practising in partnership, and should relieve their anxieties. About

  1115
  two years ago I heard an official of the British Medical Association speak on this particular matter and explain the complexity of some partnership agreements. I am sure he did not exaggerate, but I gained the impression that the problem affected many practitioners. It is now stated in the Financial Memorandum to this Bill that about 50 practices are involved and about 150 doctors concerned. Many must have settled their financial difficulties, but it is worth while devoting the first part of this Bill to the benefit of the remainder. Further comment on this part of the Bill would require expert knowledge of law and accountancy.
  Part II of this Bill begins with Clause 10 and prohibits a full-time salaried practitioner service. I was not satisfied with the reasons given by the learned Lord Advocate why this Clause was inserted. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has had a very difficult task in dealing with representatives of the medical profession. He has had the good sense to know that the general medical practitioners are the commandos of the National Health Service. He wants to be reasonable, fair and just, and he has made compromise after compromise. But has not he now gone too far in trying to meet the demands put forward by that section of the profession which are most opposed to his political views?
  Let me quote a few extracts from the leading article in the "British Medical Journal" of Saturday, 21st May:
  "The B.M.A. conducted a campaign against the introduction of a whole-time salaried medical service.…"
  Also:
  "It did not accept the assurance of the Minister that this was not the Government's intention.…"
  Also:
  "Mr. Bevan once more bowed before the storm.…"
  The medical profession does not want a full-time salaried service, and the Government have not tried to force one on to it. The Act of 1946 was arranged so that the Minister could by regulation conform to the wishes of the medical profession and the best interests of the country. The day may come when the medical profession wants a full-time salaried medical service and will have difficulty in obtaining one if this Clause
  1116
  becomes law. I suggest that my right hon. Friend is pampering a section of the profession which is most politically prejudiced and panic stricken. I should like him to hear some of the comments on this Bill taken from that same recent leading article in the "British Medical Journal" to which I have already referred:
  "The Minister of Health, may, of course, argue that an amending Bill at this stage should be free of controversial matters so that it may be passed quickly, or at least before the end of the life of the present Government."
  And another sentence:
  "He has again committed a breach of trust with a profession that has loyally collaborated with the Government in operating a service full of imperfections."
  I think my right hon. Friend ought to know of that.
  The only other criticism which I wish to make of this Bill is with regard to a part of the Schedule, and it relates to local medical committees. There it is proposed that subsection (3) be added to Section 32 of the 1946 Act. Perhaps I might draw the attention of the House first of all to Section 32 of the 1946 Act which states that local medical, dental and pharmaceutical committees may be formed in the area of any executive council. Subsection (2) of that same section states:
  "The executive council shall … consult with the said committees … and the said committees shall exercise such other functions as may be prescribed."
  Thus the committees can be told what they have to do, and the executive councils are forced by law to consult with them. Surely this clearly acknowledges the importance of these committees. I admit that they are of value to doctors, dentists and pharmacists, but I suggest they are of even greater value to the Minister himself; forming as they do liaison between the administrative and general duties branches, and being essential for the efficiency of the service.
  This Bill proposes that:
  "The executive council may, on the request of the local medical committee or the local pharmaceutical committee or the local dental committee … allot to that committee out of the moneys available to the council for the remuneration of persons of whom that committee is representative … such sums for defraying the administrative expenses of the committee, including travelling and subsistence allowances payable to members of the com-

  1117
  mittee.. and the amount of any such sums shall be deducted … from the remuneration of the persons aforesaid."
  Why should the administrative expenses of these committees and the travelling and subsistence allowances of the members have to be met by compulsory deductions from the salaries of doctors, dentists and pharmacists? Why is this not a public expense?
  I suggest that this has been incorporated in the Bill because voluntary payment by the people concerned has been a failure. Although the amount is only quite small, some object on principle and others feel that they cannot afford any reduction of income. I resent this niggardly nibbling at the pay packets of doctors, dentists and pharmacists, and I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter. When he reconsiders it I ask him to bear in mind that doctors are not wealthy men. They must not be judged by their gross incomes because many of them have heavy practice expenses. They do not seek wealth but they ask that their remuneration shall be sufficient to allow them to give freely their self-sacrificing service in accordance with the traditions of an honourable profession.
  I hope that the Minister appreciates that after the storm he has weathered, we sail in calmer seas with the majority of medical men and women, bringing welfare to the people and world renown to the Service. I hope also that the passage of this Bill through Parliament will bring home to all medical practitioners the fact that we have a Minister of Health and a Government willing and anxious to aid them in their vital work.
  6.32 p.m.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I trust that the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) will not mind if I do not follow him into the detail of his argument, but I do not wish to detain the House for very long. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I had not intended trying to catch your eye, because I wanted to speak on one particular aspect of the National Health Service which has already been dealt with by two hon. Members who were more intent than I to speak on it. I wish to answer the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) who, unfortunately, is no longer with us.
  1118
  I refer to the proposed new Clauses dealing with analgesia, which we will not discuss in detail today but to which I hope the Minister will pay attention. I trust that he will consider accepting them, and I hope that he will give some indication to that effect when he replies to the Debate. The hon. Member for Hornchurch supported his own new Clause because he felt that it was necessary that we should not try to be too specific when we are amending the Act. I would suggest that his Clause is really far too wide. At the end he suggests that it should be made a duty to provide for all women in childbirth
  "all services reasonably necessary for the proper care of the women.…"
  I suggest that the words:
  "all services reasonably necessary"
  are too wide. Who is to decide?
  Mr. Speaker: One ought not to discuss in detail new Clauses which are going to be put down on the Committee stage. One may refer to the subject in general, but I think that it would be wrong to discuss in detail the wording of the Clauses now.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: I accept your Ruling, Sir. Therefore, I will say, speaking in a general manner, that those new Clauses in the names of the hon. Member for Hornchurch and the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann), are too wide in their interpretation. I trust that the Minister, who has again departed from our proceedings, will perhaps pay attention to those new Clauses which are put down in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) and the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). It is important that we should be clear in our own minds as to the exact interpretation of the National Health Service Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth has read out counsel's opinion, both English and Scottish, as to the interpretation of the original Act. We seek to amend it through this Bill and through our new Clauses because we are not satisfied that in fact the local authorities have a duty imposed upon them to provide these necessary services of drugs, transport, apparatus, etc., to the midwives in the discharge of their duty.
  It has been said that by trying to impose a duty on local authorities one tries to take away their responsibilities.

  1119
  But this argument was answered by the then Parliamentary Secretary on the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill, when he said, referring to the responsibility of local authorities:
  "Optional powers are by this Bill made duties, and a direct responsibility is placed upon local authorities to provide services of a quality and standard in keeping with a real national health service. It becomes the duty, and not the option, of the local authority to make arrangements for the care of nursing and expectant mothers and children under the age of five. It becomes their duty, and not their option, to provide a free and full health-visitor service.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 220–1.]
  By our new Clauses we seek to ensure that it becomes a duty and not the option of local authorities, to provide the necessary analgesia services. I thought that the hon. Member for Hornchurch was perhaps a little wide of the mark when he said that it was a pity that we should have a barren dispute on the form of words. The interpretation of an Act is extremely important.
  It is most necessary that local authorities should have a perfectly clear idea of what are their duties so that they should not have to refer to legal opinion to know exactly what they are. For instance, we do not want to feel that the situation is as described by the Minister himself when, in answer to a Question in this House, he said that he had the power to change, enlarge or modify any of the duties imposed upon local authorities at any time. I submit that that is a very serious statement. Surely, the local authorities do not like to feel that their duties can be changed, enlarged or modified at any moment by the Minister. Surely it is far better that Parliament should discuss what is to be their specific duty and make it clear by Act of Parliament.
  Finally, I should like to make reference to one interpretation by the hon. Member for Coatbridge who, in talking about the figures for Scotland, said we had a system whereby women in childbirth received the care of an experienced doctor. It is true that that is our aim, but the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth concerned those cases where only midwives attended these women. There were over 27,000 live births, and only 800 women received relief in 1948. But we are discussing the Health Service as a
  1120
  whole and the possibility of improving it. We must make the very best possible use of all our facilities. If we had a fine midwifery service, I think that we should be thankful for it and we should encourage the people in the Service to become more efficient.
  There is no doubt that under the National Health Service we are facing great difficulty in the shortage of beds in hospitals and the shortage of doctors and nurses. In my opinion it is a mistake to encourage women always to go into hospital for the birth of their children. They ought to be able to feel that they will have the same care and attention in their own homes. Also, I think it is a mistake for them to feel that they can only get proper analgesia service if they go to hospital. We all know that owing to the shortage of beds it is very difficult for women to get into hospitals for the birth of their children unless they are likely to have complications or perhaps it is a first child. That applies in some congested areas: it does not apply all over the country. When we are discussing the National Health Service as a whole, we should try to improve those services which are available, make it perfectly clear what are the duties of the local health authorities and be quite sure that they carry them out.
  6.40 p.m.
  Mr. Baird: I hope the noble Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Tweedsmuir) will forgive me if I do not follow her on the question of analgesia, but the House has already discussed it for some considerable time this afternoon. I sat throughout the whole of the Committee stage of the National Health Service Bill, and as far as I can recollect, the subject of analgesia was never raised, and it is rather belated to raise it now.
  I was rather astonished, when listening to the earlier Debate, to hear the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) deploring the fact that the National Health Service Act had been treated as a political issue. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Huntingdon deploring that fact. He compared the National Insurance Act with the National Health Service Act and said it was a pity that the House had not treated the latter as it had done the National In-

  1121
  surance Act. The fact is that the Health Service scheme has been political right from the very beginning, and, even before the Bill was introduced the Tory Party and the B.M.A. up and down the country were misrepresenting what was in the minds of hon. Members on this side of the House.
  When we came to discuss the details, the House will remember the misrepresentation about the relationships between doctors and patients which, it was said, would come about if the Bill was passed. During the Committee stage, the Opposition also opposed us on the question of the direction of doctors and again drew a picture of the terrible things that would happen. They have not happened. They also opposed us on the question of the abolition of the sale of practices, and on dental questions. When we suggested taking over the voluntary hospitals and running them into a co-ordinated hospital system, they opposed us again, and, of course, it has been a political struggle from the very beginning. We deplored it from the beginning, and we are glad now to see that at long last the Opposition are coming to our point of view.
  As the Debate today has ranged very widely, I make no apology for discussing an important aspect of the National Health Service—the dental aspect. There is nothing in this Bill referring to dentistry, but I wish the Minister had included in it a Clause relating to the priority class in dentistry. We all know, from Questions in the House on the subject, about the lack of treatment for children and expectant mothers. It is an urgent need; it was written into the original Act of 1946 that the Minister should provide a priority service for expectant mothers and young children. The trouble is that, while it is written into the Act, the Minister has no power to implement the Act. The school dentists are employed by the local authorities, and the position today is that the establishment of dentists employed by local authorities in treating the priority class is under 50 per cent.
  The Minister is not to blame for this. The situation developed almost in a Robertson Hare way. First, when the Minister set up the Whitley machinery to settle differences between the two sides the dentists refused to accept it. Months were wasted in trying to get them to
  1122
  come in, and then, when they came in, the local authorities refused to accept the Whitley machinery, and so the position has gone on until today the whole system is almost breaking down.
  The only solution is for the Minister to take over the treatment of these priority classes. At present, the Government give a grant of 50 per cent. but this is not enough. As dental incomes have gone up, a vicious circle has started. The local authority dentists want more money to bring them up to the level of the private dentists, and the local authorities fear that if they pay their dentists on that basis, there will be other of their officials who will want the same kind of salary, and so the vicious circle goes on. I am sorry there is no Clause in this Bill enabling the Minister to take over this service and run it on a regional basis. He ought to cut out a lot of red tape and help us to meet the needs of the priority class.
  I am also very worried because of the way a certain proportion of the private practitioner dentists are treating their patients in the country today. Let us face up to the fact that there has been a considerable amount of ill-informed talk about this. All this talk about dentists making £10,000 a year is not completely true. The position really is that a very small number of dentists are making large incomes, but we must always remember that the gross income of a dentist bears no relation to his net income. Under the old private practice scheme, their expenses were about 52 per cent., while today they may be much higher.
  All this Press talk about inflated incomes is wrong. There is a small number of dentists, perhaps 10 per cent. of the profession, who are guilty of acting in a most unprofessional manner. The trouble is that the income which a dentist receives privately from a patient does not always find its way to the tax collector, and there is encouragement at present for a certain number of unscrupulous dentists to try to squeeze money out of the public, although the public are entitled to the best possible type of dental service under the Act.
  We shall have to do something to try to stop it. The trouble with these inflated costs is that the salaries are much too high, although the dentists are working longer hours than before. The demand

  1123
  for dental services has been much higher than anyone ever forecast, and I remember the leaders of the dental profession, and hon. Members in this House, arguing that if we had a free dental service, the people would not rush for it and there would be no shortage of dentists. It has now been proved that the demand has been so great that the shortage of dentists is very serious indeed. All these factors tend to give us these much inflated costs, which are much more than we expected.
  I would suggest to the Minister one way in which he could cut the costs of the dental service almost immediately, apart from cutting salaries. There is need to cut salaries, it is true, but that will only save a certain proportion of the cost. At present, the number of estimates which dentists are submitting for approval runs into hundreds of thousands each week. We have a dental estimates board which examines these estimates, but every estimate is not examined in detail. Only when there is any doubt and a professional opinion is necessary, it is submitted to the board at Eastbourne. The Government admit that the establishment necessary to supervise this system is 12 professional dentists, as well as regional dental officers who are stationed about the country and inspect the patients where there is any query.
  At present, because of the inflated salaries of private dentists, where the establishment at Eastbourne is 12, we find it is actually employing only four. There are thus four men to do the work of 12, and the same is the case with the officers in the country. I believe that if the Minister would spend a few thousands in increasing the salaries of these specialists, he would increase the number to the full establishment, and we should have a much better check on the wastage which at present goes on through dentists submitting estimates that are unduly high.
  There has been a tremendous amount of publicity about dentistry in recent months, and I feel that much of this talk must be discounted. The number of patients wanting dental treatment who did not really require it is very small, and the amount of leeway to be made up by dentists in this country is tremendous. I welcome the attitude of the Opposition
  1124
  tonight, and especially that of the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). I am glad they realise that they were wrong during the passage of the 1946 Act through this House, and, while I do not praise them for it, I am sorry to see that, now that they realise they were wrong, they are running off ready to jump on the bandwagon.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Linstead: I shall not follow the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Baird) very far, but I congratulate him on taking up the case of the priority classes of dental treatment, because that is one of the sections of the Service which is still badly in need of development. The only comment I would make is that I very much doubt whether the answer to the needs of those classes is that the Minister should take over responsibility for them. It seems to me that until the question of the remuneration of the private dental practitioner is settled, it is quite hopeless to think of attracting dentists into a salaried service because of the enormous disparity between official salaries and what they can earn as private practitioners.
  There is one general observation I wish to make. I am one of those who, once the decision to pass the 1946 Act was taken, felt that it should be lifted, if at all possible, out of the realm of party politics. I know that is difficult. We heard earlier today a plea from the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) on behalf of the Liberal Party. I wish we could take his advice, but I hope we shall not follow his example, because no sooner had he made the plea than he proceeded to play "political football," to use his own words. I think we can take it that by this time the Minister of Health knows our public views about himself—I say nothing about our private views—and I am quite certain that we on this side know the views held about us by hon. Members opposite. Let us call it quits and recognise that in this Service there is an enormous task waiting to be done.
  There are hundreds of people here in London, chronic sick people, waiting in their homes for hospital beds. There are thousands of people suffering from tuberculosis who ought to be in sanatoria, but who cannot get there. Again, there are hundreds of confinements taking place at home when, on social grounds, they ought

  1125
  to take place in hospital There are, I suppose, thousands of nurses who are being housed in quite inadequate early Victorian quarters. To right these things is a task which calls, not for party strife, but for a national effort now that we have the 1946 Act on the Statute Book.
  At this late stage in the Debate, there are only one or two matters in the Bill to which I wish to draw particular attention. The Minister's main task now, in order to get this great Service settled on the rails, is to carry the professions with him. The Service will not function properly until the professions feel that they are in a position of security, and that, instead of looking over their shoulders wondering what is going to happen next, they can devote themselves wholeheartedly to their professional work. I believe that in this Bill the Minister has gone some way to meet the doubts of the medical practitioners. He may consider that it is of no value, but they consider that it is of value to have a statutory guarantee that a full-time salaried Service shall not be introduced save by Act of Parliament. That may be the beginning of peace in the medical camp.
  However, I feel that a gesture to the dentists is very badly needed. The difficulty in which that profession finds itself is that the dentists feel themselves faced with a unilateral alteration of terms of service by regulation. One of the things I hope the Minister will be able to tell us is that when the conciliation machinery is set up it is going to be used, and is going to be exhausted before any alteration in terms or conditions of service are made by regulation.
  Mr. Bevan: In that case, the leaders of the dental profession must, on their part, be ready to negotiate and to meet us, and not stay away when they are invited to come along and talk.
  Mr. Linstead: Here, of course, we are stirring up controversy; it all depends upon one's interpretation of the word "negotiation."
  Mr. Bevan: The leaders of the dental profession have been invited on several occasions to meet me or my officials and have refused to come along. They are hardly the people who can complain at the absence of negotiation.
  Mr. Linstead: There is no advantage in arguing with the right hon. Gentleman on this point because I do not know the precise terms on which the invitations were made. If they were invitations to negotiate, then I would agree with the Minister that the dentists were open to criticism. If, on the other hand, as has been suggested, they were invitations to come and discuss and comment, but not to negotiate, then it may very well be that the dentists had reason on their side for saying, "We will not come merely to learn what is going to happen. If that is all it is, a letter will do." However, tonight the Minister is in a far better position than I am to put the facts before the House.
  On the details of the Bill, I want to refer to one Clause in particular, and to one other matter which is not dealt with precisely in the Bill, but which I hope the Minister will look at favourably when we get to the Committee stage. The particular Clause to which I want to draw the attention of the House and the Minister is Clause 12 about which nothing has been said so far, and about which there may well be more than one opinion. Clause 12 imports into the National Health Service a large section of the conciliation machinery which is applied to industrial disputes, and it seems to me to raise two important points of general principle. First of all, the Minister of Labour is brought in under the Conciliation Act, and one of the powers given him under that Act is to seek to settle a dispute.
  As a matter of constitutional propriety, I am wondering whether in fact it is right or proper for one Minister to purport to arbitrate in a dispute where one of the parties to the dispute is another Minister of the Crown. That is a matter which wants looking into on the Committee stage in order to see that we are not putting either the Minister of Health or the Minister of Labour into a false position in view of the fact that they both share Cabinet responsibility.
  However, the more important point under this Clause is this. If the Industrial Court is chosen, as it can be under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, as the means for resolving a dispute between the Minister and any section of employees in the National Health Service, then there is no provision for the enforcement of any

  1127
  award which that court may make, nor so far as I can see, does the Act bind the Crown. The most the other party to a dispute which comes before the Industrial Court can get is a barren judgment of the Court, unless the Minister is prepared, before the case goes to the Court at all, to accept in advance whatever the findings of the Court may be. I hope the Minister will turn his attention to these points and, if possible, will give the House tonight some assurance that in these arbitration proceedings, whatever precise form they may take, he will as a party to them regard himself as bound in advance by the decision of the arbitrator. Otherwise it seems to me that the whole value of Clause 12 is likely to be lost if, in fact, only one party to the arbitration is to be bound by the decision.
  The last point to which I wish to draw attention concerns the pharmaceutical service, and here I must disclose an interest in that I am the Secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society. Contractors to the pharmaceutical service can be either individual firms, or corporate bodies such as Boots or co-operative societies which practise pharmacy. The actual service itself and the making up of the medicine must, of course, be performed by a pharmacist. It is the desire of the Pharmaceutical Society and of pharmacists in general that the professional man who does the professional work shall share the responsibility for that work with his employer. At the moment the employer alone is liable for mistakes and accepts the responsibility. Under the optical service, where both the individual optician and also corporate bodies may be contractors, the responsibility of employer and employee is joint. The optician provides the service jointly with the limited company, and shares the responsibility.
  I hope that either in Committee or on the Report stage I shall be able to move an Amendment which will provide for the pharmaceutical service being placed on the same basis as the optical service, so that the individual who does the professional work shares the responsibility with his employer in their relations with the Minister. That is a very important point to establish, so that the professional man may accept the responsibility which
  1128
  goes with the performance of professional service.
  In conclusion, I wish to return to the plea which I made at the beginning, and express the hope that the Minister will use his utmost endeavours to remove the suspicions which some of the professions still have of his Ministry, and get them wholeheartedly behind this service. If he does that, the service will work. If he is unable to do that, however groundless their fears may be, he will get halfhearted support, and this great service will suffer.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: I regret that I cannot follow the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead). He has been dealing with matters which are actually in the Bill. I wish to deal with another aspect, the new Clauses on the Order Paper relating to analgesia. I do not wish to discuss these Clauses in detail; I hope we shall do so on the Committee stage. I merely wish to express my great surprise at the manner in which this subject of analgesia was introduced in the House. I am surprised that it should have been introduced from the benches opposite, since hon. Members opposite have never before expressed any interest in expectant mothers. Time and again expectant mothers have had to suffer unemployment and cuts at the labour exchange, but no Member of the Opposition has ever risen to put in a word for them.
  I claim to have a little experience in this matter, and, while I am always sympathetic to the suggestion of analgesia and even keener on anaesthesia, the only experience of labour pains of some hon. Members opposite was when they heard the results of the 1945 Election. Far more important than analgesia or anaesthesia to the mothers of this country is a mind free from worry and a well-nourished body, towards which our policy of full employment is contributing. Those are the essentials for happy childbirth in our country.
  I was astonished when I heard hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) and the noble Lady the Member for South Aberdeen (Lady Tweedsmuir), speaking of conditions in Scotland and pretending to throw to the mothers of Scotland something in the nature of a

  1129
  glittering prize, although as long ago as 1937 the mothers in Scotland were delighted with the conditions which arose out of the Maternity Services (Scotland) Act, 1937. Here I must pay a compliment to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) for his work in connection with the introduction of that Measure. Doctors all over Scotland welcomed that Act. I know of doctors in Lanarkshire, which comprises a large proportion of the Scottish population, who, when that Act came into force, went out with their assistants—very often there were two doctors and a midwife—to expectant mothers. All over Lanarkshire we were grateful for the 1937 Act. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will now understand that we feel that we are being thrown something very third-rate indeed.
  Lady Tweedsmuir: Is the hon. Lady implying what she said in an earlier Debate, that we on these benches are suggesting that the ordinary patient should be fobbed off with midwives? That is a statement which was very much resented by a good service.
  Mrs. Mann: I will deal with that point in a minute or two. There is a danger that this political stunt—I cannot regard it as anything else—may become a cheap form of administering the National Health Service Act for the mothers of this country. I ask hon. Members whether that is what they really want—to cheapen the Service. In the 1937 Act, doctors are empowered to take anaesthetists and obstetricians, and that power exists all over Scotland.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am not questioning what the hon. Lady says about any particular Act, but I should like to know whether she is seriously suggesting that the figures I quoted from the Scottish Office, of 27,000 live births in Scotland attended by a midwife only, and only 800 of them with analgesia, are wrong. Is the hon. Lady really suggesting that Scottish mothers have a doctor at the birth, with an anaesthetist?
  Mrs. Mann: I am suggesting that the Bill gives us that power, and that throughout Lanarkshire the system has been operating exceedingly well. I am not questioning the figures which have been thrown at us, but I must say that a great many of the 27,000 births were not first
  1130
  births. Included in the figures are probably second, third, fourth or fifth confinements. My experience of the mother is that she who can have the child naturally, without analgesia, prefers even a towel—a method which has been referred to in so derogatory a fashion in previous Debates in this House.
  As for the figures and the statements which have been made about compelling local authorities to make this provision, I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they inform the House how many women's associations have demanded analgesia? Were hon. Members opposite approached by any of these organisations in the country? I say that they were not, and that this has not been a burning question in this country at all. From the reports of the British Medical Women's Federation we can see that anaesthesia is a burning question, yet the Minister is being pressed to make it compulsory on local authorities to provide the third-rate analgesic instead of the anaesthetic. It will undoubtedly be found that where the system is not working, the area is that of reactionary county councils which have always returned Tory majorities. When the hon. Member for Monmouth spoke in the House on this subject, his speech was followed by indignant denials from Dumbartonshire, Glasgow, Paisley and Lanarkshire. These counties represent one-half of Scotland's population, so that the figures which the hon. Member gave must allude, therefore, to the backward areas.
  Mr. Thorneycroft rose—
  Mrs. Mann: I ask the hon. Member not to fidget so much in his seat. I do not want anyone to have to administer analgesia to him while I am speaking.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I apologise if I was fidgeting. Of course, the figures were not mine but those of the Scottish Office. I want the hon. Lady to make one thing plain. She has an Amendment on the Order Paper in which she seeks to make it the duty of the local authority——
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may not discuss an Amendment on the Order Paper; after all, that is for the Committee stage. Now we are discussing general principles and, if I may say so, if I had been in the Chair the hon. Member for Monmouth would not, perhaps, have got in as much as he did.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I was not intending to discuss the Amendment for one moment, Mr. Speaker. I was asking the hon. Lady to clarify a point she has made in her speech—whether she regarded the provision of analgesia by all local authorities as a reasonably necessary service or not.
  Mrs. Mann: I will deal with my Amendment in the Committee stage and I will then give the hon. Member all the information he wants. I will not commit myself as to whether it should be administered to every woman in childbirth; only an ignoramus would make such a statement. No one who has any knowledge of the medical profession would ever make such a statement. However, let me resume. I am sorry if I am getting under the hon. Member's hair. I must be allowed to go on with my speech. I repeat that the counties of Dumbartonshire and Glasgow, the Burgh of Paisley and the County of Lanarkshire immediately repudiated the statements made in this House and, in fact, to that made by the hon. Lady who represents South Aberdeen, Dr. Harry Rae, the Medical Officer of Health for Aberdeenshire, replied with this comment:
  "It is not our intention to deprive the mothers of Aberdeenshire of painless childbirth, and it is very unfortunate that ill-informed Members of Parliament should try to get publicity over analgesia which is really in the experimental stage."
  He was asked who started this and he replied——
  Mr. Speaker: It would be much better to discuss these two Clauses, which I see down, in Committee. I am afraid that this system of allowing Amendments to be put down beforehand, on Second Reading, is really spoiling the whole of Second Reading Debates. We are on the wide principles in Second Reading.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: On a point of Order. May I say, Sir, that when you were out of the Chair I was allowed to enter very fully into these matters? After all, the whole Bill is an amending Bill, so almost all the points referred to in it are Committee points. I say that in fairness to the hon. Lady; I think she should be allowed to reply.
  Mr. Speaker: I quite admit that. I said that if I had been in the Chair perhaps the hon. Gentleman would not have got away with quite so much.
  Mrs. Mann: I do not know whether it is worth while going on. I was replying to points already raised in the Debate.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Howard.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) will forgive me if I do not pursue the topic on which she has been addressing the House.
  Mrs. Mann: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to lodge a protest that Members on the opposite side should be allowed to make all their points and we on this side of the House should not be allowed to reply.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady should not say that, because there is no question of unfairness on my part. In fact, I twice rebuked the hon. Member for Monmouth. If the hon. Lady wishes to continue her speech, I am quite prepared to allow her to do so, but she must not make reflections of that kind on the Chair, which I think were quite unjustified.
  Mrs. Mann: I felt that perhaps the difficulty was due to a change in the Chair, with you, Sir, following and not having heard what had taken place before, ruling the reply out of Order. I should be the last to cast any aspersion on your conduct in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and I hope I may be forgiven if I have made any remarks that would offend. I may, perhaps, briefly continue. The Debate in this House has been characterised by medical men in Scotland as being the outpourings of ignorant politicians, and this was said about the hon. Member for Monmouth, that—
  "he was a representative of an obscure Welsh constituency. It was, perhaps, not to be expected that he would know what happens in the civilised world outside."
  The hon. Gentleman can hardly be expected to know that in Scotland we have had a splendid midwifery service, and that we owe a deep and abiding debt of gratitude—when I say "we" I mean the mothers—to the good doctors of Scotland who went in for midwifery work, and who turned out at all hours of the night, and who gave up their half holidays—for babies have a nasty trick of coming at all those awkward hours. We owe a great debt to the doctors of Scotland for the wonderful work they have done for the mothers, and we do not want to see

  1133
  them replaced with analgesia and midwives. Mark you, we must not forget that the midwives have worked always in co-operation with the doctors, and they also have given excellent services. In fact, they are an invaluable team, an indispensable team.
  I do not think analgesia can be administered without the co-operation and the collaboration of the doctors. According to the Report of the British Women's Medical Federation on Pain in Childbirth, the whole value was the great advance in that the analgesia was administered by trained anaesthetists. We know also from this same report that gas and air is not very satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman read from some letters. Let me quote from memory a letter written to me from a doctor whom I know very well. As a matter of fact, is would be impossible for anyone to know him better. He has conducted, or is conducting, more confinements in Lanarkshire than any other doctor. He prophesies that this analgesic instrument and all connected with it will be in the junk-yard in three or four years. This report practically states the same thing. It says:
  "It is, therefore, probable that if this investigation were repeated in a few years' time the picture, from the point of view of actual analgesics and anaesthetics, would be very different. Under the present investigation, however, much of the information received from the detailed studies is highly suggestive."
  It is suggested that there is no such thing as painless childbirth. I will read from the Report:
  "The fact that there is as yet no safe method of analgesia which is completely effective in all stages of labour only serves to stress the need for continuing research into the methods of relief of pain in childbirth."
  I submit that if the mothers had been as anxious as we are led to believe, they would have approached the local authorities long ago, as they approached the local authorities about other things—housing, for example. Local authorities have never been approached by the mothers on this subject, which shows that the mothers have a great deal more good common sense, in leaving matters in the hands of their doctors and in trusting the doctors rather than the politicians of this House.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Howard: Let me open my second innings by asking the forgiveness of the
  1134
  hon. Lady—and, I hope, the approval of the House—if I do not pursue the detailed discussion of obstetrics. Quite frankly, I admit to holding the old-fashioned view that discussion of detailed matters of medical science is best left to doctors and other professional men. It is 18 months since the House passed the main Act which we are now seeking to amend, and it is nine or 10 months since the appointed day when it came into operation.
  Mr. Messer: The period of gestation.
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Member will consult, on the details of this subject, with his next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) he will no doubt get further details, but I said I would not pursue that particular line and I hope I shall not be drawn into it. In so short a time it would be unwise and unjustifiable, I suggest, to indulge in fulsome glorification or outright condemnation of the scheme, but I suggest that it is the proper time for a little sober reflection. There are one or two reflections which I wish to offer as my contribution to the Debate.
  The first of these is the question, which we can ask on looking back, whether it was wise to attempt to revolutionise, in such a wholesale and hasty manner, a whole group and variety of services which have gradually evolved through the centuries. I know that the intentions were absolutely honest and the motives sound, but was this the wise way of going about the matter? Only the future can show how it will work out, but it is certain that in the first nine or 10 months there has been an enormous and quite disproportionate amount of human endeavour directed to the creating of administrative machinery and to the safeguarding of individual and professional conditions of service. As a result of this, the amount of time which could have been devoted to an improvement of the actual service of and attendance upon the sick has to that extent been limited. It was inevitable; it was one of the effects of dealing with this matter in such a wholesale and hasty manner.
  The second general reflection which I want to offer is on the danger—I go further: in matters of this sort, I say the downright wickedness—of building false hopes. Anyone who had any experience in the local authority services or in the

  1135
  voluntary hospital services before this Bill was presented for the First Reading was well aware of the fact that there never has been and there never will be all the money available which those engaged in those services would desire. I suggest that there has never been a local authority that has been able to provide the necessary money at once to introduce all the improvements which it has desired. There never was a voluntary hospital which was not faced with the same problem of balancing priorities. There was always only a certain amount of money available, and the National Health Service, and the Ministry and the Government and Parliament, will always be faced with this question of balancing priorities. I hope that no one will in any circumstances repeat what I say was the wicked action of trying to persuade the people of this country to believe that it would ever be possible to give all the medical services that we would desire, and to give them free.
  The third general reflection is that I do not think that the country or the House, and most of all the Government, have yet appreciated to the full the immense gratitude which they owe to doctors and nurses, and to many others both lay and professional, and not least to the unpaid and unsung members of local authorities and hospital committees, without whose services, long before the appointed day and since, there could be no Health Service. Alas, some of these people have been denied the opportunity of continuing to give the service which they gave in the past. On those who are still performing this service and on the new recruits there has been placed an extremely heavy strain, and they have been suffering acute anxiety, in the last few months particularly, as to the extent to which they will be able to discharge the services for which they have accepted responsibility.
  Not the least of these difficulties is, I suppose, the inevitable volume of paper which goes backwards and forwards and round and round. We know that legislation breeds legislation, and that each new piece of legislation breeds like a rabbit, and we have orders, regulations, directions and circulars. Is it not possible to devise some better procedure than the traditional one which we have adopted of having one
  1136
  amending Bill after another, so that we have to refer, when we want to know what we can do and cannot do and what we can get and cannot get, to an enormous reference library? Is it not possible to introduce amending or revising Bills which will also be consolidating Bills? It is bad enough for those who are earning their living by operating these Acts, but it will be extremely difficult to continue to get voluntary service, which I am sure all parties in the House will agree is invaluable, if we make statutes, which these people are expected to administer, so extremely difficult to understand.
  I want to refer to the minor amendments which are dealt with in the Bill. There are five or six of them, and there are two about which I want to express my pleasure at seeing in the Bill. They are obviously right and desirable. One of these provides the same facilities with regard to private patients, for dentists who are on hospital staffs as are provided for medical men. There is also the amendment which allows hospital boards and management committees to subscribe to certain approved associations. Both of these amendments will, I think, be of real value. Another amendment, the intention of which, I think, is certainly sound and the principle of which, I hope, will be widened, is that which accords to certain medical committees the right to elect their own chairmen. I hope to see that principle extended, and I would ask the Minister to look at the words in the Schedule to make quite certain that the exact words there will carry out what I believe to be his intention.
  Then we come to other matters in the Bill with which it seems strange that it should be necessary to ask Parliament to deal. There are eight pages to the Schedule, and one of the matters in which apparently the Minister has made a discovery which would appear rather obvious is that neither residential accommodation nor food are articles. Apparently, the Act has to be amended so that residential accommodation can be provided because it has been discovered that the word "article" does not cover it. I should have thought that was an instance where hasty drafting had led to an unnecessary demand on Parliamentary time. I was surprised to learn—I presume that the Minister of Food was consulted on this matter—that food is not an article

  1137
  and has to be separately dealt with. Perhaps at some later stage we may be told what is a sausage—whether it is a food or an article. I see that the Lord Advocate is here, and I suggest that possibly a legal way out of the difficulty might be to regard the contents of a sausage as articles and the casing as residential accommodation; but perhaps he will look up that point.
  Then there are what appear to be completely minor amendments to which I want the Minister to pay some attention when giving his reply. There are four, five or six cases in which we are being asked to make an amendment in connection with expenses. We are being asked to remove the words
  "loss of remunerative time"
  and to replace them with the words
  "any loss of earnings which would otherwise be made."
  I want the Minister to explain quite clearly whether this amendment is significant, sinister, or merely silly. I say "merely silly" advisedly because at the same time as we are being asked to introduce this amendment into various Sections of the original Act, there is another Bill, recently introduced by the Ministry of Health in another place, where these words "loss of remunerative time" which we are being asked to remove by this Bill are being put into the Bill which is being passed through another place.
  Mr. Messer: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that when the Lindsay Committee were sitting, they dealt with loss of remunerative time—remunerative time when it was proved that in consequence of loss of time there was a loss of money. This left out such people as lawyers and those who did not actually lose remunerative time but lost time in which money might have been made.
  Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking upon himself the rôle of Minister. I do ask the Minister to make this quite clear, because there is at the back of all this a fear that it is imposing some unfair and unreasonable sort of means test. I therefore want the Minister to have an opportunity of telling the House the exact significance of these changes.
  There are one or two other matters I should like to mention, which I regret
  1138
  to see it has not yet been possible to deal with in this amending Bill. First, I wish to support the view, put forward in more than one part of the House, that the position of both doctors and patients in many rural areas is nothing like as satisfactory under the National Health Service as many of us had hoped it would be. It needs looking into very carefully from the point of view of both potential patients and doctors. It appears that certain hardships may arise from the fact that no compensation is payable to holders of part-time posts. I agree it is arguable that the actual monetary losses which may follow from the loss of a part-time appointment may not be great; but there will be cases in which the loss of status may be of some importance to professional men and women, where the loss of that status may even lead to the loss of future earnings. That is a difficult point, and I ask the Ministry to look into it.
  From the hospital point of view, and also I think from the regional point of view—and on this I hope to have the support of the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer)—is it possible to do something to speed up the present procedure under which buildings can be purchased or leased? The present procedure is terribly long and involved. Every single request has to go to headquarters at the Ministry; every property then has to be inspected by an official valuer, who has to value not only the land and buildings but every fitting in those buildings. The valuer is naturally guided by the Town and Country Planning Act and other Acts affecting valuations; consequently, nine times out of ten—I do not think that unfair—his valuation is considerably less than the market value, which means that the only way by which those buildings or houses can be obtained is by the use of compulsory purchase powers. The Ministry, quite rightly, is loath to use compulsory powers, but inevitably in nine cases out of ten they are forced to do so. Then the whole process starts again, and weeks and months pass before it is possible to obtain the building. It should be possible to improve this position.
  There is a small point on war damage. Under the financial restrictions, which I presume have been imposed on the Minister but which he has passed on to

  1139
  individual boards, war damage is, I think, being treated rather unfairly. War damage has to be included with all other items on which capital moneys may be spent. Let me quote an instance. A hospital had put in its original budget certain provision for capital expenditure, which included £100,000 worth of war damage; that was repairing damage from the war, the whole of the money for which would come from the War Damage Commission. That budget has now been cut to a total sum of less than £100,000—I use round figures—to £90,000. Therefore, the board of that hospital must either undertake no capital improvements of any sort but merely repair their war damage, which they cannot do completely, or they must leave a vast amount of war damage unrepaired for another year, and then another year, and so on. It is already four years, and we should like to see—and this applies to every hospital in every blitzed area—that war damage completely repaired fairly soon.
  I had intended to say something about the many difficulties which are arising in connection with private paying patients, as regards both beds and the recovery of charges. There is no doubt that the intentions in connection with private beds are not working out very satisfactorily at present. That wants looking into. I will leave it at that. Difficulties are also arising in connection with the recovery of charges. Obviously that will always be difficult. No doctor can say in advance exactly what treatment will be required for a patient. For instance, if there has to be radiographical or X-ray treatment, no doctor can say in advance whether it will be necessary for two, 10 or 20 attendances. The hospital authority is required to obtain an undertaking that the private patient will meet all charges. A private patient wants to know what those charges will be, but it is impossible, and always will be, to tell him with accuracy what they will be. I do not know the answer, but the present system is obviously not working.
  Then there is the payment of emergency fees. The other day I brought to the Minister's attention a tragic case. I am not suggesting that the National Health Service Act was in any way responsible for that tragedy. It was the case of an unfortunate man whose wife
  1140
  gave premature birth to a child which died. Naturally, when it happened he was in a state of agitation, which the House can imagine without my attempting to describe it. He rang up the doctor with whom he was registered but unfortunately was not able to obtain him. In his agitation he rang up the first doctor he could think of, who managed to come along.
  It is not surprising that in his agitation the man did not say, "I want my wife to be treated as a National Health Service patient." The doctor therefore attended assuming, quite rightly, that he was treating a private patient. Quite properly, the doctor sent in his bill, but the man could not recover payment for that bill from official sources. That may be right or it may be wrong, but the point I particularly want to bring to the attention of the House is this. When I took up this matter with the Minister he was kind enough to write to me a letter in which occurred this phrase:
  "I want to make it clear that doctors in the Service are required as part of their terms of service to make proper arrangements for securing the treatment of their patients when they are unable to give treatment personally."
  Those are very admirable sentiments, with which we all agree. But is it in fact possible for a doctor in the Service to guarantee to any particular patient 24 hours' service 365 days in the year? The effect of this letter is that it is up to the individual doctor to assure every registered patient that there will be some doctor available at any time. I agree that that is what we all desire. What I am suggesting is it is impracticable and hardly fair that the whole onus of providing that desirable thing should be placed on the shoulders of the individual doctor.
  Mr. Bing: Would not all this be obviated if we had a whole-time medical service?
  Mr. Howard: I am not going to enter into the medical field. There are medical men here, and they will agree with me that while they will in the future, as they have in the past, make every possible effort to secure a deputy if one is available, they could not possibly give a firm guarantee that at any time in the future a doctor would be available to come in an emergency, and that is the point which I am trying to raise.
  Mr. Benn Levy: How does the hon. Member suggest that his point should be met?
  Mr. Howard: I am not suggesting that it is a point which can be met. What I am suggesting is that it is unfair to pretend that the problem can be dealt with by a general statement. There is an onus placed on the individual medical practitioner, which he is expected to discharge and we know perfectly well that it is an obligation which cannot possibly be discharged. That is my point.
  There is one final point, on which I want to join issue with the hon. Member for South Tottenham who made a plea for greater powers for regional boards with a certain amount of power removed from the hospital management committees. Lest he accuse me of misrepresenting him, which I have no desire to do, I should like to make it quite clear that he raised this point only in connection with one particular matter, and it may be that he has limited his request to that one particular matter. But I want to take exactly the opposite point of view. As soon as there is legislation there is an immense centripetal phase whereby authority is concentrated on one head in a central office. The Minister has publicly stated that his intention is to delegate responsibility as widely as he possibly can. I applaud him for that, and I urge him to carry it out. I am convinced that this Service cannot possibly work satisfactorily unless there is a widespread delegation and the utmost encouragement and initiative is given to the small units.
  Mr. Messer: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the regional boards, whose duty it is to supply a specialist service, should be empowered to appoint specialists at the hospital but not to appoint the potential specialists at the hospital?
  Mr. Howard: It is an extremely complicated matter, and I would gladly discuss it with the hon. Gentleman afterwards. I do not think it would be an appropriate matter to go into in detail on Second Reading. I ask the House to accept my gratitude for the extremely patient way they have listened to a rather lengthy disquisition on some detailed matters. Like some other hon. Members, I have never fought for a National Health Service, but I have been trying
  1142
  in a humble way to work for something like it for nearly a quarter of a century.
  7.55 p.m.
  Dr. Haden Guest: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Howard), although like others I am grateful for the great service he has rendered to public health in the medical field, but I think he takes too gloomy a view when he says that we cannot do everything we wish. He underestimates the tremendous amount of work which has actually been done since the initiation of the National Health Service and which is now being done. It is true that we have this amending Bill. I remember that before the beginning of the National Health Act I had an opportunity of discussing the matter with a very high official in the Ministry of Health. We discussed the whole lay-out and came to the conclusion that in view of the complicated situation with regard to medical organisations and disorganisation it would be necessary not only to introduce one Bill, but that, as it subsequently has appeared, a second would probably be necessary. And it was contemplated from the beginning that it would be necessary to introduce amending Bills, not only one but a series, as it became possible to see what were the problems and what was their solution.
  If one is inclined sometimes to be pessimistic about not being able to do all the marvellous things we can think of, we must remember what is being done. I myself am a doctor and I hope I am a realist. I do not get excited about the marvels which can be done, but I am most frequently amazed at the extraordinary things that are now being done by modern medical research. I do not think they can all be applied at once, but there are two very simple things that have been done since the National Health Service came into operation. By that Act the women and children, who before, unless they were themselves insured persons, had to pay for medical treatment, are now able to get treatment without paying fees at all. That has meant a revolution in the health of women because it will mean that a large number of women's diseases, for which they did not get treated before the Act came into operation because they could not afford the expense, are now being treated. The same applies to the children. The second is the reorganisa-

  1143
  tion of the hospital system itself. Our system of hospital work was disorganised. It worked very well in some places like London, Birmingham, Glasgow and so on, but in other places it worked extremely badly.
  Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Where?
  Dr. Guest: In the South-West counties with Bristol as the headquarters for example. When the hospital surveys were made sometime prior to this Act coming into operation, in the South-West area, of which Bristol is the university town, the only hospital which had complete specialised services was the hospital of Bristol. There were no proper specialist services in other hospitals. One of the great advantages of this Act—it has not yet come into operation, because it has not been possible to make the distribution yet—is that there will be a distribution of adequate specialist staffs in all areas of England, Scotland and Wales. It will make a great difference indeed in treatment.
  Mr. Howard: I quite agree that we all hope this will happen, but will the hon. Gentleman agree that it will take a long time to achieve?
  Dr. Guest: I should say that the reorganisation of the hospitals would not take a long time, but a reasonably short time. I am not going to prophesy an exact number of years, but within the lifetime of a Parliament.
  Mr. Howard: It will be years, not weeks or months?
  Dr. Guest: I do not think anyone would accuse me of suggesting weeks or months. I am talking in periods of years, and a great deal has already been done. We have got to do a great many things, and I hope that we are not going to try to bring into this Bill a large number of particular changes which many of us desire to see brought into existence.
  There is one thing which has been subject to comment already and that is the possibility of extending analgesia to all women in childbirth. It is desirable that women should be relieved of the pain of childbirth, for the sake of their own safety sometimes and their own comfort, but that is by no means the only thing that is valuable about a properly-
  1144
  organised maternity service. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been inclined to put the question of analgesia in a position which is much too important. They have been inclined to do it in a way which is not the policy of the National Birthday Trust Fund, which has been behind the analgesia proposals which are now before the House. The National Birthday Trust Fund is an admirable body, with perhaps one defect which is that I have been myself connected with it for a number of years as a member of its finance committee advising on expenditure.
  They have not confined themselves by any means to the question of analgesia. For example, they have carried out research. They are at present inquiring into the use of trilene, and subsidised research by the Royal College of Obstetricians and the Royal College of Gynaecologists. They also have a human milk bureau and carried out research at Queen Charlotte's Hospital and Guys Hospital on other matters. They have carried out an investigation into a variety of matters which conduce to safer motherhood. While we do not necessarily want analgesia for all women we do want safer motherhood for all women. We want to reduce to nil the number of deaths in childbed and the number of cases of injury to mother or child at the time of birth also. It can be done. There was recently reported a series of cases in the "British Medical Journal," in which that result had been accomplished over a period, not by the administration of anaesthetics or analgesics only, but by the setting up of an organisation which meant that, when necessary, every difficult case had a doctor, and a medical and surgical specialist team, to attend to it. That is what one wants to get.
  Let me return to the question of analgesia in childbirth. As the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) knows, this matter has been discussed among a number of Members on all sides of the House, and there are two slightly conflicting Motions on the Order Paper. The hon. Member, when he was making criticism, suggested that the Amendment put down in the name of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and myself and others was too wide. If the hon. Member will consult the Amendment

  1145
  again I think he will find that if we specified one particular thing, such as analgesia in childbirth, without leaving the door wide open, we might be specifying that one thing and excluding other necessities of safer motherhood which we ought to include. There is a very great danger, and it is desirable that those who are in charge of the two Amendments should think again and see whether some arrangement can be made in the Committee stage. I will not refer again to the matter. I have gone a long way in that direction.
  It is desirable to mention that there are a few facts about analgesia that ought to be known. I will recapitulate them in a short form. In 1938, the percentage of women who got analgesia in childbirth was only 4 per cent. By 1943, it had risen 1.2 per cent. By 1945, the time of the General Election, it had risen to 3 per cent. By 1946, it was 6.9 per cent., by 1947 it was 13.3 per cent., and in the last six months of 1948 the figure has gone up to 35 per cent. That great increase in analgesia in 1948 has been brought about by administrative methods under the National Health Service. It is one of the advantages that have flowed from the National Health Service. When we hear the suggestion that the Minister would not be willing to put the analgesia service into operation we realise that the suggestion is rather unwarranted. The figures show clearly that the Minister would be willing.
  The suggestion that no Minister would dare to put the best possible medical service into operation is something which I find very difficult to believe. Why should anyone not wish to put this service into operation? Even a Conservative would want to do so—if one is to be political. I do not suggest that a Conservative Minister of Health would be any less willing to put the service into operation than would anyone else. Why should he be? This is a matter of human service for human suffering, in which all sides of the House can agree. It is untrue to suggest that the Ministry of Health is failing in its duty. I believe—and I will end on this note—that the Amendment put down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch is drawn so widely that it will include the whole of the safer motherhood service, including analgesia. I see that the hon. Member for Monmouth shakes
  1146
  his head. I can only say in that case that this is a conflict of experts.
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I point out that the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) put down an Amendment in almost the same terms and that she does not think it includes analgesia at all. It is a conflict between two hon. Members on that side.
  Dr. Guest: I have been consulting the experts and I say that it is a conflict of experts. I am advised by those who are knowledgeable in these matters that the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and myself covers the whole of what the hon. Member for Monmouth desires, as well as leaving the door open for other things which are necessary to make the safer motherhood campaign successful.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: As the hon. Member is referring to this matter, would he say who he thinks would be the judge of what is reasonably necessary?
  Dr. Guest: I would certainly say the advisers of the Ministry of Health. Those are the advisers upon whom I rely and the House is entitled to rely upon them: I think the House will be quite ready to do so. I hope that we shall come down to the discussions of the detail of this matter. When we get to the Committee stage we can thrash out the details. It cannot be done here. It is much wiser to stick to the wider definition instead of to the narrower. We must otherwise defeat our own object, and make safer motherhood much less likely to be achieved than at present.
  I hope that it will be possible to come to an agreement. I venture to think that when we have passed this Amending Bill we shall have to look forward, to find what other improvements we can make in the National Health Service. The hon. Member whom I followed almost made me weep, he was so pessimistic about conditions. I hope that he will get over that pessimism, and that in the course of the next few years he will see the very great advantages that are going to take place in the developments of the National Health Service. Immense things are coming along. Great medical discoveries are being made almost daily. I believe that it is only under a National Health

  1147
  Service under national control and with the magnificent organisation that we are gradually developing, that we can apply to a full extent these scientific discoveries to the welfare of humankind.
  8.10 p.m.
  Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I hope that the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) will forgive me if I do not follow him in all his arguments. I like his optimism and hope he is right in all those optimistic things he has just said. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) made a regrettable and remarkable speech. We can all agree with her, however, when she said the aim was to free people from worry, to see that they were well fed and there was a policy of full employment. The majority in the House do not agree that analgesia should not be available to every woman who wants it. It is our duty to spare as much pain as we possibly can for our womenfolk. I cannot believe that the hon. Lady wishes her own countryfolk and her countyfolk to suffer pain.
  She also seems to be very easily satisfied. If we look at figures for Lanarkshire, we find that of the 3,375 births that took place during 1947 not one woman received analgesia. I cannot believe that every one of those women declined it when it was offered to them. Again, if we look at the figures in regard to midwives, we find that only one out of four has either a motor car or motor car allowance. It is right and proper that the House should on every possible occasion discuss this subject of analgesia. It is not, as someone has remarked, purely a medical matter that should be thrashed out by doctors. It is an administrative matter, and therefore I hope the new Clause that has been put down by the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) will be accepted by the Minister.
  I agree with and welcome most of the things in this Bill, but unlike the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton), who having welcomed the Bill then disagreed in principle with every Clause, much of what I understand in the Bill I agree with thoroughly. This Bill improves the original Act. It straightens out many of the difficulties and clarifies the considerable doubts that
  1148
  the Act brought about. It carries out the pledges the Minister made, not only during the various stages of the Bill but also to the professions. It shows that the Minister has at last accepted some of the advice that came from this side of the House. The recommendations of the legal committee and Part I of this Bill show that the Minister and the Lord Chancellor were wrong when they resisted the Amendments which my party put down to the Bill.
  I welcome the fact that the executive councils are at last to be allowed to choose their own chairmen. Many of us remember the very powerful speech made during the Second Reading Debate by the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), when he spoke about the very undemocratic set-up of the hospital boards, the governing bodies of the teaching hospitals and all these executive councils. Therefore, I think he will welcome, as I do, the first step that, having been nominated by the Minister, they should be allowed to choose their own chairmen. He may have changed his views to a certain extent after filling a very high post, such as that of the chairman of one of the regional boards or chairman of the Central Advisory Committee. We must assume, however, that if this democratic method he recommended at that time had been in operation, he would still have found himself occupying these two important posts.
  Mr. Messer: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the Minister did not appoint me as Chairman of the Central Health Services Council, but that that body which has a majority of doctors on it elected me?
  Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I am very glad that the democratic methods the hon. Member preached are carried out on the council of which he is the chairman.
  I hope that before this Bill passes, Amendments will be made whereby hospital management committees and governing bodies of teaching hospitals, where all the members are nominated by the Minister, will likewise be able to choose their own chairmen. I wish that we could see an Amendment whereby the nominating of members to the regional hospital boards could be done in another way. I agree with those who say that these Health Services should be taken out

  1149
  of the realm of party politics. There are those people who at the present moment, rightly or wrongly, believe there has been some abuse in the appointment of members to these regional hospital boards. For example, we see six Members from the party opposite sitting on the regional hospital boards and not a single Member of the party to which I belong appointed.
  I make the suggestion that if appointments are made politically it will be detrimental to the hospital services, because when there is a change in the Government there will be a change of personnel, which is something we should regret and hope will not take place. We have recently seen after one year's operation of these regional hospital boards no fewer than 32 members not re-appointed by the Minister—I do not know whether we can call it dismissal. Some were recommended by the regional boards to continue in their present positions. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that before making appointments he consults the boards, as laid down in Part I of the Third Schedule of the National Health Service Act.
  The hon. Member for South Tottenham raised a very important point, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) also referred, and that is the care of the aged sick. The 1946 Act took the care of the aged sick away from the local authorities and put it into the hands of the regional hospital boards. I believe that the regional hospital boards have not carried out these duties in the same way as they were carried out by the local authorities. I want to ask the Minister to tell us why it is that the accommodation available before 5th July for aged and chronic sick is no longer available. Since the year 1601——
  Mr. Bevan: What does the hon. and gallant Member mean? There is more accommodation available now than there has ever been, and there is more need for it.
  Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Never has it been so difficult to get the chronic and aged sick into hospital.
  Dr. Guest: The reason is that more people are now wanting to go into hospital, and not that they are being heartlessly refused. I am speaking as a doctor and I know.
  Colonel Stoddart-Scott: I do not wish to suggest that they are being heartlessly refused, but it was obligatory upon local authorities to provide accommodation for these people before 5th July last, whereas that is no longer the case. It is not obligatory on anyone to provide accommodation for these old people. This applies especially in the case of the Midlands. When people get very old and are a little muddled, it is found that the only hospital accommodation is in a mental hospital. I do not say this without having some evidence before me. Taking the figures at one Birmingham mental hospital, we find that from 5th April, 1947, to 10th April, 1948, only 20 people over the age of 65 were admitted, whereas in the period from 5th April, 1948, to 30th April, 1949, we find that no fewer than 93 were admitted. Of that 93, in the last nine months no fewer than 30 have died from pneumonia, heart trouble, pleurisy, etc., from which they probably suffered before they went into hospital.
  Let us look at another Birmingham mental hospital. We find that in the last nine months 15 people over the age of 80 were admitted, certified, for the first time, under the Lunacy Act. Most of them were in a dying condition before admission, and died shortly afterwards. The explanation of these pitiful facts is that it is difficult to get old people who are chronically ill into other accommodation, such as previously existed. This unhappy and intolerable state of affairs must be altered, and I hope it will be possible to amend the Bill so that an obligation to put, either on the local authorities or on the regional hospital boards to provide accommodation for the aged sick.
  Before the Bill reaches the Statute Book it ought to be possible to lay down certain priorities of medical service. It appears that it is not possible that all the things which the principal Act promised can possibly be made available for our people. So, we must see that the first priority is adequate hospital service. It should have been foreseen that the brunt of the Health Service would fall on our hospitals. At some of our general hospitals in the North of England outpatients' attendances have increased by 100 per cent. It is, therefore, remarkable that the first drastic cut which the Minister has imposed on our Health

  1151
  Service should have been on the element which has borne the brunt of the whole of our health services.
  Some of the present unrest and dissatisfaction is caused by people having difficulty in obtaining hospital beds not only for themselves but for old people. I think it is much more important that hospital beds should be made available than that people should be able to obtain two pairs of identical spectacles, or that wigs should be given to foreigners. I believe that people would be willing, if they could be assured of hospital accommodation, to make a small contribution towards its cost.
  The Minister talked about priority dental service. It appears that that service is not readily available. On the Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill the Minister said:
  "We have not enough dentists and it will, therefore, be necessary for us in the meantime to give priority treatment to certain classes—expectant and nursing mothers, children, school children in particular and later on we hope adolescents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th April, 1946; Vol. 422, c. 45.]
  Can he tell us how much of that priority dental service is available? The figures I have at my disposal show that not half of it is available at present. I hope we shall be able to amend the Bill in such a way as to remove certain injustices which have been caused through the operation of the Act. I hope we shall be able to provide for all patients all the services at public expense, whether they go to a private or a public doctor. It is mean, parsimonious and unjust discrimination against some of our people to withhold these services from them; I do not think it bears contemplation when we think of the unnecessary generosity which is being shown to foreigners.
  I welcome the Bill, as much of it as I understand, and I hope we shall have other and similar amending Bills which will add to and improve the Health Service. I believe that by amending legislation the Minister can provide the different priorities which are essential in order to build up an adequate and satisfactory health service. If we do not have an adequate hospital service then the whole of our health services might break down, and I do not think it should be said that the Minister or this Parliament
  1152
  destroyed a hospital service and did not put a better one in its place.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: I join in the general welcome which has been given to the Bill, which seeks to improve a service which has had nearly a year's run. Of course, there have been snags and difficulties but I am sure that most people will agree that no more popular Measure than the National Health Service Act was ever placed on the Statute Book by any Administration. Generally speaking, we find that practically everyone who has had anything to do with the working of that Act is more or less satisfied.
  I join with my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham and the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers), who said that we must regard the Health Service as an expanding service. By that I do not mean to say that I believe it will expand for ever, and I do not quite understand the points made by some hon. Members opposite, who say that we shall never have enough money for the Service. Surely there will be a time when the Service will have reached its peak. With preventive medicine, the best kind of hospitals, the best surgeons and improvements all round the time will come when this great medical service may be expected to reach its peak of expenditure. Probably after that time it may rest there, or even decline, but that time is nowhere near yet.
  I sympathise with my right hon. Friend because I do not think the blame can rest on his shoulders. He has been asked to make some cuts, and it has been generally agreed today that there is nothing more intolerable than that these cuts should be made in our hospital services. All of us speak with the greatest amount of affection and knowledge of the hospitals in our own areas, and I speak tonight of St. Margaret's Hospital, Epping, where great consternation has been caused. I wish my right hon. Friend could see that hospital. He would find there such a loyal matron and loyal set of doctors and nurses. An improvement out of all proportion to what anybody could have expected has taken place in that hospital under the new service.
  An hon. Member spoke of the difficulty of buying properties and said that by the time all the difficulties have been surmounted the property is out of the mar-

  1153
  ket. We want to buy property. We want more nurses and we want a place to house them. This magnificent hospital is struggling along with a shortage of staff due mainly to the fact that we have had to let two houses which could have been used for our nurses slip through our fingers. I agree with everyone who has spoken about the desirability not to impose heavy cuts on the hospital services and to remove the sanction on buying properties as quickly as possible.
  The Lord Advocate said the Bill removes doubts which linger in the minds of certain people. Generally speaking, this Bill does remove doubts which linger in the minds of certain people. The Minister has passed into legislative form the proposals of the Slade Committee. That will certainly have cast out some lingering doubts from the minds of the medical profession. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) did not seem to approve of it but the Minister has carried out his pledge that the medical service should not be a full-time paid medical service.
  However, there are other lingering doubts in the minds of some people, not in the minds of doctors, but in the minds of some patients and in the minds of some hon. Members about some matters. I have no intention at any time during the course of this Debate of going into any detail whatsoever about my new Clauses relating to analgesia. That would be out of place at this stage. I do not even want to go into the subject matter raised with such fervour in the Second Reading Debate on another Bill. I do not even want to refer to the trickery which has gone on at the hands of certain people in making long drawn out Committee stages with Private Members' Bills which are ahead of this one. If that had not happened it might not have been necessary for us to put down these new Clauses.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): No reference can be made to anything which is going on in a Committee upstairs until that Committee has reported.
  Mrs. Manning: I do not know whether the two Committees to which I am referring have reported. They have been much reported about the House and in the ears of hon. Members who are interested. I believe that it was the hon.
  1154
  Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) who said that this ought not to be made a political matter—I am referring not to analgesia but to the whole of the medical service—but ought to be taken entirely out of the realm of politics. It was a most wounding thing on the part of an hon. Member to accuse me of making this a party matter. If anybody wants this Bill to redound to the honour of the Labour Party, it is I.
  I have been able to use the National Health Service Act perhaps as I have been able to use no other Act passed by this Government to show how splendidly the people of the country have been treated. I want it to be the best Act it could possibly be. The right hon. Gentleman should therefore not be as cross with me as he has been. I know that he is prond of his Bill. I do not believe he thinks there could be anything wrong with it, but when he is removing lingering doubts from the minds of the medical profession, why cannot he remove lingering doubts from the mind of one who was once his hon. Friend. Lingering doubts are in my mind and it lies in his power to remove them, not for my benefit but for the benefit of the vast body of women.
  I cannot follow the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) into that obstetric heaven in Scotland of which she painted a picture that was somewhat spoiled by the hon. Gentleman who gave us the figures for her own county. I can say, however, that while she may never have been appealed to by women in Scotland, that is certainly not true as far as England is concerned. Our attention has been most vividly drawn to it by resolutions from women's associations and women's societies of every kind in our own constituencies. That is why we were so anxious to put it beyond a peradventure that every woman who desired to have analgesia in childbirth should have it. Letters from doctors who have interested themselves all their lives in this matter also drew our attention to it and made us anxious to have this placed beyond doubt.
  I would say one word to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) who has interested himself in this matter and has been busy about it. I thought his speech was most illogical. Although I think to some extent it was true, it was one of the things which leaves these lingering doubts in my mind. He had

  1155
  the same county council covering his constituency as I had. It was a good county council, it was getting on with the job, and we believed and hoped that analgesia would be at the disposal of the majority of women in our area. So we did not have to push for our women so much as we had to push for the women in South Wales. I will not mention Scotland, I dare not, somebody would jump on me if I did. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that cuts are already in contemplation, cuts in ambulances, cuts in all sorts of things. Does he not want this put beyond doubt so that this reactionary county council which now rules the lives of the people in his constituency and mine shall not have the chance of going back on the work that was done by the county council before?
  Mr. Bing: If the hon. Lady will allow me to interrupt, there is an argument, I suppose, for taking every function from a county council, but unless one accepts that argument, all one can do is to put political pressure on the county councils to carry out the functions entrusted to them. If the House thinks otherwise, then let us take every function from the county councils and administer everything centrally.
  Mrs. Manning: No, I am not desirous of taking every function from the county councils, although I could mention a great many that I should like taken from them if this were the place and the time. I should like to see local government much changed so that county councils did not have as much power as they have. If there were devolution, they would be nearer to the suffering people and would know what was wanted.
  I appeal to the Minister again. This amending Bill has removed the lingering doubts from the minds of the medical profession, but I have lingering doubts and there are others who have them. The Minister seems to have none himself. We shall have a chance of discussing the proposed new Clauses, including that of the hon. Member for Hornchurch, fully on the Committee stage. That is why I have not attempted at any time to be out of Order in discussing them tonight. I hope that some time during that stage of the Bill the Minister and I will become again the good friends we once were, that he
  1156
  will not look so blackly as at me as he now does, that he will believe that I have done this in the hope that the Bill shall be the Bill that is nearest to our heart's desire. I hope, when it comes out of Committee, that it will be something of that kind.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I shall not follow the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) on the topic to which she devoted the main part of her speech. She concluded with an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, with what success I do not know, and in the course of my speech I am also going to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman—again I do not know with what result. As I listened to the whole of this Debate, I was struck, as I know were other hon. Members, by the number of practical contributions which were made on different aspects of the great topics with which the principal Act and this Bill deal. Indeed, as I listened to the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) and to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), I was reminded of those many days we spent in discussing the principal Act when it was a Bill in Committee some three years ago.
  During that Committee stage I paid my tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for being a very doughty fighter on some of the matters on which there was real controversy in that Committee, and on those matters of controversy I do not propose to say anything tonight. On one that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who opened for the Opposition, I took a different view from his. I did not think it was wise to deprive doctors of their goodwill, but that matter has been settled and I propose to say nothing about it. What I wish the right hon. Gentleman to do, if he will—I will remind him of some things in the past—is to try to differentiate between those matters on which there was acute controversy, and on which—in his view no doubt rightly—he insisted on his view prevailing, and those matters on which there was a real desire on all sides to improve the Measure, even from the Minister's point

  1157
  of view, and on which, I think quite wrongly, he failed to listen to our contentions.
  The hon. Member for South Tottenham and others have spoken from their expert knowledge of the hospital service and other branches of this great Service. I have, I believe, only two qualifications for speaking in this Debate. The first is that since, with one exception, I number more medical men among my constituents than any other hon. Member, I have throughout these controversies known something of what was passing in their minds.
  Mr. Cove: What a rotten constituency.
  Mr. Strauss: The other qualification is that I happen to be a lawyer, and as a lawyer I made an honest and, I hope the House will agree, an honourable attempt to help the Minister and to advise him on a matter on which, in the sequel, I have been proved correct and he has been proved wrong. I take no particular credit for that, but the appeal I would make to the Minister is to assume that lawyers have some uses and can sometimes advise him well. Almost the whole of the first part of the Bill, and certainly the first seven pages or so dealing with partnership, are rendered necessary by specific defects which His Majesty's Opposition pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman on the Committee stage. It has been said by many hon. Members, among others, I think, by the hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers), that after a great new Act like the principal Act, some amending legislation will, no doubt, be necessary. That is true, but there are certain exceptional facts to be noticed about this particular amending legislation.
  First, its necessity had to be acknowledged before the principal Act came into force and, secondly, this matter is being put right by Part 1 of this Bill after it has caused, I would assure the right hon. Gentleman, a great deal of quite unnecessary suffering and work to a great number of medical men and their advisers. I hope that anyone who is interested in this topic will refer to the proceedings of the 15th day in Committee upstairs. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would allow me to quote a short passage on the provisions which were looked into by the Legal Committee on Medical Partnerships and which give rise to the
  1158
  principal part of Part 1 of the present Bill. This is what I said:
  "I hope the Minister will do everything he can to render this subsection less obscure than it is at present. I should like to sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman. I have the greatest admiration for his forensic powers, whether he is arguing from the point of view of the law, of politics, or theology, but I think before we finish with this particular Clause he will require the assistance of one of the Law Officers of the Crown. One of the things about which the Minister and the Government must make up their minds is what they wish to happen to partnerships. My suspicion is that in drafting subsection (1) the draftsman had not got partnerships in mind at all. I cannot conceive of draftsmen, with that in mind, not specifically making clear what it is intended should happen to partnerships."
  A little later in the same speech I said:
  "I believe it is quite impossible to make this Clause satisfactory without dealing quite specifically with partnerships, saying what it is intended shall happen to them."
  Then the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I see nothing obscure in the Clause at present."
  Because I felt quite convinced that the right hon. Gentleman there was wrong, and quite honestly wishing to make the legislation better than it would otherwise be, before the Committee concluded that day I said:
  "If the Minister does not accept any of these things from us"—
  that is to say, from the Opposition—
  "I appeal to him to consult the Law Officers between now and the next sitting. If either of the Law Officers had been present I know he would have seen the point we have been making."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 20th June, 1946; c. 1656–8, 1684.]
  Today the right hon. Gentleman has had the assistance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate. In Committee on these very technical matters he did not have the assistance of any Law Officer. I hope that that was not by his express wish because he could not tolerate Law Officers. I do not wish to put an embarrassing question to him, but I urge him to take the lesson of what has here occurred and to realise that lawyers who speak from the Opposition benches and call attention to defects in these Measures are really attempting to get those defects put right. If he is in doubt about that, let him fully consult the Law Officers. I believe that in an intervention earlier today the right hon. Gentleman said that he had subsequently consulted the Law Officers. If that is

  1159
  his contention, needless to say, I accept his word, and I can only commiserate with him on the bad advice which he must have received, because we have not only these first seven pages of the present Bill but we have the Report of the Legal Committee on Medical Partnerships, Cmd. 7565. The principal part of that document occupies 16 pages and it has various appendices. Reference to a few of those paragraphs makes it absolutely clear that this clarifying and amending legislation is essential, that it cannot possibly be avoided.
  I welcome the Bill. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is providing this necessary clarification and amendment of the law. At the same time, I ask hon. Members, in whatever part of the House they may sit, to use their imagination and to consider what is well known to those of us who have many doctors among our constituents—how much suffering has been caused to medical men by these years of uncertainty about what their position was. All that suffering was completely and absolutely unnecessary. The expenditure of time which their legal advisers had to employ in trying to explain the position, and in actually explaining how hopelessly obscure it was, might have been avoided.
  I wish to end by saying what has been said by so many hon. Members in all parts of the House: whatever are the differences on various aspects of this matter, everyone wishes to do the best possible for the health services of the country. I have no doubt that amendment of the principal Act will, as has been pointed out, be necessary from time to time, but I make an urgent plea that we should stop this habit of passing great Bills and making them Acts with known and obvious defects which we could have put right before they were ever put on the Statute Book. This method of procedure is bad. I fully accept what has been said from the Government, Opposition and Liberal benches that in any event some amending legislation would have been necessary, but I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to get rid of his great distaste for lawyers, if indeed he has such a distaste; I think sometimes that he exaggerates it.
  I hope that in any future legislation which he may have to conduct through this House or in Committee upstairs he
  1160
  will follow the precedent he has set today by having a right hon. and learned Gentleman next to him, and that he will not try to pass Clauses which he is assured by all the lawyers present in the Committee are legally obscure, by saying that he thinks that there is nothing obscure in them and insisting that they should go on the Statute Book as they stand. Having said that, I welcome the Bill—[Interruption]—I do not think that anything I have said conflicts with my welcoming the Bill. I have made my criticism of the facts that make necessary the greater part of Part I of the Bill. While the Bill will no doubt need careful attention in Committee, it is a useful Bill and one which we should put on the Statute Book.
  8.55 p.m.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: Like other hon. Members, I welcome this Bill as the first instalment of the improvements which have already been mentioned as being necessary in the principal Act. I hope that the second instalment will come along at a fairly early date. If it is not found possible to include in this Bill any of the amendments which we shall propose from these benches, I hope that they will be included in the next Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) made a very moving appeal to the Minister and made, I think, a very generous offer. Other hon. Members have discussed the subject of analgesia and I do not propose to go into it at any length. I merely want to say that at the appropriate time in Committee I hope the Minister will give the proposals put forward to him very careful consideration.
  There is one matter about which I have had a good deal of correspondence from my constituents and which I raised with the Minister at Question time earlier this year. It is in regard to private patients who are unable to obtain drugs and appliances at the expense of the State. When this Service was introduced the Minister stated very definitely that people would be free to have the service in whole or in part. Members of the public who wished to pay for the services of a doctor, and therefore do not use that part of the service, feel a great grievance that at the same time they are debarred from having the free appliances or drugs available to other patients who take advantage of the

  1161
  whole Service. It seems quite wrong that just because a person elects to be a private patient of a doctor he should be debarred from the benefits which the Minister has stated very definitely would be available to him.
  When I put this point to the Minister he replied that it was not possible for these drugs and appliances to be given to any person who was a private patient, because the doctor would not be subject to State discipline as he was not in the State service. I pointed out that in one particular case, as in many others, the doctor, while having private patients, was in the State service, and therefore was subject to the discipline of the State. The Minister then replied that while that might be so, the doctor was not subject to State discipline in respect of his private patients. We all know that if a doctor in the State service in treating a State patient prescribes appliances or drugs which are not acceptable to the State, those appliances and drugs are not allowed to be given free.
  I cannot see why the same set of rules and the same administrative requirements should not be applied to a person who is a private fee-paying patient of a doctor. Why cannot the same drugs and appliances be supplied free to any person who pays fees to a doctor as they are to any State patient? There is a real feeling of grievance amongst many people. They consider that they have been misled. It is a pity that in connection with a great State service of this kind, which we all wish to see run in the best way possible, people should feel they have been led up the garden path.
  My constituents also write to me and say that they read in the papers that this Service is very costly, yet they see that foreigners who make no contribution can receive the Service free of charge. They pay for the drugs and appliances by way of taxes, yet they are denied them. But foreigners who come to this country can get the free State Service. But people feel that that is wrong. I suggest that the Minister ought to remove this grievance. He ought to make it possible for people to receive drugs when they pay fees for private treatment from doctors. Also, he ought not to give the Service free to foreigners who come to this country. Those are two points to which I hope attention will be paid, if necessary by amendment of this Amending Bill.
  1162
  There is one further point concerning the proportion of paying beds to general beds. The effect of high charges at present imposed on some private beds is to deprive part of the population of amenities which were available to them before the introduction of the State Service. I suggest that there should be a substantial reduction in charges for private accommodation and that such charges should be on a uniform basis throughout the same region. Alternatively, I suggest that whatever expense there would have been to the State ought to be allowed for in any charges made for private paying beds. Similarly, some consideration ought to be given to the patients who have paid for the State Service.
  The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) rightly welcomed this Bill because it was a further stage in our efforts to improve the position as it relates to doctors, and to remedy some of their grievances. I welcome it for the same reason. Anything that can be done in that direction undoubtedly will be of benefit to the service; but it is a fact that the doctors as a whole still have grievances. In my constituency where there are some 600 of the best and most well-known doctors in the country there was a meeting last week and the decision of the doctors was that the National Health Service during its first year
  "has fallen far below the standards the public were led to expect."
  The reasons they gave were:
  "The Minister and Ministry of Health have shown little or no desire to co-operate with the medical profession; have met the profession's suggestions with indifference and procrastination; and have been guilty of a breach of faith."
  These statements were made at this meeting of doctors. It was said:
  "Waiting lists at the hospitals are getting longer, and beds are being closed down. Patients are not getting efficient treatment because doctors who have not been given the clerical assistance they were promised are overworked. They have difficulty even in getting essential X-ray examinations done. It is time we stated plainly that it is not the fault of the doctors.'
  The doctors said:
  "Instead of getting better, everything is getting worse."
  If any other action can be taken, either in this House or outside, by the Minister or anybody else, to try to stop that state of affairs, it cannot be other than to the public advantage.

  1163
  I hope that the Minister will be able to say something tonight to try to alter that attitude which, whether we like it or not, undoubtedly exists in the minds of the great majority of doctors. Everything possible should be done to help the doctors in their most difficult task of putting this State Service over in the way in which, to whatever party we belong, we want it to be put over. I for one would welcome anything that the Minister can say tonight to help to remedy the position.
  9.5 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have had a most interesting discussion, and the Bill introduced by the Lord Advocate is perhaps a smaller peg than one would have expected upon which to hang so many topics, but the Lord Advocate did not make any divagations from the strict path. We welcome his incursion into this wider field, and I am sure the whole House will agree with me that he showed a singular lucidity and clarity of expression for which the whole House is grateful. We on this side are specially grateful, because it is admittedly our Bill, and we were very pleased when our Advocate introduced it. We feel that we have retained a very good counsel indeed and that he made a very good case for the Measure. His admirable example was not, I regret to say, followed by every speaker.
  In fact, the discussion on this Bill ran down three channels, occasionally converging and occasionally diverging—what was in the Bill, what was not in the Bill, and what, by skilful Parliamentary usage, had been got on to the Order Paper with the possibility of it getting into the Bill at a later stage. The combination of these three strands has led to perhaps a rather longer robe being woven than I had anticipated, but I do not complain about that at all, because the fact is that the Bill itself is in some respects a Measure which only lawyers can explain, and, it may be, only lawyers can understand. I am not quite sure whether they themselves fully understand it or not, but at any rate I would not challenge—nor would anyone on this side of the House or the other—the legal exposition which was given. I am willing to take it from a Law Officer that the Slade Committee's Report has been faithfully incorporated
  1164
  into the Clauses of this Bill, and I will not attempt to go into that or go further into the history of the matter, which was so admirably sketched by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth).
  The House, however, in its usual way, is interested in going a good deal wider, and I would refer, in passing, to the parallel discussions which went on concerning the vexed question of analgesia, on which I noticed some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, making very skilful use of Parliamentary opportunity to seek discussion of that which is nearest their hearts. I do not think it can be said that that was in any way made a party issue, as the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) seemed to indicate, because we have just listened to a most eloquent address by the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) who pleaded with some passion that the Minister should not turn from her the light of his countenance. I would indeed say Amantium irœ amoris integratio est—"The wrath of lovers is the rebirth of love." We hope it will be so in this case.
  Undoubtedly, the subject of analgesia is one in which the House has recently taken a great interest, but the Minister may think that there are other subjects equally desirable for consideration, and, indeed, or even closer consideration, such as the great subject of research and the necessity of research in cancer, tuberculosis and other great diseases. The discussion went very wide, and the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) even brought in the question of housing. I certainly would not wish to pursue that, except to say that I fully agree with him that the present housing shortage is one of the reasons for the great strain on the hospitals. If the hospital authorities could get adequate accommodation for many of the cases, it would ease the strain on the beds and enable them to admit certain cases which they would greatly desire to have under care rather than outside.
  The first breach in the harmonious conduct of the Debate was caused, I think, by the hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers), whose attitude may be summed up in the words, "Play the game, you cads." I think that one who handed it out as vigorously as he did has no cause to complain if he gets it

  1165
  back. To make the demand that it should be carried out in an atmosphere of good will, and to proceed to wreck that atmosphere of good will in every way he possibly could, was not the way to bring about the object which, he said, he had in view; all the more so since the National Health Service policy was set on foot by the war-time National Coalition Government, with its great Conservative majority, over which the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) presided.
  It may be said, "That is all talk; nothing was done." I am certainly in a position to speak upon that because I had the honour of taking the second great step in the National Health Service. The first step was taken by a former leader of the hon. Member for Dorset, Mr. Lloyd George, but I may claim to have taken at least a step of some considerable importance in the setting up of the Emergency Medical Service which was in existence when the National Health Service came into being, and without the preliminary work of which it would not have been possible to set afoot the National Health Service. I had to form an organisation covering all the doctors of the country and integrating all the hospital beds of the country.
  Mr. Byers: Although the Conservative Party had been in office for 20 years, it was not until there was a war that something was done in order to get beds for the National Health Service.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman's well-meant efforts to introduce an atmosphere of good will is a singular insight into what the atmosphere of good will must be at Liberal Party meetings. When the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge went out of her way to thank me for a step towards the improvement in the National Health Service; actually dealing with one of the points we were discussing, namely, the service for maternity benefit, I think that it is quite far-fetched for him to suggest that nothing was done by the Conservative Party between the wars. Does he think that the 1929 Act of Mr. Chamberlain, and the change-over of the Poor Law hospitals to——
  Mr. Byers: Under pressure.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman says that the 1929 Act was carried
  1166
  out under pressure. As Disraeli said when a man said, "Mr. Smith, I believe?"—"If you believe that you will believe anything." I have myself shared many of the difficulties which the Minister of Health has had. On the more particular task which we were discussing just now in some detail—the task of providing hospitalisation—I can certainly speak with a great deal of sympathy, because I myself had the task of providing a very large number of hospital beds. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there are more hospital beds now than there were before the war. That is quite true, but it is not, I think, the very large increase which seemed to be suggested by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest). It is, I think, something of the order of between five and ten per cent. Even so, the present number of hospital beds in this country is of the order of 454,000. The Emergency Medical Service ran the number up to well over half a million, and we had all those beds completely staffed; so that, although there has been an improvement from before the war, there has been a considerable recession from the war-time beds which were provided and staffed.
  Mr. Bevan: For obvious reasons.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is quite true that many of the advantages which appear in war disappear in peace. But so do some of the disadvantages. I think the right hon. Gentleman will not deny—in fact I am sure he will agree—that as long as there are 50,000 hospital beds in existence but not staffed, nobody can say that we have solved the problem, or even taken all the steps we can towards solving the problem, of producing an adequate Health Service.
  Let me deal with the assertion that on this side of the House there is no support for a National Health Service, or even for this National Health Service, because we voted against the original Act when it was introduced. Surely the right hon. Gentleman, as a skilled Parliamentarian of long standing, will not bring forward that argument. The Labour Party voted against the Housing Act of 1936, not because they objected to housing but because they objected to the approach which was being made. They voted against the Education Act of 1936, not because they objected to housing, but because they objected to the particular

  1167
  treatment which we were bringing forward.
  They voted against the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act of 1925. It is most interesting historically that the right hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of that Act was the right hon. John Wheatley, the uncle of our present Lord Advocate. But he did not object to widows' pensions or old age pensions; he objected to the particular avenue of approach we were making. More recently the Labour Party voted against the Milk Act of 1935. I had the honour of introducing that, and I well remember a difficult struggle. We were there dealing with milk for school children. The Labour Party voted against that Act, not because they objected to the provision of milk for school children but because they objected to the particular provision which was being made.
  All those things have since been accepted by all parties. Indeed, the Labour Party proposed the rejection of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act because it introduced the contributory principle into a Health Insurance system; but that principle has since been built upon with great vehemence and keenness by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and now forms a cardinal feature of their social policy.
  The thing which the House would really wish to know tonight is a little more of the future. There has been considerable uneasiness and distress amongst the medical profession. The Minister of Health is a heavyweight boxer of the most formidable character. He might be called a bruiser. Anyone getting into a rough-and-tumble with the right hon. Gentleman is bruised both mentally and physically, and there is a deep Freudian bruise in the mind of the medical profession about those negotiations which were conducted, to quote their former chief of staff, more as a military operation than as a kind of negotiation. The right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to dispel that; and today the Lord Advocate said that it is the desire of us all to make matters run smoothly. This Bill is, I think, an earnest of that.
  I do not take the view that there is any breach of faith in this Bill. I take the view that this Bill carries out the
  1168
  promise of the Minister. There may well be further steps to be taken, but these will be a matter for future discussion. If the Minister had tried to put in all the amendments which appeared desirable up to date, then he and I, I regret to say, would have to continue the intimate series of meetings which we have been carrying on now for so long, and which neither of us would wish to have prolonged more than is absolutely necessary. I say that in the professional and not in the personal sense.
  The next point is the position as to the services, and more particularly the hospital services. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) who has early succeeded in acquiring particular political tricks, including one of using part of a quotation which suits him and leaving out the rest, quoted from a "British Medical Journal" leader to the effect that they had refused to accept the assurance of the Minister; but the hon. Member left out the explanation in the second half of the sentence, which was that although the Minister might not remain, he could not bind his successor. That shows that the hon. Member is going on very fast in his apprenticeship.
  He might perhaps have quoted from another leader in the "British Medical Journal" of 14th May, 1949, dealing with the subject of what will be the actual reduction in beds due to the recent circular of the Minister. I do not take the view that there will certainly be a reduction. The Minister has sent out a circular to regional boards in regard to the Treasury cut of 5 per cent. It works out with varying severity on various hospitals, but it certainly has left a lively apprehension in the hearts of many of the hospital authorities, and this was a point which was referred to by the hon. Lady the Member for Epping. This leader said:
  "The cut in the budget of St. Bartholomew's Hospital is as much as £300,000 … Oxford, for example, suffers a cut of £170,000 on an estimated expenditure for maintenance of £960,000; Bristol a cut of £120,000 out of an estimate of £970,000; Birmingham a cut of £87,708 out of an estimate of £1,308,329."
  That is not to be dispelled by the statement which the leader says was made by a Ministry of Health official, that in 1948–49 the hospitals received £172,796,000, and for 1949–50 they would be receiving £177,531,000. The House

  1169
  will be much more interested in the possible closure of beds. The leader went on to say
  "The Manchester Regional Hospital Board, for instance, has decided that if the cuts in capital and maintenance estimates are put into effect, there will be 2,019 fewer hospital beds available for the already long waiting-list of patients. St. Bartholomew's had planned to reopen 330 beds, but the heavy cut in its budget now makes it necessary to keep this block closed."
  The hon. Member for Batley and Morley might have considered bringing these facts before the Minister instead of the facts which he brought in for the purpose of acerbating the Minister's winding-up speech, which he will find later is a work of supererogation.
  It is true that the work of the medical service is expensive, and we all agree that the expense must be very carefully watched, and, indeed, pruned where necessary. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) recently gave an example of a hospital whose clerical bill before 5th July was £350, and it had gone up to £1,200. The clerical expenditure at Skegness Hospital has gone up by a multiple of three. These are examples of expenses which can and should be reduced. I do not deny, and no one denies, that the expenditure upon these services has not yet reached its peak.
  The Minister will no doubt ask in his winding-up speech what is our attitude on these things. Where do we stand? I will tell him. The word of the nation has been passed, and the health services must be implemented. We recognise, and indeed we have constantly called attention to, the fact that the cost of these services has not yet reached its peak. The money to complete them will have to be found. We do not propose to cut the health services. Vigorous action will have to be taken to bring that about. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated one possibility. No such steps are mentioned in the Bill. It would be quite wrong, and it certainly would not be fitting, to consider steps of the order suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Undoubtedly, prune and trim as we will, the cost of the services is on the rise and is still rising. It is vitally necessary that the health services should be rounded off, for them to be as the nation desire them to be. That is the position of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen
  1170
  on this side of the House. [Interruption.] I am speaking on behalf of my party, with a sense of responsibility. I say that that is the attitude of right hon. Gentlemen on this side, and I ask the hon. Member for Northern Dorset to believe that.
  Mr. Byers: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for what he has said. Perhaps that could be conveyed to Conservative candidates throughout the country.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The emollient effect of the hon. Member for Northern Dorset continues. I must return again to my subject. The Minister has to rise, and emollients at this stage are perhaps out of place. I say that the Bill before us certainly implements the promises which were made by the Minister during the passage of the Bill, promises which we believed were necessary. If they had not been implemented it would have given rise to a grave breach of faith. The general task before us now, as before the whole House and the whole country, is that of finishing the building, which has now been begun and is by no means completed.
  I think this is not the last of the amending Bills which we shall have before us. It is a very noble aim that the nation has set before it. I think it will not be possible to lift the matter above party politics, as it is called. This matter is on the smithy of party politics, on the anvil of which great policies are beaten out. I do not make any apology, nor do I ask for any quarter in that matter. It is in the cut and thrust of debate, in the hammer and clang of the House, that these matters are finally decided. The air of peace which hangs over matters which are above party politics is very often the peace of death. This Health Service is a live decision, taken after live discussion. Let the discussion go on, and in that way will a policy emerge and the future of our nation finally be worked out.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am afraid that such a very wide field has been covered in the course of the discussion that half-an-hour is hardly sufficient to enable me to answer every point which has been made. I do not propose to spend very much time on the Bill because no one else has spent much time on it. I want to disagree with the hon. and learned Member for

  1171
  the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) about the genesis of the Bill. He says that the Bill is a complete vindication of the attitude which was taken up by him and some of his colleagues on the Committee stage of the Bill in 1946. On the contrary, the very microscopic examination which has occurred since then shows how wrong they were in what they said. The statements which were made at that time were to the effect that the Clauses relating to partnerships and compensation and to the abolition of the sale and purchase of practices would have the effect of dissolving partnerships and making them impossible and that therefore it was necessary to amend the Bill.
  Most of the doubt which arose at that time and most of the anxieties which the doctors have been suffering were a direct consequence of the unbridled propaganda of some leaders of the medical profession at that time. They were creating suspicion and doubt where none in fact existed. What they were really arguing against was not the partnership Clause in the Bill but that relating to the sale and purchase of practices. I do not want to recriminate too much but it was really a part of their propaganda at the time to cloud the whole matter and to suggest that something dreadful would happen. Nothing dreadful has happened. All that has occurred is that a large number of doctors believed what some of their leaders said and have been suffering unnecessary anxiety in the meantime.
  Mr. H. Strauss: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the doctors took legal advice and they were given advice that the section was obscure in the way that paragraphs 8 and 9 of the White Paper inter alia say they were right in thinking it was obscure?
  Mr. Bevan: I was coming to that point. The fact of the matter is that the lawyers disagreed about it.
  Mr. Messer: The lawyers always do disagree.
  Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the lawyers will not disagree about these Clauses? Of course he will not. No one can. No one can say that the Clauses
  1172
  which we have been compelled to put into this Bill as a consequence of the examination are less obscure than the Clauses in the 1946 Act were. I challenge any lay Member to compare these revised Clauses with those we had in the original Act, and before they compare them I advise them to put cold towels on their heads.
  What we are dealing with here is not the obscurity of a piece of legislation but the complexity of the subject. It is extremely difficult, as was realised by the very competent Committee under Mr. Justice Slade which inquired into this. So complex are the circumstances and so varied are the partnership agreements that the committee suggested a most original and novel procedure, that we should have arbitration powers of such a wide nature that the Act of Parliament itself could be altered by the arbitration. That proves the opposite to what the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying. What he was trying to prove was that we were incompetent to frame clear Clauses. What examination has proved is that the subject itself is so complex and so largely unknown that original powers have to be given even to alter the Act of Parliament by arbitration.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Why not put it in the original Bill?
  Mr. Bevan: With all respect, we did a most original thing here. Because the propaganda had confused the minds of the doctors we did not even wait for the courts to interpret the Act of Parliament. Yet the courts might have decided that the Act of Parliament was clear and have interpreted it in our sense. Although there are between 17,000 and 18,000 G.Ps. in the country, this Bill affects only 50. [An HON. MEMBER "Subsection 7."] Fifty partnerships.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think also their assistants.
  Mr. Bevan: I daresay. That was not a matter of obscurity. I am speaking here about the scope of the Bill. In fact most of the fears that were expressed at that time have proved entirely groundless, and what we are doing at present is clearing away the doubts that need never have occurred at all at that time were it not—I do not complain about it—that the Act had been launched in a polemical atmosphere.
  Mr. Renton: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is referring only to Part I when he says only 50 people?
  Mr. Bevan: Yes.
  Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill.
  Mr. Bevan: Yes, because that is the matter I am discussing at the present time. We ought not to be reproached on the ground that an amending Bill proves that we made a mistake. If making a change, if making an improvement—[Interruption.]—Hon. Members are not supposed to take note of what happens outside the Chamber. If making an improvement upon what was done before, is to be regarded as an admission of having been wrong before, then we have the explanation of why the Tory Party has stood still for 100 years. As has been said over and over again, we are perfectly prepared to introduce amending legislation whenever it can be shown to be necessary and, as has been said also, it will probably be necessary before the National Health Service scheme has properly "bedded in" to have a good many small amending Bills.
  Mr. H. Strauss: The Minister says that Part I will affect only a few people. Has he any statistics to show how many partnerships were dissolved before the appointed day on account of the complete obscurity of Section 35 of the principal Act?
  Mr. Bevan: No, I cannot tell that, but if there were partnerships dissolved, it was not in consequence of the obscurity of the section but of the propaganda to which I have referred because, as has been shown, it has not been necessary since the appointed day to dissolve partnerships. If, therefore they were dissolved before, the guilt rests on the leaders of the profession and not on me. I want to leave that point because sufficient has been said about it.
  Now may I make a reference to one matter which cropped up in the course of the Debate and, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to make a reference to the Standing Orders of the House? During the war a change was made as a result of which it became possible to put Amendments to a Bill on the Order Paper before the Second Reading had been
  1174
  taken. I cannot and ought not to criticise the Rules of the House, but I think that perhaps they ought to be reconsidered because what has happened this evening is complete evidence of the confusion that can arise if we start with the Committee stage of the Bill, before we have had the Second Reading. I am not complaining that hon. Members have done it. They are perfectly entitled to use the Rules of the House in the way they wish, but I suggest to hon. Members in all parts of the House that we are likely to get into a confused condition if we are to have Committee discussions before we have had the Second Reading.
  The proposed new Clauses upon analgesia, to which reference has been made, are a case in point. I shall not say, and I ought not to be asked to say, how I shall deal with those Clauses in Committee. I must leave that until the Committee stage has been reached. Certainly, if I may say so with all respect, I cannot permit the existence of those proposed new Clauses, in the course of a Second Reading, to be part of a bargain to be made about a Private Member's Bill. I certainly cannot agree at this stage to admit certain Clauses into the Bill in Committee, in return for which a Private Member's Bill, that may never reach the Statute Book, will be withdrawn. That, indeed, is a peculiar bargain to strike, and I do not propose to do it. We shall discuss the merits of those Clauses when we reach them.
  What I want to make clear—and this is in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), who made a very charming and conciliatory speech—is that what vexes me about the whole of this propaganda is that the country is being given the impression that if only these new Clauses were in operation, more women would be relieved of pain in childbirth. That is what I resent, because it is not the truth. Not one additional woman in the country would be relieved of pain in childbirth if the Bill were on the Statute Book. What we are faced with in connection with the development of that service, is not statutory limitation, but physical limitation, a limitation placed upon us by the lack of sufficient trained midwives and general facilities. It is like saying that it is the absence of statutory power which is responsible for the fact that there are

  1175
  50,000 people on the hospitals' waiting lists. It is not statutory power that we need in order to provide beds for those patients; it is nurses and general facilities. Those waiting lists could be wiped out immediately——
  Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Of course, we acknowledge the physical difficulties, but no physical difficulties could justify the position—and area after area could be quoted—where not one woman has the opportunity of this relief.
  Mr. Bevan: That is not really the case. In fact, as hon. Members in all parts of the House know, very remarkable progress has been made over the last year or so in the provision of analgesia or anaesthesia. Indeed, in England and Wales, between 60 and 70 per cent. of all confinements have now analgesia or anaesthesia. I do not want to be unduly controversial over this—I am in a comparatively benign mood tonight—but I suggest that it does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to speak about analgesia at all, because their record is as black as it can be. In fact, almost all the progress that has been made in the provision of analgesia has been made since 1945.
  The reason why I have been a little concerned about this matter is this. I personally am not really concerned about my own reactions about it, but I think that in this matter of health administration hon. Members ought to be extremely careful in what they say because they can give unnecessary pain. It is not possible for a Minister of Health, no matter to what party he belongs, to say that any particular class of patient is going to have priority over any other class of patient in the Health Service. It is a wicked thing to say to people who are suffering from cancer that the House of Commons regards the provision of this or that relief to some other class of patient as taking priority over the treatment of cancer. We must not have that sort of psychology in the Health Service.
  I beg hon. Members to realise that. It is a part of the psychology of sickness that every sick person must feel that he or she is receiving as much attention as any other person. Therefore it is a monstrous intrusion, a violation and mutilation of that psychology that it should be said
  1176
  that a certain group of patients are to have priority over any other group of patients.
  Mr. Thorneycroft Mr. Thorneycroft indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bevan: I do not know why the hon. Member is shaking his head over that, because it is precisely the issue involved.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not want to be controversial, but exactly the same priority is given to make it the duty of the dental surgeon to look after the welfare of young children.
  Mr. Bevan: And that is a classical illustration of the foolishness of using such words and I regret that because, as a consequence of the movements between private dentists and public dentists, there is danger of the priority dental service breaking down. In other words, once more we are not in statutory difficulties, but in physical difficulties, and no legerdemain or alteration of words on the Statute Book is going to alter physical facts. I am really sincere about this. Let us press on, let us go on training midwives as quickly as we can. Let us go on providing this relief on the greatest possible scale and, before many years have passed, every woman in this country will be able to have analgesia or anaesthesia if she wants it. Let us for heaven's sake be a little more proud of what we have accomplished and not be forever "girning" about what we are not doing.
  I want to say a word or two about the question of expenditure put to me by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Hon. Members opposite must make up their minds about what they are going to do. In speech after speech hon. Members opposite have been asking for increased expenditure this evening. Hon. Members want all the items put up and the totals to be down. It is no use to come to the House of Commons, as they have come, making nice quiet speeches and then saying, "We want to take the Health Service out of party politics." The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in fairness to him, did not say so, but look at the posters in the country. Let me make this quite clear, subject to the Ruling of the Chair: this amending Bill is very wide and the Opposition can put down Amendments if they wish suggesting what should be taken out of the Health Service. I

  1177
  would welcome their suggestions. It has been asked by one hon. Member, "Why on earth should we cut the hospital service and issue free spectacles?" By what conceivable alchemy can I transmute a citizen without a pair of spectacles into a trained nurse looking after a patient? If it be the fact—and it is a fact—that the limitation on the provision of hospital accommodation is the lack of trained nurses, I cannot get trained nurses by letting half the country go blind.
  Hon. Members must make up their minds. I cannot reduce any of these services, or make a charge for any of these services without an amendment of the law. I cannot do it administratively—[Interruption.] What is that? Do not mumble, let us have it. If the Opposition wish to economise at the expense of the provision of one of the free services, let them have the courage to put down an Amendment to the Bill. But do not let them go "girning" around the country saying that the Health Service is extravagantly administered and ought to cost much less money, and yet demand that the service be given.
  The Leader of the Opposition does not hesitate to talk about extravagant administration. He made a speech in the North the other day and talked of the gross extravagance of the Health Service and the incompetence of the Minister of Health. I notice he never says it here now, but goes there to say it. Does the House know what the percentage is? The administrative expenses of the National Health Service Act work out at 2.3 per cent. of the total cost. I challenge any private industry in the country to reveal their figures and compare them with that. Ask the private insurance companies what their administrative expenses are. Anything from 9½ to 40 per cent. Let me be quite clear: in these administrative expenses are included the Health Division of the Ministry of Health, which by the way is smaller than it was before, with all these added responsibilities. The price-fixing machinery for the pharmaceutical services, the Estimates Board for the dental service, all the executive councils, all the regional boards, all the management committees of hospitals, including all the secretarial expenses people have been speaking about—they are all in this 2.3 per cent. total.
  It is perfectly correct that here and there unnecessary appointments will be
  1178
  made. The percentage I have given is no reason why we should not scrutinise the administrative expenditure as narrowly as possible but it does mean that there are no great savings to be obtained on the administrative side. It means, therefore, that hon. Members mislead the country if they suggest that they can secure any great savings on the National Health Scheme by cutting out administrative extravagance; they are just not there to be obtained.
  Before I sit down I must say a word in reply to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman about the cuts. I apologise for not answering many of the points raised, but I have not the time. What we are witnessing is a financial exercise. It must be realised that the regional hospital boards and management committees had been in office for only six weeks before they were asked to make their estimates. Everybody is taking this plant up to see how it is growing; the thing is not having a chance to settle down. The Opposition Press are introducing a note of hysteria all the time; they will not let the thing have a chance.
  We know very well—I am not saying this about all hon. Members—that among very large groups in the country who are opposed to us there is a vindictive animosity against the Health Service, and they seek every opportunity of sneering. When these estimates are sent in, the management committees estimate what they want, and those estimates are added up by the regional hospital boards and are sent in; they say, "This is what we would like to have," but we do not accept them without examination. We say, "Take these estimates back and have a look at them again." They must realise that they must justify their estimates or there will be no financial control at all. We are at the moment witnessing an attempt by the central administration progressively to exercise financial discipline over the whole Service, while, at the same time, leaving the utmost amount of independent action at the periphery, and we shall succeed.
  I have told regional hospital boards and management committees that in making economies where they can be made they must not make them at the expense of the patients. That means that they must not close beds. It also means that where it is necessary and advisable

  1179
  to open new beds those new beds must be opened. But hon. Members will realise that management committees and regional boards, when asked to make a cut, will say, "Oh, this means that we have to close beds." I say, "Oh, no. It does not mean that you have to close beds. If you cannot save all the money without closing beds you cannot save it; but look at your expenditure more narrowly, scrutinise it more carefully; make economies where they can be made," because there is nothing worse for any administration than to feel that they can have all the money for which they ask. We get slack administration all round if we do that. It is only ten months since the Service started, and it will have to run for three, four or five years before we shall really know what the repetitive annual expenditure is going to be. But in the meantime, if we are concerned about the Service, we must have patience. Reductions have been made in the remuneration of chemists—or slight reductions will be made—in the remuneration of opticians and in the remuneration of dentists. Where it was shown to be necessary those economies have been made.
  But there is one prerequisite in the study of human behaviour, and that is people must first of all be allowed to behave. It was not possible to see how doctors were going to react; it was not possible to see how dentists were going to react, until they were allowed to react. It is a simple thing, but it happens to be true. As they have only been acting for ten months it is a bit premature to reach any conclusion about their ultimate behaviour. I will make hon. Members opposite a gift of this information. To the extent that abuses exist in the Health Service; to the extent that it has been difficult to prevent them from arising; to the extent that there are faults they arise directly from those parts of the Health Service that have to be articulated through private enterprise. Opticians, dentists, chemists—but not much the chemists.
  Hon. Members should think when they are speaking about these things that it is awfully difficult to make the motives of private enterprise subserve a great
  1180
  social purpose. That is the difficulty which we are experiencing. But I am hoping to raise the ethical standards of the professions. I am hoping to put the nimbus of public service upon private enterprise brows. Before very long, as the years go by, I believe everybody will take a pride in this Service. It is alleviating pain, it is giving relief, and, at the same time, it is serving as an inspiration to the other nations of the earth.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—(King's Recommendation signified.)
  [Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the National Health Service Act, 1946, and the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, and otherwise to amend the law in relation to services provided under the said Acts, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  (i) of compensation, in certain cases, to members of medical partnerships, being compensation additional to the compensation payable under section thirty-six of the National Health Service Act, 1946, and section thirty-seven of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947;

  (ii) of remuneration and allowances to the members of any arbitration committee appointed under the said Act of the present Session and of the expenses of any such committee; and

  (iii) of any increase attributable to the passing of the said Act of the present Session in any grants or sums payable under any other enactment out of moneys provided by Parliament;

  (b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Minister of Health or Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (RENT CONTROL) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.

  Title.
  Lords Amendment: In line 4, leave out from "1939" to "to" in line 7 and insert:
  "further to restrict the requiring of premiums in connection with tenancies to which those Acts apply; to make further provision for the purposes of those Acts where the tenant shares part of his accommodation with his landlord or other persons or sublets part of his dwelling-house furnished."
  10.0 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is necessitated by the introduction of what are now Clauses 2 and 9 of the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  Clause 1.—(VARIATION OF STANDARD RENTS FIXED BY REFERENCE TO NEW LETTINGS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 17, at end, insert:
  "Provided always that in the case of a dwelling-house the first letting of which occurred between the first day of September nineteen hundred and thirty-nine and the fourteenth day of August nineteen hundred and forty-five in consequence of the landlord serving in any of His Majesty's forces or otherwise being required to reside elsewhere than in the dwelling-house by reason of circumstances arising out of the war, the rent so determined as aforesaid shall, as from the date of the determination thereof, be the standard rent of the dwelling-house whether the same shall be greater or less than what would be the standard rent apart from this section."
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  It has been made clear to this House on several occasions that this Bill is designed to achieve the limited objective of defending tenants against gross abuses by landlords. It is certainly not the vehicle for a general review of the Rent Restrictions Acts. In our view it is not possible to deal in isolation with a few
  1182
  cases where hardship may arise to a landlord without such a general review. Indeed, the proposed Amendment makes clear this weakness, for it would be almost impossible of interpretation within any narrow limits. Who could be certain, for example, whether or not the exigencies of war had necessitated removal in a certain case? I think also that it is clear that the hardship caused to individual landlords who had to leave their houses either to serve in the Forces or to go to other parts of the country during the war years has been much exaggerated. In fact, in the great majority of cases these landlords have now returned to the occupation of their houses. It would be wrong to attempt to take action on what is a comparatively small issue rather than to wait for a general review of the Rent Restrictions Acts which must take place at a more convenient date.
  Colonel Dower: Would it not be better not to refer to these people as landlords having to leave their houses but as owners who were forced by the war to leave their houses? I think that would be better than saying that they are landlords.
  Mr. J. H. Hare: I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be satisfied with what the Parliamentary Secretary has just told us. All that he has said is that for administrative reasons it is not convenient to the Government to make a particular exclusion as indicated in the Amendment. He said the cases were few and, although there might be some injustice, the hardship was limited. The hon. Gentleman has cloaked himself under the excuse that this is not an easy thing to do. Where cases of justice and injustice are concerned, I think I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we do not hesitate, even though it might mean some administrative inconvenience, to further the just cause.
  I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that if the original intention of the Minister of Health when he presented this Bill had been carried out and if the right hon. Gentleman had not been led astray by a Communist Amendment which he accepted, the present Amendment which we support would not have been necessary. It is only as a result of that Communist Amendment that this is necessary, because these cases of hardship will arise.

  1183
  The House should give serious attention to the type of person to whom we are referring. We refer primarily to ex-Service men who had to give up their houses when called up or when they volunteered, and particularly, to members of the Armed Forces who lived in the towns. We should not forget that it was the policy of the Government of the day to try to get people out of the big towns if they were not essential to maintaining the life of those towns. What happened was that the men were called up or volunteered, and their wives and children were encouraged to evacuate from the centres of great cities like London. We naturally expected—and I am sure the Minister will agree—that the demand for houses in the centres of these great cities, which were all the time either under the threat of bombing or were actually being bombed, would be very small indeed.
  The majority of those affected were members of the Armed Forces, but there were others as well. There were key people who were asked by the Government to take up essential war work in other parts of the country, or who were sent abroad for that purpose. In addition, there were a large number of civil servants who were evacuated from London to places like Colwyn Bay at the request of the Government, and who had to make arrangements to dispose of their property because they had to work elsewhere. I feel that this is a reasonable case, because the rents which these people were able to obtain during this time were rents which today are very much below what could be termed reasonable rents. What the Minister has done by accepting the Communist Amendment and making his Bill effective as from 1st September, 1939, is to impose upon the type of person to whom I have referred the obligation of receiving a rent which was obtained in a period, not of scarcity of houses, but of superfluity of houses, and that is really beyond argument.
  The Parliamentary Secretary made the point that this case should be dealt with when a general revision of the Rent Restrictions Acts is considered and is before Parliament. We agree with the hon. Gentleman that that should have been done, but his Government have been in power for almost four years already and it has not been done. Have we any reason to think that, if they are returned
  1184
  to power, they have any intention of dealing with this matter? We should be most interested to hear what they have to say—but it is probably an entirely theoretical question.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Is this the only theorising in the Conservative programme that we are to be vouchsafed?
  Mr. Hare: A very interesting interruption, but an irrelevant one.
  I hope that, in view of the points which I have put to him, which are reasonable and just, the Minister will think again. I hope that hon. Members on all sides realise that it is the job of this House to do justice, not to carry out things merely for reasons of administrative convenience.
  Colonel Dower: I feel that another place has sent forward an Amendment to this Bill which deserves the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Minister was quite right when he said that the prime reason for the introduction of this Bill, in which I have given him all support, was the extortionate rentals due to the housing scarcity. Whereas all Members of this House are in favour of removing that abuse, I fail to see why we should not be interested in other abuses as well. To my own knowledge—and I should be pleased to give the right hon. Gentleman any further information at any time he may wish to have it—there was quite a large number of lettings in London during the blitz, not, as a supporter of this Amendment has said, at 50 per cent., but very often at only one-third of the value of a reasonable rent. The owners had to leave London and choose between letting their houses or closing them. In the latter case they ran the risk if the houses were damaged, of having anything inside them of value pillaged. There were large numbers of lettings at a comparatively nominal rent which had no relationship whatever to a low reasonable rent. I have always stood up for what I call a low reasonable rent.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, and certainly his representatives in another place have admitted, that there is hardship under this particular provision. Is it quite fair when the Government have the chance to rectify an abuse, that they should say, "If we cannot rectify all abuses, we will not

  1185
  rectify this particular abuse"? I do not think that is a good argument. The members of the tribunal will be well chosen and men with considerable knowledge of letting values, and I fail to see why they cannot deal with a very reasonable Amendment such as this one.
  Mr. Janner: I think that hon. Members will agree that there is much to be said for making provision for those who were compelled to leave their homes, whether through war service or otherwise, during the war. If that were the only point at issue in this Amendment, I think that the Minister would have been pleased to accept it; but it is, unfortunately, not the only point. I think that so long as the Rent Acts are not dealt with as a whole, which, as hon. Members will know, many of us have been trying to bring about for a considerable time, it would be invidious to make a distinction in this particular respect, because by avoiding a hardship in one direction we should probably create hardships in other directions.
  I would like, first, to deal with some of the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare). It is drawing a red herring across the track to suggest that because the original Amendment to the Bill was proposed by a Communist—and my hon. Friends will know that my sympathies do not lie in that particular direction—that has created a position which justifies the introduction of this particular Amendment in another place. If I may say so with respect, that argument does not hold water, because the original Amendment was introduced for the reduction of rents. It did not introduce any question of increasing rent, and did not deal with the position of a man who had left his premises in consequence of the war. All it did was to extend the provisions of this Bill to enable a person who had let a house in the period from 1939 up to now to have the rent revised and reduced, not increased. This unfortunate bee in the bonnet which is put forward as an argument by those who support the Amendment which we are now considering ought to be forgotten at once, because it has nothing to do with the case.
  10.15 p.m.
  Secondly, the Rent Restrictions Acts do not include houses let at rentals below
  1186
  two-thirds of the rateable value of the house. I have, I hope, made myself clear on that point on many occasions, because I think that unfortunately the provisions of this Bill can be avoided by certain subterfuges which can be used in that direction. But for the purpose of this Amendment it must be made clear that if the rent was so low that it was below two-thirds of the rateable value of the house, this Amendment is not necessary, because the rent can be increased in any case.
  Colonel Dower: Where the house has been let in a hurry at a nominal rent below two-thirds of the rateable value, to what can it be increased?
  Mr. Janner: To anything at all. Not only can it be increased to a reasonable rent, but it can be increased to any rent—to £1,000 a week if they can get it.
  Thirdly, there is a method open at present to a Service man who had to leave his premises, or to a person who had to leave in consequence of the war, to apply to the courts for possession of his house on the grounds of greater hardship. That means that if a person is in difficulties because the house he has let is producing a smaller rental than the rental he has to pay for the use of another house, the court is entitled to take that into consideration, and in fact does take it into consideration, when considering the question of granting possession. The question is not, therefore, quite so simple as it has been presented by those who support the Amendment.
  Also, we must consider, not only persons compelled to leave in consequence of directions, but a large number of people who had to leave their homes because of advice given by one of the Ministries. During the war certain Ministries asked people in, for example, seaside resorts to leave their homes. They were not compelled to leave; but they, too, had to let their places at lower rentals and these rentals would not be increasable under this Amendment. May not that person also have been in difficulties and have had to let his house elsewhere in order to occupy the house he is in now? If his rent is increased he will have to pay the increased rent, so what will his position be then? I submit that these are reasonable answers to the points raised.

  1187
  A question has been asked tonight as to how we are going to remove all the difficulties. I should like to answer that by saying that these difficulties have been in existence for many years, and all these anomalies existed prior to the advent of this Government. Why did not hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were in power, do what they are asking us to do? I do not say that two wrongs make a right, but they cannot argue at this stage that it is this Government's fault, because it is as much their fault as the fault of this Government. Until all these Acts are completely revised, people living next door to each other in similar houses will be paying different rentals. This proposal would increase the anomalies already existing, because if rentals are allowed to be increased in cases of the kind mentioned in the Amendment, a person in one house will be paying a lower rental than the man next door. The result will be that greater confusion will exist than any there has been in the past. On those grounds hon. Members opposite ought to withdraw their Amendment——
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On a point of Order. The hon. Member keeps referring to Members on this side of the House having moved an Amendment. This is an Amendment by another place, and the question is whether we disagree with it or not.
  Mr. Janner: I am sorry if I have used the wrong term. What I intended to say—and I think I did say it—was that the Opposition should reconsider the whole matter. Those of us who normally support the Government will resent any attempt to use this kind of Amendment as a whip with which to beat the Government. It is probable that behind a proposal of this kind is the idea that the Opposition can use it to throw dust in the eyes of the people in the country, but I hope that when they speak or write about this matter they will also give the answers to this proposal, and point out that thousands upon thousands of ex-Service men will be adversely affected if we agree with the Lords on this Amendment. I hope they will also point out that unless and until all these Acts are revised, anomalies will arise, and hon. Members opposite are just as responsible
  1188
  as this Government for not revising the whole of the Acts.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I will not follow the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) at any length, except to congratulate him on having made me absolutely certain that now is the time for the revision of the Acts and that it ought to have been done before. Nor will I follow him in his defence of the Communist Party: nor would I have done so had he defended the Liberal Party's past: but I should like to say that I believe that the other place were absolutely right in inserting this Amendment. Despite what the Parliamentary Secretary said in an effort to deprecate the Amendment, from my own personal experience I know that there are a considerable number of people in the West Country who have been in the Services and who would be helped by it. If the Minister were in the frame of mind which he told us earlier on he was in, namely, a sweet, compromising frame of mind, and if he freely followed the advice he gave us then, he would undoubtedly accept the Amendment, because it would be doing good to a whole lot of people.
  It is not only the ex-Service man whom it would affect very considerably. They are the people who, during those years, had to go into the actual fighting Services. In my part of the country there are both men and women whom this part of the Bill will affect. Those people had to go from the West Country and other places to work in some of the big industrial centres. That applies to a very large number of people. It would not be difficult for me to get individual evidence of that fact. I am not sure that it could not be found in letters of mine in the Ministry of Health now. The number goes far beyond the Service people. It has been argued that people can go to the courts. Surely our object in the House of Commons in supporting the Amendment is to avoid putting more duties on the courts than we can possibly help.
  Mr. Janner: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to point out that what he is doing is, on the contrary, to increase the duties and responsibilities of the tribunals, which are in a sense courts of justice.
  Mr. Williams: That may be or it may not be. I know that the hon. Gentleman

  1189
  has vast knowledge of these matters. He always tells us how much he knows, but I have noticed that people who protest how much they know, very often do not know very much at all. I appeal to the Minister to take my human point of view rather than the ultra-legal point of view expressed from below the Gangway. I do not know whether the Minister will accept the Amendment, after the strong case put in its favour and weak case put against it. If the Minister refuses to do so, I and every other hon. Member on this side will be in a strong position. We can say "Here is a great injustice to many people in our constituencies." The Minister has missed his chance, when it was handed to him by another place. He misses it so easily—and the only thing he does this time is to laugh, as I have often seen him laugh before when people were suffering. Nothing seems to move the present Front Bench, even when we have an Amendment which would do something to relieve suffering and when the Government themselves are causing more suffering in this country than any Government ever did.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: I do not think that I shall find it difficult to avoid the criticism of my hon. Friend about pretending to know a very great deal about the Rent Acts. I have been studying them carefully for 20 years, and the more I study them, the more I realise that anyone who pretends to know anything about them is either a knave or a fool. There seem to me to be two facts—at any rate I think so until I am corrected—which are plain on this Amendment. The first is that the argument put forward by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), which he orginated, cannot help us very much. The argument was that a person who had been forced to leave his house by reason of war service was, under the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts, able to obtain possession if he could establish a case of greater hardship. Of course, that is true, and I think we all know it is true, but we are not, of course, dealing now with attempts to get possession by people who had to leave their houses by reason of their war service. That is the position under the provisions of the existing Acts. What we are attempting to deal with under this
  1190
  Amendment is the question of a person who had to leave his house because of war service, or other circumstances arising out of the war, and had to let his house at an unecomonic rent and who desires for one reason or another, perhaps out of good nature, perhaps for convenience, to leave the tenant in possession. The question is what rent should he be allowed to charge.
  That brings me to the second point, which seems to me to be, at any rate at the moment, fairly clear. That is, that the principal argument advanced by the Government for rejecting this Amendment does not really help very much here, because the Parliamentary Secretary led us to believe that if we were to agree to this Amendment we should be driven to embark upon the wholesale revision of the Rent Restrictions Acts, an object which, however desirable, is obviously outside the purview of this particular Measure. If that is so, I should concede at once that he would have established a very strong case against this Amendment in this Bill; but I fail to understand why it is so. Certainly nothing the Parliamentary Secretary has said and nothing that the hon. Member for West Leicester has said has convinced me that it is so.
  After all, we are considering how to establish a standard rent in relation to a new letting. In relation to an old letting, it is established under the provisions of the existing law, complicated as they may be. But new lettings under the new Bill are to be established by the tribunal if an application is made. This Bill provides that if the tribunal lays down what rent is reasonable, if that rent is less than the rent which is being charged, so much the worse for the landlord, and the rent is reduced by that amount in respect of new lettings—that is, lettings since 1939. So far the matter is fairly clear. But it then goes on to provide that if the tribunal decides that the reasonable rent—that is, what it would be right to charge taking all the circumstances into account—is more than the rent which is in fact being charged, then it is so much the better for the tenant, because the Measure is a one-way street and provides only that something which is less than what is being charged will be considered reasonable for purposes of being chargeable.

  1191
  That is a general principle I have never approved of in this Bill. I will make that concession to the right hon. Gentleman at once. I have always thought what was reasonable was what was reasonable, and that what is sauce for the landlord goose is equally sauce for the tenant gander. In this Amendment we are concerned with a somewhat more meritorious class—namely, those owners of houses who were driven out of them by the circumstances of the war and who had the value of the rent depreciated. Why should they not be allowed to charge what is reasonable, if the tribunal which the Minister himself sets up decides that it is reasonable? What is wrong, what is unjust, about that? What is there in this Amendment, limited as it is to new lettings and to this particular class within new lettings, which, if it is agreed to, forces us to embark upon a general revision of the Rent Restrictions Acts? It may be that I have overlooked some obvious point, as it is easy to do when dealing with this extraordinarily complicated matter, but that is how it appears to me at present, and unless the Minister has some clearer and better explanation than his Parliamentary Secretary has so far given to the House, I feel that that is the way it will appear to me when the matter is put to the vote. I ask the Minister, if I have misunderstood the situation, to put me right before we have a Division.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The only argument brought out by the Government for disagreeing with the Lords in this Amendment is that it would be unjust to do this until the general revision of the Rent Acts takes place. I can imagine an advocate with a very criminal client before a court of justice, the client having been found guilty and the judge being about to pass sentence, rising and saying "Before you pass sentence, your honour, I ask you to remember that all this is going to be settled before long; the Day of Judgment will come, and the whole of our lives will be reviewed. How unjust it is that this man should be singled out for punishment before the general reconsideration of the whole world population takes place." That is the argument of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), that until this general review of 8 million cases takes place, nothing should be done in the case of this small Clause here, which affects
  1192
  people for whose position everyone has the greatest sympathy in words. The fact is that the House of Commons tonight has a chance of doing injustice or justice, and it is about to select, on the recommendation of Ministers, injustice. Why? Because it thinks it would be more convenient that injustice should be done. That is an unworthy recommendation to make, an unworthy action for the House to take. We shall certainly divide the House against it.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has said that anyone who claims to know much about the Rent Acts is either a knave or a fool. As I was listening to him I was wondering how he would describe a person who employed a lawyer who admitted that.
  Mr. Hogg: A very wise man.
  Mr. Bevan: I do not claim to be an authority on the Rent Acts. One does not need to be an authority to understand the simple point before us tonight. It was only a few minutes ago that I was being reproached by hon. Members of the legal profession on the other side of the House for being responsible for obscurely worded Clauses in Acts. I recommend the present proposition, which has come from another place, as a masterpiece of obscurity, because one would not be able to find out where the frontiers came under it. Listen to the words—and I beg hon. Members to realise that it is not their speeches which we are writing into the law but, if it is accepted, this suggested Amendment. The words of it are:
  "Provided always that in the case of a dwelling-house the first letting of which occurred between the first day of September nineteen hundred and thirty-nine and the fourteenth day of August nineteen hundred and forty-five in consequence of the landlord serving in any of His Majesty's forces or otherwise being required to reside elsewhere than in the dwelling house by reason of circumstances arising out of the war.…"
  I suggest that if these words are written into the Bill, it will be practically impossible to deny the right of anyone who let a house for the first time since 1939 to go to the tribunals. It would be practically impossible to distinguish between a person who let a house through circumstances other than those arising out of the war. The war itself in this country was so vastly disturbing, so dislocating,

  1193
  and it affected people in so many diverse ways that it would be almost impossible for any tribunal to determine why a person vacated his house, whether he did so as a consequence of the war. The proposed Amendment does not even say "as a direct consequence." It says, as a consequence of the war. It would be quite easy to establish that the vacation of a house and the letting of it to someone else, was a consequence of the war.
  Colonel Dower: Surely the words "being required" explain what is intended.
  Mr. Bevan: The words are:
  "being required to reside elsewhere."
  "Being required" by whom?
  Colonel Dower: By the State authority.
  Mr. Bevan: It does not say "being required" by any authority. It does not say "being required" by an employer, by the State or by anybody at all. It simply says "being required".
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: But the right hon. Gentleman surely would not deny that somebody called up and ordered to Malaya or Hong Kong was required to leave his house?
  Mr. Bevan: That is not the point at issue. What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said was that we should do justice. Of course we should, and we should also know to whom justice is to be done. But the Amendment which has come from another place leaves out entirely to whom justice is to be done. We cannot put in a statute words which are impossible of being intelligently construed, and I am astonished that I should
  be asked to do so at this stage. Hon. Members opposite say that injustice is being done to the owner of the house and an ex-Service man. They do not seem to realise that the tenant may perhaps be an ex-Service man. They always assume that the landlord is an ex-Service man, and he is the poor person, they say, who ought to have the chance of raising the rent. What about the person against whom the rent is being raised? He might be an ex-Service man, too.
  I admit the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford that if a reasonable rent has been determined it should be possible for the reasonable rent to be applied. But that goes against the whole principle of the Bill. It is not intended to be a rent-raising Measure; it is a rent-restricting Measure. It is intended to protect tenants from having exacted from them exorbitant rents arising out of the present troubled conditions. If I accepted this Amendment it would be against the whole intent of the Bill. There is no reason why I should do so at this stage. As a matter of fact, it was rejected on the Committee stage in this House and I do not see why I should be asked to surrender to another place a principle which I have already denied to the Commons. I, therefore, suggest that a case has not been made out for the Amendment and I certainly could not recommend the House of Commons to insert in an Act of Parliament an Amendment which is so obscure and which leaves so many ends untied.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 86.

  Division No. 147.]

  AYES

  [10.45 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Albu, A. H.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Daggar, G.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Deer, G.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Diamond, J.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Burke, W. A.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Baird, J.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Donovan, T.

  Balfour, A.

  Carmichael, James

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Barton, C.

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Champion, A. J.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Berry, H.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Beswick, F.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

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

  Cocks, F. S.

  Ewart, R.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Collindridge, F.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Binns, J.

  Collins, V. J.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Field, Capt W. J.

  Boardman, H.

  Cove, W. G.

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

  Forman, J. C.

  McAdam, W.

  Scollan, T.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  McAllister, G.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Mack, J. D.

  Sharp, Granville

  Gibson, C. W.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Shurmer, P.

  Gitzean, A.

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Granville, J. E. (Consett)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Grey, C. F.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

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

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Snow, J. W.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Guy, W. H.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Hall, Rt. Hon Glenvil

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Harrison, J.

  Monslow, W.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville.

  Moody, A. S.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

  Morley, R.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Mort, D. L.

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Moyle, A.

  Timmons, J.

  Holman, P.

  Murray, J. D.

  Titterington, M. F.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Tolley, L.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Hoy, J.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

  Walkden, E.

  Hubbard, T.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

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

  Palmer, A. M. F.

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

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parker, J.

  Watson, W. M.

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Weitzman, D.

  Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N)

  Pearson, A.

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Janner, B.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  West, D. G.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edin'gh, E.)

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

  Price, M. Philips

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Wigg, George

  Keenan, W.

  Ranger, J.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  King, E. M.

  Rankin, J.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Kinley, J.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Lang, G.

  Robens, A.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Willis, E.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

  Leonard, W.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Woods, G. S.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Yates, V. F.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Logan, D. G.

  Royle, C.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Sargood, R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Nicholson, G.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

  Odey, G. W.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hogg, Hon Q.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Bowen, N.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Byers, Frank

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)

  Renton, D.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesail)

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Linstead, H. N.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Crowder, Capt, John E.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Spence, H. R.

  De la Bére, R.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Touche, G. C.

  Drayson, G. B.

  McFarlane, C. S.

  Turton, R. H.

  Drewe, C.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

  Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Gammans, L. D.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grimston, R. V.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Brigadier Mackeson and

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Colonel Wheatley.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 28, leave out "and the next following."
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  I think it will be convenient to the House if we take together this and a whole series of drafting Amendments which are consequential.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I would make no objection to that. The Minister will warn us when we come to an Amendment of substance, and I am sure we can rely on him to do so.

  Clause 3.—(PROHIBITION OF PREMIUMS ON GRANT OR ASSIGNMENT OF TENANCY.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 17, at end, insert:
  "or in providing or improving fixtures therein, being fixtures which as against the landlord he is not entitled to remove."
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  When a tenant assigns a tenancy, he should be entitled to recover from the assignee payment for any fixture he may have provided in the house but which he may not be entitled to remove. This seems to us to be a perfectly reasonable proposal and we suggest it should be accepted.
  Colonel Dower: What is the reasonable proposal?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows there are certain categories of fixtures which, according to the agreement, may be capable of being removed and in some cases they vest in the landlord.
  Colonel Dower: Originally, yes.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes.
  Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 40, leave out from beginning to second "the" in line 43 and insert:
  "Provided that where an agreement has been made since the said twenty-fifth day of March and before the commencement of this Act, and the agreement includes provision for the payment of a premium which could lawfully be required under the enactments hereby
  1198
  repealed but which, if paid in pursuance of the agreement, would be recoverable, wholly or in part, by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this subsection."
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is mainly a drafting Amendment to make clear that agreement to pay premiums between the dates mentioned are voidable at the option of either party.

  Clause 4.—(SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO PREMIUMS PAID TO A PREDECESSOR OF THE LANDLORD.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 14, leave out Clause 4.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is consequential on the earlier series of drafting Amendments.

  Clause 10.—(PROVISIONS WHERE TENANT SHARES ACCOMMODATION WITH OTHER PERSONS BUT NOT WITH LANDLORD.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 9, at end insert:
  "(7) Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection and without prejudice to the enforcement of any order made there-under, while the tenant is in possession as aforesaid of the separate accommodation, no order or judgment for the recovery of any of the shared accommodation or for the ejectment of the tenant therefrom shall be made or given, whether on the application of the immediate landlord of the tenant or on the application of any person under whom the said landlord derives title, unless a like order or judgment has been made or given, or is made or given at the same time, in respect of the separate accommodation; and section three of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, 1933 (which restricts the landlord's right to possession of a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply) shall apply accordingly."
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  A tenant may occupy separate accommodation—for example a bedroom and sitting-room—and share the use of a bathroom, kitchen or other accommodation with other tenants. As the Bill stands, the court can make an order terminating the use of the shared accommodation and thus make it impracticable to use the

  1199
  separate accommodation. This Amendment provides that the use of the shared accommodation cannot be terminated until an order is made terminating the tenant's right to occupy his own separate accommodation.

  New Clause.—(CERTAIN SUBLETTINGS NOT TO EXCLUDE OPERATION OF PRINCIPAL ACTS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 26, at end, insert new Clause "A"—
  "A. Where the tenant of any premises, being a house or part of a house, has sublet a part, but not the whole, of the premises, then as against his landlord or any superior landlord (but without prejudice to the rights against and liabilities to each other of the tenant and any person claiming under him, or of any two such persons), no part of the premises shall be treated as not being a dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply by reason only—

  (a) that the terms on which any person claiming under the tenant holds any part of the premises include the use of accommodation in common with other persons, or

  (b) that part of the premises is let to any such person at such a rent as is mentioned in proviso (i) to subsection (2) of section twelve of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 (which relates to furnished lettings)."

  Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  It has recently been held in the Court of Appeal that the tenant of a controlled house loses the protection of the Rents Acts if he sub-lets a furnished room with the use of kitchen. This Amendment is to ensure that the original intention of the law shall be fulfilled.

  New Clause.—(AMENDMENT OF 9 & 10 GEO. 6. c. 34.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 20, at end, insert new Clause "B"—
  "B.—(1) Where the Tribunal is satisfied on the application of a lessor that the net annual sum received by him in respect of a dwelling-house in respect of which he is under a contractual obligation to provide services was less during the year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and forty-nine (in this section referred to as 'the later year') than the net annual sum received in respect of the dwelling-house during the year ending on the twenty-fifth day of March nineteen hundred and thirty-nine (in this section referred to as 'the earlier year') by reason of the increased cost of providing such services in the
  1200
  later year over the cost of providing similar services in the earlier year the Tribunal may notwithstanding the provisions of the principal Acts increase the rent payable in respect of the dwelling-house to such an extent that if the rent had been so increased during the later year the net annual sum which would have been received by the lessor during that year would have been equal to but not greater than the net annual sum received by him during the earlier year.
  (2) In this section the expression 'lessor' means the lessor for the purposes of the Act of 1946. The expression 'services' has the same meaning as in the Act of 1946. The expression 'contractual obligation' includes an obligation to which a lessor is subject by virtue of the provisions of section fifteen of the increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920. The expression 'net annual sum' means as regards the later year and the earlier year the rent payable for the dwelling-house after deducting therefrom the cost of providing the said services and any sums payable in respect of rates."
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment is open to similar objections to those on the two earlier Amendments, namely, that again it is undesirable to pick out or attempt to pick out a separate category of case for special consideration in contradiction to the whole intention of this Bill. That intention, I must emphasise, deals with the specific problem of trying to protect tenants against certain abuses.
  There is an additional reason why this Amendment should be rejected because here we are certainly not dealing with a category of hardship as we understand the word. The proposal is that lessors who provide services in the house which they own shall be entitled to recoup themselves of any additional cost of those services, such as gas and electricity, which may have occurred between 1939 and the current year. There is no suggestion that these lessors should be required to show hardship at all; indeed information available about the standing of those companies which undertake this class of house letting suggests that they are very far from being in any sort of financial difficulty at all. It does seems extraordinary that we should be asked to pick out this particular category, and to provide extra benefits for them. Their case, I assume, is regarded by hon. Gentlemen opposite as one deserving this. We suggest that whatever case has been made out for certain owners who suffered hardship in

  1201
  the war years, that case cannot be made out for this particular category. We would again emphasise that we do not regard this Bill as being a Measure for the protection of landlords as such, but rather a Measure to protect the tenants against the special abuses to which they have been subject in recent years.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Gammans: I must confess that I am not surprised at the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have taken with regard to this Amendment. It is only part of the piece. It only fits in with what the right hon. Gentleman regards as the true purpose of this Bill, and, if I may say so, with his views generally about those who have anything to do with property. What is interesting to see is the way in which different arguments have been used at different stages of this Bill in connection with this particular point. When we started off, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to admit that this limited type of property owner had a case. The hon. Gentleman now says he has not, but the right hon. Gentleman began by admitting he had. It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to deny there was a case considering that one of the present members of the Front Bench opposite, and another right hon. Gentleman who only recently was a member of the Government, were members of the Ridley Committee which unanimously signed a report that this particular type of property owner, and this particular type of grievance, should receive the highest priority when the Rent Restrictions Acts were revised.
  The hon. Gentleman now goes back on what his right hon. Friend said four years ago. What has happened in the meanwhile to make the case which was right then completely untrue now? The right hon. Gentleman almost got to the stage of shedding crocodile tears for those property owners, but said there was no time to deal with it, or at any rate there was no machinery to deal with it. But now there is machinery to deal with it. There are the tribunals under the Furnished Houses Act, which would deal adequately, quickly and effectively with cases of this sort. Later the basis of the argument was shifted, and it was said that one could not deal with these things piecemeal. It would create anomalies if
  1202
  this particular type of property was considered and other types were left untouched. That is exactly what is happening, because any landlord who owns expensive flats can go on charging what he likes, whereas the property owner who owns and maintains the medium type of flat has to go on providing services irrespective of what the services cost today.
  Then in another place, and to a certain extent it was hinted at here tonight, we had another and new argument. It was hinted at just now by the hon. Gentleman and runs like this, "Well, these landlords are not doing too badly any way and they ought to be pleased at what they are now getting." In this connection there was trotted out in another place the argument that before the war these owners had a lot of voids or empty flats, but now they had none. The average was said to be 15 per cent., but I did not believe this figure when I read it, so I took the trouble to inquire from three large property companies what was the percentage of voids before the war and now.
  The percentage of voids in the three years before the war was 5.1 per cent., and not 15 per cent. as suggested in another place. The percentage in the three years after the war was 1⅖ per cent. It has gone down, but when one considers the enormous number of flats that are void because they are not there at all, or because they have not been able to be repaired, that argument falls to the ground.
  Mr. Bevan: I would like some elucidation on that last point. Does the hon. Gentleman mean war damaged property not being repaired, or property completely demolished?
  Mr. Gammans: I said both.
  Mr. Bevan: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that there are many flats that are not occupied because they cannot be repaired?
  Mr. Gammans: I am suggesting that taking the three years after the war there are a number of flats destroyed from which the property owner is not drawing any income and that until recently there were damaged flats which could not be let. I am dealing with the arguments the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have trotted out, and they are contradictory. The arguments on voids

  1203
  have no relevance whatsoever, and the figures given in another place are grossly inaccurate.
  Another suggestion was put forward to support the thesis that the property owner was not doing too badly, and that was over repairs. The idea was that during the war practically no money was spent on repairs, that vast sums were being accumulated, and because of that the property owner had no grievance. Here again I have taken the trouble to find out what the figures were. During the war taking three of the largest companies in London—and, after all, this Amendment deals with this particular class of property—the amount of money spent on repairs was only half of that spent in the three years before the war. In the three years after the war the amount spent on the bare minimum of repairs allowed was 80 per cent. above the period before the war, or taking the 14 years with which we are concerned, the average has been greater than what it was before the war. That is only the bare minimum. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman feels he has quite strong enough arguments without distorting figures. I hope we shall have heard the last of this argument that the property owner has been able to accumulate vast sums of money during the war, and for that reason he is not entitled to justice or consideration now.
  Then we had another extraordinary argument, and that was the right hon. Gentleman saying "Well, we admit perhaps the property owner is not getting an economic rent now, but look how well he does if he sells."
  Mr. Bevan: When were those words used?
  Mr. Gammans: They were used in various stages of the Bill.
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman is now attributing to me a whole series of arguments without quoting the occasion or an authority.
  Mr. Gammans: I presume what is said in another place by a Government spokesman has Government authority, but I will say "the Government" if it makes it any easier for the right hon. Gentleman. If this reveals a difference of opinion in the Cabinet——
  Mr. Bevan: No.
  Mr. Gammans: I am pleased to hear it. It would not have been the first time, nor will it be the last. The argument that because a higher price is received when a property is sold therefore justice need not be done, is a fantastic one to use. The class of property owner here is not a property jobber, but a man or a company which buys property and tries to maintain it for the benefit of the people who live there.
  These are the various arguments put forward to remedy a grievance brought forward not by Members on this side of the House, but by the Ridley Committee. The Ridley Committee suggested it should be given the highest possible priority. Four years have gone by, and it has not been done. The only conclusion anyone can come to is that the right hon. Gentleman has not the slightest intention of doing anything for anybody who owns a bit of property. I understand his point of view. He loathes the middle class. He is the most bitter hater the middle class has ever had. If it rested with him, he would destroy it. He thinks the quickest way to do that is to destroy the whole institution of property ownership. That I understand. If he would say so, I would respect him more than I do now. But for him to take refuge behind this Bill, and say it is a narrow Bill which he cannot remedy in order to do justice, that I cannot respect. His hon. Friends on the other side who represent borderline constituencies, know that his attitude is solidifying the anti-Socialist vote among the whole of the property-owning community throughout the country.
  Colonel Dower: I want, if possible, to start on a more friendly note, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this. I hope he will listen—I have stayed here for several hours—and not discuss new Parliamentary Private Secretaries and other things which may be worrying him. Here is a case which the tribunal can consider without any confusion of words. It has been said that they would find it impossible to draw the line between the case that should come before them and the case that should not. This is a case of outgoings. The expenses of hon. Members, which are exactly similar, have also increased. I want the right hon. Gentleman to listen to this argument,

  1205
  which I am putting forward with complete earnestness. They can say clearly to the tribunal that before the war the cost of central heating was so much, or the cost of running a lift was so much, and that now it has increased by 50 per cent. or 100 per cent., or whatever it may be. That can be stated clearly in a signed statement which can be produced before the tribunal. The cost of running a lift in the blocks of flats in Tottenham Court Road, Hampstead Road, or Euston, is phenomenal. I do not know why it has increased so tremendously, but it has. To put in a small lift now costs something like £3,000. I am trying to put in a small lift, and I cannot get an estimate under about £2,500. If a lift has to be replaced, or radiators have to be renewed, the outgoings may have increased from 75 to 175 per cent., quite apart from salaries and wages.
  11.15 p.m.
  The point I would like to make is that unless something is done, the amount of contractual services will be reduced to the bare legal minimum. Radiators will be hot for only a few hours a day, lifts will be running only between certain hours, and the porter, instead of being a good fellow who will do whatever he can to help, will be probably someone who has not been able to get a job at anything else, and the whole servicing of the flats will be reduced to a miserable state merely to comply with the contractual obligations inserted in the original lease.
  Under this Amendment the actual rent is not being increased one penny. It will remain as it originally was. The only increase to be added will be the difference between what the services cost now and what they cost then. The right hon. Gentleman says this is a Bill to right abuses of extortionate rents, and I agree. Would he please let us have some indication of when he is going to right the abuses of other people who are suffering, because otherwise things will go from bad to worse? This is not a party question, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it his consideration.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? Does this new Clause apply to Scotland? If it does, will the Under-Secretary of State give us a short resumé of how it affects Scotland? May I have an answer?
  Mr. Bevan: The Government decide when they are going to reply, not the hon. and gallant Member.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I did not say "reply"—I said, "apply."
  Mr. Harold Roberts: This Amendment applies to flats, and I assume flats chiefly in the London area. There seems to be no reason at all why, if the cost of services has gone up, the landlord should not be recompensed by a proportionate increase. That has been the policy under the Rent Restrictions Acts with regard to water charges, rates, and so forth, since 1920, and on merits there is no reason why it should not apply here. The answers attempted are very unsatisfactory. It may be true that where a man owns a number of houses, he occasionally sells one at a large profit, but this type of property is not a type with which one can do that. These are blocks of flats in which one never sells a flat with vacant possession.
  The real reason which apparently actuates the Government is that this must wait until there is a review of the Rent Restrictions Acts. If I heard the right hon. Gentleman aright, he said that we had to remember this was a rent restriction Bill and therefore, apparently, anything which might appear to do justice to landlords cannot be put into it. It seems to me that to allow considerations of justice to be treated in this sort of legalistic way is very undesirable, so undesirable that I have been reading through the Title of this Bill, and I find it is not in terms of a rent restriction Bill at all. It says:
  "An Act to provide in certain cases for the determination by a Tribunal of standard rents for the purposes of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939, and for the adjustment of rents by a Tribunal where premiums have been paid; to make provision where the tenant shares part of his accommodation with his landlord or other persons; to amend the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, as respects security of tenure and as respects the districts for which Tribunals are constituted; to make certain minor amendments of the said Acts in so far as they apply to Scotland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
  The short Title and citation of it is to be:
  "The Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949."

  1207
  I dislike small legal points, but if I am told that this is a rent restriction Bill, I think I am perfectly entitled to say that control and restriction are not quite the same thing. Restriction means cutting down and abridging rent. Control means that there shall be no free economic market, but that the matters are to be decided by the tribunal. There is no reason why the graduation should not be upward as well as downward. I deplore the tendency to substitute law for justice, but if we are to use that type of argument, let us use it logically, and see that considerations of that kind are justified by the title of the Bill. I do not think they are. Therefore, it appears to me that we are back to the simple question whether this is or is not a matter of justice. I have not heard any argument to show that it is not the right thing to do. Therefore, why not take the opportunity of doing it?
  Mr. Hogg: I am extraordinarily puzzled to understand exactly the basis of the argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, which is the same as his argument upon the previous Amendment. He said that the Amendment, if it were accepted by the House, would really drive us to embark prematurely upon a revision of the Rent Acts. This argument has been used again as an argument why we should not agree to the Amendment. I gave the reasons why I did not understand that argument when it was presented in respect of the previous Amendment, and I will not go over them again.
  As I understand it, looking at the discussion and the short piece of printing in the margin, this is described as an "Amendment of 9 and 10 Geo. 6. c. 34." As I understand it, that is not one of the Rent Acts, but the Furnished Lettings Act of 1946. If that is right, why is it to be supposed that an Amendment to that Act, if it is passed, will cause us to embark upon revision of the Rent Acts, which have to do with different matters of tenure and letting? I do not, so far, understand it. It may be that I have understood the Parliamentary Secretary wrongly, but I still think that there is no basis for that argument at all.
  The second point I wish to make is that the Minister, I think, is being shortsighted as regards the interests of the
  1208
  tenants themselves in matters of this kind. We are concerned here with service flats. One does not need to know much more about house property than I do, to know that service flats are not, in the main, provided for what are called the working classes. I think that is the greatest possible pity. I heard an hon. Member on the Front Bench below the Gangway laugh at a reference to putting in a lift. Why should not lifts be as much an essential of working-class flats as of any other flats?
  Mr. Gibson: May I say that I was not laughing at the matter of lifts, but at the extravagant figures of cost?
  Mr. Hogg: I know nothing about lifts, because I do not put them in, but it struck me as an extraordinarily shortsighted thing to suggest that working-class flats should not have lifts. It seems to me that one of the reasons why the provision of amenities in working-class properties is rather less than it should be in matters of this kind is the obscurantist attitude of hon. Members opposite to the little luxuries which make life more pleasant. My belief is that the inevitable result of this economic policy with regard to property holding which is followed by the party opposite, and their obscurantist attitude, will be to prevent the improvement of the amenities in working-class dwellings—and that is an improvement we all want to see, irrespective of party. I believe it is precisely because they try to penalise people who put in amenities of this kind, and who pioneer changes in our social habits which are very desirable, that these improvements do not take place. I believe the inevitable result of their policy is to penalise these people and thereby prevent improvements.
  Mr. Bevan: I cannot understand the indignation which the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has worked up about this matter. It certainly does not lie in his mouth to talk about the desirability of putting lifts in working-class flats because we are doing it on a very great scale—far greater than was ever done before. In fact, we agree very much with the practice of having amenities like lifts in flats, and that is why, if the hon. Member looks round London and other parts of the country, he will find that lifts are being put in flats. Furthermore, if

  1209
  he casts his mind back to the legislation for which I was responsible in 1946, he will see that there is a special subsidy in order to enable local authorities to put lifts in flats. Consequently, the hon. Member's indignation was in direct ratio to his lack of knowledge of the subject.
  Colonel Dower: Then why does the right hon. Gentleman prevent private enterprise from doing these things and putting in lifts?
  Mr. Bevan: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will permit me, I will answer him. If lifts are put in flats the rents can be raised by 8 per cent. Hon. Members come here armed with this indignation, but if lifts are put in flats, an increase in rent is permitted. As it is in the House of Commons, no professional charge is made for that advice to the hon. and gallant Member.
  I think the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) is one of the most incompetent advocates in the House of Commons. He should know that persuasion is the first purpose of advocacy and he is the worst persuader we have, because he put his case in the most unpleasant manner possible. It is an unpleasant case, of course. It was made all the more unpleasant by the way in which he put it. When he suggests that we have no use for the middle classes, he must remember that what he wants is an opportunity to milk the middle-class occupants of the flats. His indignation is reserved for the owner of the flats, not for the tenant. Has it escaped him that these are middle-class people who are living in these flats? It is they whom we are trying to protect from him.
  Mr. Gammans: I said—and if the right hon. Gentleman checks it, I think he will find I am right—that my point was that the right hon. Gentleman, not only in this Bill but in all his legislation, has proved himself the bitter opponent and confirmed hater of the middle classes. To that I stick.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Bevan: In other words, most of the statement is irrelevant to the subject before the House. In other words, the hon. Member indulges in abuse because argument deserts him. Furthermore, he knows that the abuse is quite untrue because there are pieces of legislation
  1210
  even now before the House of Commons—there is one upstairs in Committee—where, for the first time in the history of this country, in legislation, grants are made to property-owners for the improvement of their property. Furthermore, he had better talk to the middle classes about the National Health Service Act, and see what they say of that.
  Now, what is proposed here? The proposal is that we shall lift out a special class of property-owner from the rent control Acts, with regard to a special class of property in the great cities, a class which was over-built in 1937 and 1938 so far as London is concerned—a city where the housing before the war was so badly planned that it was easy to get flats of this type. In 1937, 1938 and 1939 there was a very large number of vacancies in this kind of property and the rents had to be reduced in order that tenants might be obtained; but since that time the flats have been fully occupied.
  Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman then deny the figure of just over 5 per cent. which I gave?
  Mr. Bevan: Why does the hon. Gentleman hasten to have the cane? I am going to give him the cane in a moment; he need not rush to the desk for it. These flats have been in full occupancy all the time, earning rents all the while. Why should one protect this type of property, owned by trusts, and investment corporations and insurance companies?
  Mr. Gammans: What is wrong with insurance companies?
  Mr. Bevan: Why on earth do hon. Members opposite always ask us to consider the troubles and fight the battles of these great investment corporations, as distinct from the occupants of the flats themselves? The hon. Gentleman never opens his mouth unless it is to plead for property-owners of some sort. All this is a naked attempt to protect property.
  Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman then deny the recommendations of the Ridley Report, on which his own colleague, the Minister of Works, was a member?
  Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member should not anticipate my arguments all the time. Why is he so reckless about it? It is a fact that what is suggested in the Clause is that the difference in providing services

  1211
  should be taken entirely from the landlord and given to the tenant. Why should property escape the increased charges when property often makes increased income? It is a most peculiar line of reasoning, which I cannot understand. Why should the tenant bear the whole of the increased cost and none of that cost fall on the owner of the property? Why should property itself always escape the incidence of social convulsion? It is the most peculiar argument. So far as the property-owner is concerned, according to the hon. Member, the war has never happened; all the increased cost is to be put on the occupant of the flat; that is a curious argument which we cannot accept.
  I am trying to find out what is in the minds of hon. Members opposite. How is it that they are prepared to neglect the well-being of all the occupants of these flats in London, and plead the case of a far less numerous number of people? Where is the pressure lobby? There must be some reason for their peculiar argument; it is the strangest thing of which I have heard. If these attacks are made against us, we must think that members of the Tory Party are trying to earn the Woolton millions. Surely some excuse must be found for the fact that they are rushing with some intrepidity into a battle here, which may have grave political consequences for them, if the people find out what they are doing.
  Mr. Molson: We do not require a pressure lobby in order to try to make us see that justice is done.
  Mr. Bevan: What we cannot understand is this. How are hon. Members opposite moved to do justice to a few by doing a lot of injustice to the many? That is what we cannot understand.
  Commander Galbraith: It is not injustice. The right hon. Gentleman can never understand.
  Mr. Bevan: Because a few have got the cash.
  Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman is so unjust.
  Mr. Bevan: Hon. Members cannot "take it." I listened to a most bitter and vindictive speech by the hon. Member for Hornsey, full of innuendo and direct
  1212
  charges of an entirely unworthy kind. Is the hon. Member for Hornsey still chairman of the Adamant Investment Corporation? Is he? He did not disclose an interest. In other words, we had all that dithyramb from the hon. Member who is pleading his own case. He owns, I understand, a direct and controlling interest in Bircott Estates Company Ltd., Glenside Properties Ltd., and Greenlands Housing Company Ltd. I have never witnessed a more disgusting exhibition——
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order for Members standing behind your Chair to join in the Debate?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): No. I think there is ground to reprove the hon. Member.
  Mr. Bevan: I really do think that, before the hon. Gentleman tries to wield a sword this evening, as he did, he should realise how naked he is.
  Mr. Gammans: Why? Is there anything wrong in my making the suggestions and criticisms I have made, even if I am chairman of a company? Is there anything dishonourable in that?
  Mr. Bevan: Nothing at all, but it is usual in this House, especially in circumstances like these, that the interests shall be disclosed. I am not sure how far Privilege is involved but if it had been anybody on this side of the House—[Interruption.] This is another instance and definition of "Jobs for the Boys," is it not?
  Mr. George Porter: May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the hon. Member to whom he is referring said he had consulted three of the biggest property-owning people in London—that is, himself.
  Mr. Bevan: The answer, of course, when he says he does not accept my figures, is that I do not accept his figures because they are obviously self-interested figures. If he had disclosed at the beginning that he had this interest in these companies, the House, especially on this side, would have discounted a very large proportion of the advice he gave to hon. Members. That is the purpose of disclosing interest, that we should know how much weight to attach to the

  1213
  testimony of the person who makes a speech. It is not because it is dishonourable to do so, but because it is dishonourable to conceal from the House of Commons knowledge which it ought to have to weigh all the counsel which is being given to it.
  My attitude about this is perfectly clear. These people, as far as I know, do not suffer any hardship. About the Ridley Committee—what the Ridley Committee said was that when tribunals are set up all over the country to carry out their recommendations, priority should be given to this task, but tribunals are not set up all over the country and are not carrying out at this moment the recommendations of the Ridley Committee. Nor do we propose to carry them out until there is a more equitable balance between the landlord and the tenant. Everyone understands that. In the meantime, I am not taking away from the occupants of these flats the umbrella which the law intends to give them.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Of course, the Minister of Health was bound to explode some time. He has been putting an undue strain on himself all night. We do not complain; we like these demontrations. They are very interesting and very useful. If one were to look for an attitude of bias against the middle class, one would not look at the right hon. Gentleman's past speeches but at his present speeches. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, who does not have very much opportunity in these Debates, is trying to horn in on anything that comes along. We will deal with him later, or, if he would prefer, we will take him on now. He would be ill-advised, however, to put his hand between the hammer and the anvil. The Minister of Health complained of the bitter and vindictive speech against him by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans). That was mere love talk compared with the sort of speech the Minister delivers here and in the country. He paid no attention to the most friendly and conciliatory speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower).
  Mr. Bevan: I gave the hon. and gallant Member a piece of gratuitous
  1214
  advice and relieved him of anxiety. He can put in lifts and charge 8 per cent.
  Colonel Dower: May I remind my right hon. and gallant Friend that the point I was making was concerned with repairs to lifts and renewal, because they do not go on permanently. The cost of renewal and repair is two or three times the pre-war cost.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes. The Minister is not giving anything away. When he does give anything away for nothing, it is worth that much. I come to his main argument, which was interesting and very characteristic of the Government. He claimed merit for the Government on this basis: first, they pass a Bill saying one is not to have an economic return; second, they become alarmed and have an inquiry to find out what is happening; third, they make grants to people to carry out the things which otherwise would have been done in the normal course of events.
  We want to save the Minister from putting Clauses into his next subsidy Bill. It is true that he is putting through a Bill upstairs to make grants to certain kind of private owners—who, when it suits him, he bitterly denounces—for carrying out certain improvements. Sometimes he meets with considerable opposition from his hon. Friends, but as the grants are insufficient to be of real advantage, they need not worry. This is all to give an appearance of activity. So long as the Bills are being thrown in the air, it does not matter to the right hon. Gentleman whether they serve a useful purpose or not. So long as there is this juggling with Bills, first the forbidding, then the inquiry, then the insufficient grant, he is carrying out an appearance of activity, and everyone is happy. So long as he can deliver vitriolic attacks on anyone who incurs his displeasure, whether on this side of the House or on that, he is perfectly happy. He is entitled to amuse himself as he will.
  11.45 p.m.
  We say that here is a simple business proposal that certain conveniences shall be made available to certain tenants, and that, in return, they should pay what they are perfectly willing to pay but what they are prohibited by law from paying. This is a simple business transaction for the convenience of the tenant, but the Minister says "It is a terrible idea, and it

  1215
  might lead to a property-owner receiving some addition and I will, therefore, leave it until I can make some grant at a later date." We consider that this proposal is just, sensible and businesslike, and we shall certainly support it in the Division Lobby.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Before my right hon. and gallant Friend sits down, will he ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give a reply to my question about Scotland.
  Mr. Bevan: The answer is, "Yes."
  Mr. C. Williams: I am afraid I cannot go silently to a Division on this point. I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very great kindness he has done for me. I notice that he is leaving the House, because he knows perfectly well that he will be incapable of answering what I am goring to say. I was rather doubtful about this new Amendment. I have made strong promises in my Division that I would do all I could to get an improvement in the housing and the services in those houses in my constituency, but I know, from what I have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is quite impossible unless certain expenditure is incurred. This cannot be done unless there is saving. Unless this Amendment is passed, it will be impossible for the workers in my constituency, or in any constituency represented by hon. Gentlemen, to hope to get improved services in their houses. That is what I am aiming at. That is what I want. Clearly it is what the House of Lords wants, too.
  It is not a matter of balancing between one side or the other. It is a matter of looking after the tenants as well as looking after the owners. I thank the Minister of Health who, through his supreme advocacy—and be was lecturing someone a short time ago about being a good or bad advocate—has convinced me that what has been done by another place is
  perfectly right. It was so clear that he has disagreed with so many of his colleagues. The way in which he pressed the House and showed a lack of persuasive capacity demonstrated clearly that he knew from the very beginning he was arguing a hopelessly rotten case. He could not urge the House to accept this Amendment in the interests of the workers of the country, and I shall certainly go into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment.
  Mr. Janner rose—
  Mr. Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway wish to intervene? I should like to warn him that evil things happen to hon. Gentlemen who intervene needlessly. I do not want to get him into trouble because he has not had fair warning of the danger.
  Mr. Janner: Could the hon. Gentleman please explain, if he understands the Amendment, how his argument can apply to increased facilities or improved services when the date is March, 1949?
  Mr. Williams: That is on the same level as the usual interruptions we get from the hon. Gentleman. We have had a considerable discussion on almost all these Amendments, and we did deal with the position of improved services. The Minister also pointed out the position about improved services. I realise now that I have continued my speech when I had no intention of prolonging it, merely because of the hon. Gentleman's provocation. I hope that other hon. Members on the opposite side, who did not support the Minister fully just now, will realise that if they want votes from working-class people who want improved accommodation, they had much better vote for the Amendment.
  Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 75.

  Division No. 148.]

  AYES

  [11.52 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.

  Albu, A. H.

  Berry, H.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Beswick, F.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

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

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Binns, J.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Baird, J.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

  Barton, C.

  Boardman, H.

  Byers, Frank

  Carmichael, James

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Champion, A. J.

  Janner, B.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Cobb, F. A.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Collindridge, F.

  Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Collins, V. J.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

  Royle, C.

  Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Scollan, T.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Keenan, W.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Kinley, J.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Daggar, G.

  Lang, G.

  Sharp, Granville

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Deer, G.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Diamond, J.

  Logan, D. G.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Donovan, T.

  Lyne, A. W.

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

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  McAllister, G.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Mack, J. D.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

  Symonds, A. L.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Ewart, R.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Fairhurst, F.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Timmons, J.

  Forman, J. C.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Titterington, M. F.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Freeman, J. (Watford)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Walkden, E.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Monslow, W.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Gilzean, A.

  Morley, R.

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

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Morl, D. L.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Murray, J. D.

  Watson, W. M.

  Grey, C. F.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

  Weitzman, D.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Guy, W. H.

  O'Brien, T.

  West, D. G.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon John (Edin'gh, E.)

  Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wigg, George

  Hardy, E. A.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

  Pearson, A.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Holman, P.

  Price, M. Philips

  Willis, E.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Woods, G. S.

  Horabin, T. L.

  Pursey, Comdr. H.

  Yates, V. F.

  Hoy, J.

  Ranger, J.

  Younger, Hon Kenneth

  Hubbard, T.

  Rankin, J.

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

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hushes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

  Robens, A.

  Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Snow.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

  Nicholson, G.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Bower, N.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Hops, Lord J.

  Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Channon, H.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Clarke, Cot. R. S.

  Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Spence, H. R.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

  Crowder, Capt, John E

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Studholme, H. G.

  De la Bère, R.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Touche, G. C.

  Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)

  Low, A. R. W.

  Turton, R. H.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Drewe, C.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

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

  Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

  McFarlane, C. S.

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Gage, C.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gammans, L. D.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Major Conant and

  Gemme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Mr. Wingfield Digby.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Clause 18.—(APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 9. after "sheriff" insert:
  "for any reference to the grant, continuance or renewal of a term there shall be substituted a reference to the grant, continuance or renewal of a tenancy, and for any reference to a term in relation to a tenancy there shall be substituted a reference to the period for which a tenancy is granted, continued or renewed;"
  12 m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. J. Robertson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is necessary because it will enable Part III of the First Schedule to operate in Scotland.
  Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 12, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
  Mr. J. J. Robertson: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is a consequential Amendment.
  Mr. C. Williams: The Under-Secretary of State says that this is consequential, but it is rather a big thing. I became rather alarmed when I read this Amendment, because it includes all sorts of things like rental equivalent, premiums, and so on. We have heard nothing to show what is consequential, and how it is applied to Scotland. I do not say that the hon. Gentleman says it is consequential unless he knows it is, but could not his more able colleague on his right say precisely how it applies to Scotland.
  Mr. Robertson: This Amendment is consequential on the disappearance of Clauses 2 and 4.
  Lieut.-Colonell Elliot: This is a most inadequate explanation. I have been trying to follow it closely, but I am not quite sure where the hon. Member is. We should be very willing to grant the leave of the House to him again if he can give us a little more detail about this.
  Mr. Robertson: It is consequential in order that the revelant Scottish translation may be transferred to First Schedule.
  Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 6, at end insert:
  "() The First Schedule to this Act shall have effect as if in paragraph 8 thereof for
  1220
  the definition of the expression "reversion" there were substituted the following definition:—
  "reversion," in relation to the grant, continuance or renewal of a tenancy of a dwelling-house, means the estate or interest in the dwelling-house which immediately after the grant, continuance or renewal of the tenancy belonged to the immediate landlord of the tenant under the tenancy."
  Mr. J. J. Robertson: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is also consequential on the transfer of Clauses 2 and 4 to the First Schedule.
  Mr. C. Williams: May I be allowed to say, that I have a suspicion that the hon. Gentleman might be right this time. I should like to congratulate him, because I had not noticed him being right before.

  Second Schedule.—(MINOR AMENDMENTS.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 8, leave out "and."
  Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment and the next are consequential.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am certainly tempted to ask for some further explanation from the Minister, as he is in a very good vein tonight. He assures us that these Amendments are purely consequential and will not offer a peg on which to hang one of his most brilliant orations; otherwise, we should let him have another of these delightful outbursts.
  Mr. Bevan: The territory is so narrow, I fear I could not stand upon it for very long.
  Lords Amendment: In line 18, at end insert:
  "(3B) An approval, reduction or increase under this section may be limited to rent payable in respect of a particular period"; and for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
  '(4) The Tribunal shall keep a register and shall cause to be entered therein with regard to any contract under which a rent

  1221
  is payable that has been approved, reduced or increased under this section,—

  (a) the prescribed particulars with regard to the contract, including a specification of the premises to which the contract relates, and the rent, as approved, reduced or increased under this section, and

  (b) in a case in which the approval, reduction or increase is limited to rent payable in respect of a particular period, a specification of that period.

  The Tribunal shall make the register available for inspection in such place or places and in such manner as the Secretary of State may direct.'"
  Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This also is consequential.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There is a word used here which is very serious. The Amendment speaks of rent being "reduced or increased under this section." The very suggestion that an increase of rent should take place at any point is so revolutionary that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to give us a few words in explanation.
  Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 18, at the end insert:
  "Section three In subsection (1), after the words such entry there shall be inserted the words (or in a case in which a particular period is specified, in respect of that period)."
  Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This is consequential.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Before the voices are collected on this Amendment, perhaps we can be told what this is about.
  Mr. C. Williams: As the Government do not seem to know what it is about, perhaps it would be as well if I gave them some time to consider it while I say what I think it is about. It is quite likely that I shall be wrong, and the Government will then be able to correct me. I think the line at the end of the Section is not absolutely a drafting Amendment, and it is hardly consequential. It states:
  "Section three. In subsection (1), after the words 'such entry' there shall be inserted the words '(or in a case in which a particular period is specified, in respect of that period)'."
  1222
  I want to know something about the time of making that period. This is an Amendment which I think is necessary. I took a little trouble this morning to read it, and I am hoping that it is all right. Before we leave this Bill, I would like to say that this is another case in which another place has improved a not-very-improvable Bill. But may we be given an explanation of this matter, which I think is not quite as simple as it appeared at first sight?
  Mr. Speaker: The Question is "That this House"——
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister, I think, was about to reply, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I am sure that he was. I think that the Minister was about to reply on the previous Amendment, but he was rather slow in rising, and so the Amendment got through. I am sure that this time he is anxious to speak.
  Mr. J. J. Robertson: I have to say that this is consequential upon the Amendment which we have just passed.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot rose—
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak. He can speak again only by leave of the House.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Leave to speak again was not withheld from the Minister.
  Mr. Speaker: If the House does not agree, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, cannot do it.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill; Mr. Bevan, Mr. Bing, Lieut.-Colonel Elliot, Mr. Hare and Mr. Hastings; Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Bevan.]—To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:—To be communicated to the Lords.

  SCOTTISH COALFIELDS (CONDITIONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
  12.10 a.m.
  Mr. Pryde: The matter which I wish to raise is the question of conditions in the Scottish coalfield. Like every other intelligent person I recognise that it is very easy to criticise from the negative point of view. I shall endeavour, therefore, to direct my remarks more to constructive than to negative criticism. The case, however, demands both candour and courage. To me it looks very much as if the National Coal Board in Scotland has no coherent plan. It appears that it has very little grasp of the men's psychology, while its appreciation of the miner's mentality is a reflection of the rule of 50 years ago.
  Some people tell me that in Lanarkshire there is a surplus population of 30,000. Only a week ago a very important member of the Scottish Coal Board, writing in "The Scotsman," which is a most authoritative journal, stated that 500,000 people in Scotland would require to change places. It looks to me as if the policy of the Board was rather feckless. To me it is not enough simply to close 40 collieries in Lanarkshire and airily state that there is plenty of work in Ayrshire, Fife and the Lothians. Let us take one illustration. John Smith is, say, on the sunny side of 50. He has a large family and, because in recent years there has been a serious decline in the numbers of the mining population in Lanarkshire, John Smith finds that he is the only member of the family who earns his bread by mining. Other members of the family are employed, say, in steel, in the making of clocks, in the making of carpet sweepers and in the light industries which have been brought into Lanarkshire in very recent years. At the moment I see no visible sign of development in Midlothian either in new pits or new mines. The last time any large pit was coaled in Midlothian was about the year 1907.
  It follows, therefore, that if there is any considerable transfer of personnel from the Lanarkshire coalfield or any other coalfield into Midlothian, we shall
  1224
  find that these men will be absorbed into old collieries. It simply means that the manpower will be used in the old and rather worn-out method of coal production. I do not think that that is an economic method of using manpower. I say with a certain amount of regret that the only scientific improvement I can see in coal mining in Midlothian at the moment is not from the point of view of deep mining, but rather from the point of view of opencast mining. I firmly believe that while this method is being followed, when the seams reach the depth at which they are no longer suitable for opencast extraction, it would be well for the Minister to consider commencing deep-mining operations before complete reinstatement of the soil takes place. Thus we should find that there were no initial charges in regard to the sinking of vertical shafts. We want more coal cheaply, and the moral to me is that we should put the skilled imported labour on to work on the alluvial seams so that we shall not be up against the high overhead charges consequent on employing the men in these old worn-out mines.
  To encourage the Smith family to move from one county to another we require ancillary industries. In Midlothian we are in a splendid position to offer the most strategic sites of any city, possibly, in Britain. Many years ago Sir Frank Mears, a great planning expert, scheduled along the Edinburgh-Peebles railway in the Bonnyrigg district a very large area for industrial purposes. This site has great advantages; it has two railway systems. It has at the moment three railway sidings. It is traversed by first-class roads; it has a first-class water supply; it has an electrical station which distributes 33,000 volts of electricity. I suggest that here, if the National Coal Board will take the necessary action and free this ground, it will find that its doubts and fears are groundless. I am informed by the local authority that the National Coal Board object to this site from the point of view of industrial development because of the presence of alluvial coal. I can testify to the fact that I was present at the extraction of the last of the alluvial coal about 1908, and assessed it. Sir Richard Redmayne, ex-Inspector of Mines for Great Britain, stated at the inquiry into the Blackhall Colliery, Glasgow, in 1927, that where

  1225
  waste stood for 25 years, it formed a barrier as efficient as virgin coal. Our local authorities are building houses close alongside this site and there is no reason why the National Coal Board should act as a dog in the manger. It is said there is no fear of subsidence, and this building proves it.
  I am informed that 600 girls leave one particular part of the county every morning to work in the city of Edinburgh, coming from a district where three parishes are scheduled under the Distribution of Industry Act. One wonders why no industry has been introduced into this particular area. This is the Calder area of Midlothian, and in the adjoining West Lothian constituency there is industrial development; gigantic development is contemplated in Grangemonth, and ancillary industries have been poured into Lanarkshire, making it all the more difficult for people to leave Lanarkshire and come to new surroundings. On inquiries as to why no industry has been introduced into the three scheduled parishes in the Calder area, the Board of Trade say that if any ancillary industry were introduced into these scheduled areas, it would upset the labour economy in the City of Edinburgh. This, I suggest, is a deliberate insult to the intelligence and ability of the girls from the county and is insufferable.
  But let me show where the National Coal Board is likely to unbalance the labour in a particular locality. It is intended to build 600 houses near the town of Pennicuik. The staple industry here is paper making, and if female labour from 600 households is laid at the disposal of the reactionary paper mill owners of the Esk Valley, then we shall find a depreciation of the wages of the employees of the paper-makers in the Esk Valley. I was glad to see that the Board did admit its full responsibility for the recent misunderstanding at Shotts; but the question remains: Was the mine promised before proof of the mineral was ascertained—before it was decided there was any body of mineral in that area? I should compliment the Board, however, on having the courage to go forward and admit its responsibility in this respect.
  Let me turn to the housing policy, or lack of policy, of the National Coal
  1226
  Board. No one can blame the Board for the deplorable property that they were compelled to take over on the vesting date. That was its inheritance from private ownership. Places like Butlerfield, Sherwood, Poltonhall, Dalhousie, Loanhead Westend and Shottstown are places which I think would earn the condemnation of the most broad-minded. The conditions of some of our people, especially in the Dalhousie, Poltonhall, and Sherwood areas, were very much worsened when the local authority took over the responsibility for what passes for cleansing.
  In Butlerfield, the conditions are unbelievable. Butlerfield is a pretty little hamlet adjoining Dalhousie Castle, the seat of the Ramsey family and of the Earl of Dalhousie. One of the Earls was Viceroy of India. He is alleged to have returned with his horses' hooves shod with gold. This is the place where the Conservative Party holds its gymkhanas, but hon. Members opposite fail to look over the wall and look at Butlerfield, which is part of the estate. I suppose it would remind some of them of their sundowner days, because Butterfield has no sanitary arrangements at all.
  Inquiries have shown that there are strangers coming into the mining area who are provided with modern up-to-date houses. I suggest to the Minister this does not tend to create a feeling of equanimity. Let me give two typical cases. Tom Philip is a skilled miner from a skilled mining family. He is married and for 18 months was overcrowded in his father's council house. He had to remove to the west end of Edinburgh and now, because he stays in the City of Edinburgh, although he has to travel one hour to his work in the morning and one hour back, he loses a shift if he loses a bus. He cannot be provided with a house in the county's mining area. Douglas Forrest is a skilled machine man working in one of the best collieries in the Lothian. His wife works in Newbattle Hostel and Douglas is in lodgings. He sees people coming into the county and procuring new houses while he himself is debarred from having anything like an ordinary chance of getting a house.
  And all this happens, let me say, in a county where the skilled face-workers are working for 1s. 8d. per shift less than

  1227
  the men of the adjoining counties. I suggest to the Minister that a little attention should be paid to this situation in future. I hope and trust that he and his right hon. Friend will see that these grievances are remedied.
  12.24 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): We have all listened with great attention to the case put forward by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles, Southern (Mr. Pryde). I am really surprised that no Scottish Members of the Opposition have felt it worthwhile to be in their places to listen to something that is really remarkable in the history of Scotland, for we are discussing the declining coalfields and the social facts of the transfer of men to the other coalfields in Fife.
  The general basis of the National Coal Board's plan for Scotland is to expand production in the newer and more promising fields in Fife, Ayrshire, and the Lothians to take the place of output from pits in Lanarkshire, where the coal reserves have become exhausted or hopelessly uneconomic to work. My right hon. Friend has approved the general lines of this plan. The details of it, that is, where production of existing pits can be expanded, the sinking of new pits, when and where production from old pits should be discontinued—can only be worked out by the experts and these decisions must be the responsibility of the Board. They will, of course, consult with the National Union of Mineworkers.
  The general aim of the Scottish plan is eventually to increase total coal production to 30 million or 31 million tons a year, an increase of some 25 per cent. over the 1948 level of production of 23.8 million tons. The coal industry in Scotland is especially fortunate in having the opportunity to develop production in the new coalfields and there can be no question that this development will be for the economic good of the mining industry in Scotland and of Scottish industrial life as a whole. It could not be contemplated that the industry should be burdened indefinitely with the highly uneconomic production of the declining pits in Lanarkshire. Their effect on the efficiency of the industry is shown by the fact that if only 19 of the poorest pits
  1228
  which were in operation in 1947 had been eliminated, the surplus of the Scottish division for that year would have been increased by 35 per cent.
  Now I come to details of the plan. Immediately, it is proposed to close down 29 pits in all, of which 17 are in Lanarkshire, by the end of 1950, including 10 scheduled for closure in the first stage. At six of these latter workable reserves are in any case completely exhausted. Of the total manpower employed—about 5,000 men—probably 600 to 700 can be transferred to other local pits and the Board hope that the remainder will be available for transfer to the areas where production is being developed and where additional manpower, and particularly skilled men, is urgently required. It is a vital part of the plan to transfer as many as possible of these men from the Lanarkshire collieries, where they can produce only 12 to 15 cwts. per shift, to areas where production can be at the rate of 30 cwts. per shift or more.
  To achieve this aim the Board have taken all possible steps to facilitate transfers. Special action has been taken with local authorities and the Scottish Housing Association to provide houses for miners in Fife and the Lothians. Plans have been prepared and agreed for the provision of houses in the developing area to about 10,400 by the middle of 1951, and of these 50 per cent. will be available for transferred miners and the remainder for miners employed locally. It is also the Board's firm intention to time the closures so as to fit in with the new opportunities for employment in the developing areas. At present there are vacancies in Fife and the rate of development can be stepped up as soon as more skilled mineworkers become available.
  I agree that changes on this scale are bound to involve great social and economic problems, both within and beyond the scope of the Board's own responsibility, but the Board have a particular obligation, in preparing and carrying out such plans, to consult with the workers in the industry. In fact they have done a good deal more than this. Besides full discussion with the National Union of Mineworkers they have held meetings with representatives of local authorities and Members of Parliament for the areas affected. Early in 1948 the Scottish Divisional Coal Board gave the National Union of Mineworkers a broad

  1229
  outline of their plan and after discussion with them agreed to present the plan to the Divisional Consultative Council representing all sections of the industry in Scotland. The National Union of Mineworkers undertook to explain the plan to a delegate conference at which all branches of the Union in Scotland were represented.
  Mr. Timmons: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Union of Mineworkers took a decision yesterday that they will have no further co-operation with the Coal Board on the policy of closing down pits?
  Mr. Robens: I understand that is so and I am sorry, but the purpose of this Debate was to deal with this particular matter of which I am now giving the present picture.
  The final stages in consultation were explanations of the plan to Members of Parliament and local authorities and a detailed examination by each colliery. The National Union of Mineworkers gave their general acceptance to the plan, but reserved their final acceptance in the case of individual pits. This is conditional, of course, on the further examination by the Board of any new facts brought to light, or alternative schemes which may be put forward in the last stage of consulting with the Colliery Committee.
  In connection with the closing of the two collieries Hillhouserigg and Fortissay, there can be no question that there was keen disappointment felt by the mineworkers at the decision of the Scottish Divisional Board to abandon development of a proposed new surface mine at Harthillwood, near Hillhouserigg in this area. At the time that the Scottish Coal Board discussed with the Scottish National Union of Mineworkers the whole proposals, it was indicated by the Board that a new surface mine was to be opened. It was unfortunate that at that stage it was not made clear that the development of a surface mine was dependent on the results of the trial borings. Consequently this decision was conveyed, quite properly by the President of the Scottish National Union of Mineworkers, Mr. Abe Moffatt, to his delegate conference in December last, and to a special meeting of Shotts miners in February of this year. Subsequently, however, the trial borings revealed that the quality of
  1230
  the coal was very poor, and clearly the Board could not contemplate developing a new pit which they knew beforehand to be completely uneconomical. And so the project was abandoned and the decision conveyed to the Union on 25th March.
  I might say that Lord Balfour, the chairman of the Board, has expressed his own personal regrets that the Coal Board's plan to open a new surface mine was made known without the qualification that the Board naturally always have in mind when developing new pits or when proposing to develop new pits that it is consequent on the results of trial borings. This happening was, to say the least, very unfortunate because there is nothing worse than to raise men's hopes and then have them disappointed. But there it is. No good can now be obtained by recriminations. Had the coal qualities been worth while then the new surface mine would have been developed. As it is the coal qualities were not and so the project has to be abandoned. There is nothing more I can say on that except that we, too, felt very sorry that this misunderstanding arose. But there it is and one can only express one's great regret.
  This, of course, does not alter the fact that it is inevitable that worked-out collieries should close and this is not a new feature of the industry since nationalisation. Where the Coal Board scheme is immensely better than anything the industry has known before is that it co-ordinates a decline in production in one part of Scotland, which cannot be avoided, with developments elsewhere. In order to reduce any hardship the Coal Board have prepared a scheme of compensation for miners becoming redundant through reorganisation schemes, under which benefits are payable for 26 weeks. The Board of Trade and the Ministry of Labour are kept closely in touch with the position and are taking steps to provide other employment. For example, in addition to the existing industrial estates at Larkhall, Chapelhall and Carfin, large new estates are being constructed at Newhouse, and Blantyre, where employment has already reached 2,000 and should continue to rise progressively as the new factories come into production. At East Kilbride an industrial estate of about 51 acres is being planned as an integral part of the new town.

  1231
  At all events, I should make it perfectly clear that there is coal mining employment for all miners who are ready to move away from Lanarkshire. In fact, housing conditions in the development areas are very much better. The advantage of the plan in providing an overall increase in coal production, and for far more economical use of manpower, will relieve the industry of an intolerable economic burden, and not only the prosperity of mining but the whole economic welfare of Scotland depends on its success.
  This new development of the Scottish coalfield is a scheme that should commend itself to every Scot who has the interests of his country at heart. The development of the Scottish coal industry to more than 30 million tons a year in newer pits with much higher productivity, with superior housing conditions and the development of other industries to provide a better balanced economy will bring a new era of prosperity and pride of achievement to Scotland.
  Colonel Clarke: The Parliamentary Secretary in opening his remarks, commented on the absence of Scottish Members on this side of the House. I did ask one of them if he would stay, but he said he thought criticism of the National Coal Board could, at present, quite safely be left to the other side, and I think we have seen that.
  If the National Coal Board are taking all these steps to transfer men, why are they not getting on with the development of new pits? There is this famous Rothes
  1232
  pit. I understand that it has been very much delayed by the non-delivery of machinery, and that by the end of 1948 No. 1 shaft was only down 240 feet, and No. 2 shaft down only 81 feet. Anyone who knows the depth at which pits must be in the new area will realise that that is a very short way. I do hope that with all this transference of men some acceleration will take place in the further development of these pits.
  I understand that there is a further difficulty, namely, whether there are the necessary transport facilities to move this new Fife coal across to the Lanarkshire steel works, for they are not closing down. It would be interesting to know what steps are being taken to provide that transport. I understand that in the next two years something like 40 collieries will be closed. In the case of 34 of them the coal which can be easily worked is exhausted, and in the remaining six the level of operating costs is too high. That is a higher proportion than the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, but I presume he was talking of a shorter period than two years. I understand that over the next 10 years it will be necessary to move 100,000 people from the central area of Scotland into the new areas where the mines are opening in Fife, Midlothian and parts of Ayrshire. It appears that this is a very big matter, and I am sorry there is no more time to debate it. I apologise for speaking on Scottish affairs, but I feel it is a subject to which attention should be called.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes to One Clock.

SCOTLAND
  Housing (Crofting Areas)
  Housing (Crofting Areas)
  Bridge, Bernera (Plans)
  Bridge, Bernera (Plans)
  Scalpay Island (Conditions)
  Scalpay Island (Conditions)
  North Uist, Grimsay and Benbecula
  North Uist, Grimsay and Benbecula
  Electoral Registers
  Electoral Registers
  Health Service (Outer Hebrides)
  Health Service (Outer Hebrides)
  Pier, Isle of Lewis
  Pier, Isle of Lewis
  Teachers (Honours Degrees)
  Teachers (Honours Degrees)
  Cows and Heifers
  Cows and Heifers
BRITISH ARMY
  Troops, Malaya (Training)
  Troops, Malaya (Training)
  Advertisement
  Advertisement
  Barbed Wire, Kent
  Barbed Wire, Kent
  Captured German Rifles
  Captured German Rifles
TERRITORIAL ARMY
  Annual Camps (Leave and Pay)
  Annual Camps (Leave and Pay)
  Efficiency Decoration
  Efficiency Decoration
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Wales (Outline Plan)
  Wales (Outline Plan)
  Development Land (Applications)
  Development Land (Applications)
  Development Corporations
  Development Corporations
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Special Contribution
  Special Contribution
  Savings Certificates
  Savings Certificates
  Pound (Value)
  Pound (Value)
  Betting Duty (Football Pools)
  Betting Duty (Football Pools)
  Art Collection (Reproduction)
  Art Collection (Reproduction)
  Budget (Pamphlet)
  Budget (Pamphlet)
  Feedingstuffs (Government Purchases)
  Feedingstuffs (Government Purchases)
  Customs and Excise (Delay)
  Customs and Excise (Delay)
  Electricity Stock
  Electricity Stock
  Anglo-South African Gold Agreement
  Anglo-South African Gold Agreement
  Sterling Balances
  Sterling Balances
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Basic Commodities (Prices)
  Basic Commodities (Prices)
  Metal Furniture (Export)
  Metal Furniture (Export)
  Ladies' Beachwear (Imports)
  Ladies' Beachwear (Imports)
  Utility Products
  Utility Products
  Footwear (Profits)
  Footwear (Profits)
  Factories, Scotland
  Factories, Scotland
  Kitchen Utensils
  Kitchen Utensils
  Anglo-Czechoslovak Agreement
  Anglo-Czechoslovak Agreement
  New Industries, Sunderland
  New Industries, Sunderland
  War Damage (Business Claims)
  War Damage (Business Claims)
  Overseas Goods (Bulk Purchasing)
  Overseas Goods (Bulk Purchasing)
  Hotel Equipment
  Hotel Equipment
EMPLOYMENT
  Margate and Broadstairs
  Margate and Broadstairs
  Building Labour, Scotland
  Building Labour, Scotland
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Training Centres, Scotland
  Training Centres, Scotland
  Wells House Hotel, Ilkley
  Wells House Hotel, Ilkley
  Wage Rates (Increase)
  Wage Rates (Increase)
  Coal Industry (Foreign Workers)
  Coal Industry (Foreign Workers)
  SMALL ESTATES (SUCCESSION)
  SMALL ESTATES (SUCCESSION)
  AGED PERSONS' HOMES (INSPECTION)
  AGED PERSONS' HOMES (INSPECTION)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Official Car Service
  Official Car Service
  Motorcars (Exports to U.S.A.)
  Motorcars (Exports to U.S.A.)
  MALAYA (WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION)
  MALAYA (WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (CONTRIBUTIONS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (CONTRIBUTIONS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Broccoli Prices
  Broccoli Prices
  Empire Sugar Production
  Empire Sugar Production
  Gift Parcels
  Gift Parcels
EDUCATION
  Maintenance Allowances
  Maintenance Allowances
  Grammar School, Eye (Future)
  Grammar School, Eye (Future)
  Maesteg Valley
  Maesteg Valley
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  OLDBURY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  COMMUNIST DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTARThad given notice of his intention to ask His Majesty's Government the following Question:
  [Whether the activities of the assistant Polish military attaché in the spy net covering this country have been considered in connection with the recent exposure in this House of the universal manner in which Communist diplomatic missions are occupied in espionage; and to enquire whether the organisation of these cover-organisations will in future be more closely investigated.]
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to stand between the noble Lord and the House, but I believe it is understood in our Parliamentary practice that sweeping assertions against diplomatic Missions accredited to His Majesty are discountenanced. I hope therefore that this Question will be ruled out of order.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, despite the intervention of the noble Lord, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, the case in connection with which the name of the assistant Polish military attaché has been mentioned is still sub judice. I therefore regret that His Majesty's Government
  980
  have nothing to say about it at present. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards Communist diplomatic Missions was made clear in the debate which took place in your Lordships' House on December 1, 1948, and I have nothing to add.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether he cannot add something about this general assertion against diplomatic Missions representing in this country Governments with whom His Majesty is in friendly relation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, I am in no position of authority in this House; I am in merely the position of any other member. It would be for the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition to agree amongst themselves upon the principle involved.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (RURAL DISTRICT OF WYCOMBE ORDER)
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
  Moved, That the Order made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Act to the said area, be approved.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  2.39 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. There is general agreement that this Bill is not only of the greatest importance but is, to say the least very highly controversial. I cannot claim, as many noble Lords can, that I have had any practical experience or intimate knowledge of this industry, although for many years I have been closely associated with a sister industry—coal. My association with steel is that my home is within a short distance of the district where iron was smelted for

  981
  at least a hundred years before the arrival in Merthyr Tydfil in 1760 of John Guest, an ancestor of the noble Marquess, Lord Wimborne. It is interesting to note that in those days iron was smelted by wood fuel, and John Guest, with those who followed him, quickly exhausted the available supply of wood and discovered the heat-giving qualities of coal. They therefore married iron and coal, and laid the basis of an industry which thrived in South Wales for something like one hundred and fifty to one hundred and sixty years.
  So, my Lords, this Bill deals with one of our oldest-established and vital industries, for without steel the economic life of Britain would collapse. No trade of any importance could be carried on without it. Almost all our capital equipment depends on steel. The steel-using industries account for nearly half the value of our exports, and the proportion has increased considerably since the war. Not only our prosperity but our security and influence in world affairs will depend largely on whether we can produce over long periods cheap steel in ample quantities, not only for our own use but for export. The purpose of this Bill is a real endeavour to bring about this end, and it may be described as a continuation of the development of our basic industries which is a natural sequence to the process of the industrial evolution which has been in progress here for some fifty years or more.
  In my own industrial life I have seen private and limited liability companies, which were the development from strictly individual and afterwards family ownership, developed into large combines or amalgamations by federation of employers. This evolution was inevitable, and it can be claimed that it has served well the nation, the industrialists and the workpeople; and it has led to substantial economic and financial improvements in all the major industries of this country and in the nation itself.
  It would be unrealistic to pretend that this development should stop here, and that there is no room for further improvement. The Government, in their realistic outlook, have taken courage to proceed to what is the next natural stage in this evolutionary process by bringing under public ownership and control the coal, electricity, gas and transport industries,
  982
  which, it is admitted, are as important to the nation as is steel. This Bill deals with iron and steel. It is interesting to note that at the time of the Industrial Revolution this nation was, and continued to be, the leading iron and steel maker in the world, and for almost a generation after the inventions of Bessemer, Siemens and Thomas, was the leading producer in steel. That lead was held until 1890, when America led, with Germany coming into second place a few years later. From then on the relative importance in the world of the British iron and steel industry declined, while other countries went ahead, not only in size but in economy of production, with larger output, smaller fuel consumption and lower overhead costs.
  In the light of the historic development of the industry in this country, it is now generally accepted that a degree of cartelisation or monopoly of control is required in the iron and steel industry if it is successfully to meet its obligations. Indeed, this was not denied by all Members who participated in the debate on this Bill in another place. Since the depression in the post-war period after the First World War, a large degree of monopoly has, in fact, been set up. In 1932, when this country adopted a protected economy, the steel industry became one of the first candidates for special support, which it was given on the understanding that the industry would be re-organised and fully equipped. The leaders of this industry recognised that its salvation must come through strong collective action, and to this end the new Iron and Steel Federation collaborated with the Government, through the medium of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. In this collaboration, the Federation undertook the fixing of prices, the regulation of the home markets, the purchase of raw materials, the subsidisation of high-cost production and the allocation of exports in accordance with an international quota.
  The Steel Federation, with its influence, became a producers' combine, primarily concerned with the producers' interest. When a private monopoly control reaches a magnitude such as that of the iron and steel industry, and thereby obtains its power to influence the interests of a large portion of our main industries and the strategic requirements of the State, it is not right that such a situation should be

  983
  perpetuated. In the interests of the nation and of the consumer, Parliament must be able to control an industry so vital as this. It is not a question between uncontrolled private enterprise and national ownership but between the private and public ownership and control of a vital industry. May I, at this point, pay my tribute to the work of Sir Andrew Duncan, who has been seriously ill but who, I am pleased to learn, is now on the road to recovery? Fifteen years ago, he became the first independent Chairman of this very powerful Iron and Steel Federation—a position which he has held continuously since then, apart from periods during the war when he became a member of the Government. The debt which the British steel industry owes to Sir Andrew is recognised on both sides and by many people in the country.
  Now that we are planning our economic activities, we must be able, so far as certain basic matters are concerned, to plan ahead for production. The whole of our capital investment programme, and our programme of investment overseas—including the Colonies which take a large part of our export business—depends upon supplies of suitable qualities and quantities of steel, and we must be able to plan ahead this most important of our economic activities. If we cannot do so, we shall be driven, in a changing world situation, to rely upon the reactions of an industry largely controlled by private enterprise which may again demand restriction on markets, high prices, international cartel agreements, high tariffs and import restrictions as a condition of making the necessary supplies available to those countries which require them.
  At this point I must refer to the important position of steel in relation to the strategic situation. We cannot again leave it, as we did before the last war, to the chances of the interests of any other than the State to determine whether or not we shall have adequate capacity, suitably located, to meet our defence needs. In the early days of our sea power, the Navy itself had to be transferred from some system of private ownership to the State, and in the interest of national safety for the State it was found essential not only to control and finance the Royal Navy itself but to own and work naval dock
  984
  yards. That policy has developed, and a large proportion of the equipment and munitions, not only for the Royal Navy but for the other Services, are manufactured and financed by the State. So to-day it is essential for our defence needs that the State should own a large part of the steel-making resources of this country, so that we can be assured that the defence position is always safeguarded.
  There are only three ways in which this industry can operate. It is conceded on all sides that a return to unregulated, uncontrolled private ownership is completely out of the question. The memories of the inter-war years are still fresh in our minds. There must be no return to those conditions, when output was only one-third of what it is at the present time, when unemployment in this industry was 42 per cent. as compared with 21 per cent. for industry as a whole, and when employers were almost bankrupt. The second suggested plan is that the industry should remain under private ownership, tightly organised within the Steel Federation, leaving it to wield an immense influence on British industry as a whole—and, indeed, on the State itself—and to remain a vast monopoly or cartel possessing great powers over the economic life of the nation, but without any responsibility. It is true that the responsible leaders of the industry suggested that the Government should continue to exercise through some such machinery as the Iron and Steel Board such influence over the Federation as might be necessary. My right honourable friend the Minister of Supply pointed out during the Second Reading of this Bill in another place that the Government made it clear, when the Iron and Steel Board was set up, that it was not intended as anything more than a stopgap, and was wholly unsuitable as a permanent method of control.
  I was interested to read an article in The Times in October last, dealing with the Steel Federation and steel production generally. The article asked, How did monopoly-cum-supervision (the Steel Federation plus the Import Duties Advisory Committee) work? It said that, in so far as the comparatively brief experience during the war allowed judgment, the new system worked only imperfectly. The capital investment of

  985
  the period had continued, apart from the Corby venture, to do singularly little to promote the use of cheap home ores, more integrated production, better-balanced facilities for the use of imported ores to the best advantage. My Lords, I will follow that with another quotation from a different source, a source which I think in the main would be unfavourable to this Bill. The State Department in Washington, in a report published last year, said that although steel is one of the foundations of British economy, the basic plants had for a number of years received inadequate maintenance and little modernisation. At the end of the war, the industry as a whole was inefficient by contemporary standards, although a small amount of new capacity was highly efficient.
  I am not going to base the case which I shall submit to your Lordships on the question of the efficiency or otherwise of this industry. I make no charge that the industry is inefficient, for I have knowledge that in the main the present management of the British iron and steel industry is good; but it will be admitted that a substantial proportion of its plant is out of date and inefficient. The proportion estimated by the industry itself, when it brought forward its development plans in 1945, was over 30 per cent., or about one-third of the total industry. It must be admitted, of course, that this situation is partly due to the inability of the industry to re-equip itself during the period of the war, but it is also partly due to the failure adequately to modernise the industry during the inter-war years. Noble Lords will be aware of the high estimated cost to bring about this modernisation and re-equipment. The estimated cost of the original plan in 1945 was £168,000,000, stepping up to £200,000,000. That sum would now have increased considerably—say up to between £250,000,000 and £260,000,000. Indeed, for the financing of the new steel plant in South Wales, advances amounting to no less than £35,000,000 are now being made by the Finance Corporation for Industry over and above the share and loan capital of £31,000,000 which the company issued, making a total of £66,000,000 for this one plant alone. It is interesting to note that more than 50 per cent. of the total cost to this company comes from the Finance Corporation for Industry.
  986
  New steel plant is costly to install and while, owing to war conditions, some companies may now be able to finance the re-equipment and development which is required, others in addition to the South Wales company have had to obtain assistance through the Finance Corporation for Industry amounting to over £15,000,000. So long as private owners have to raise large sums, and there is some risk that the finance would not be found from private channels—that is, at a reasonable rate—sectional interests will remain in possession of the industry. That is a very good reason why the industry should be taken over in the form provided by this Bill, for the Government must be certain that the finances necessary for complete development are made available. While there should be little doubt about the completion of the current development plan, on the merits of which we are all agreed, it is in the next and subsequent stages, when the first urgent improvements have been carried out and the farther stages for re-organisation of the industry have to be settled and implemented, that the sectional interests of the multiple owners may stand in the way of further re-organisation. His Majesty's Government are of the opinion that to reorganise and to equip the industry properly and so get the maximum efficiency out of it, a single owner must replace the many, and that single owner must give undivided allegiance to the State.
  Noble Lords will see from what I have said that what divides the political Parties and many others who are interested in not only the production of steel but also the national economy, is the important question: By whom and for whom shall this industry be directed? Shall it be by the nation or the private companies? We maintain that there is but one answer to that question—that is, the present Bill.
  The main purpose of the Bill is to transfer to public ownership the companies specified in the Third Schedule. This will be done by transferring their securities from the present holders to a public Corporation which will be known as the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain. It will own all securities of the major companies in the sections of the industry responsible for the production of iron ore, pig iron, ingot steel or the hot rolling of steel. These are the activities defined in the Second Schedule.

  987
  The Corporation will consist of a chairman and not more than ten and not fewer than six other members, all appointed by the Minister from among persons having the special qualifications referred to in subsection (2) of Clause 1. The clause lays down the conditions under which membership of the Corporation shall be held, and provides for the Minister to report to Parliament the remuneration to be paid to them.
  The powers of the Corporation are defined in Clause 2. This clause was substantially amended by the Government on Report in another place to meet criticism of the original clause during the Committee stage of the discussion on the Bill. As the clause originally stood, the Corporation would have had the sum of all the powers contained in the Memoranda of all the publicly-owned companies. It was never the Government's intention that the Corporation itself would be actively engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel; the intention was that the Corporation should be a holding company, controlling the policy of the underlying companies through its shareholdings in them. Following discussion in Committee, it appeared that this intention could be more clearly expressed, and the clause now represents a substantial advance to meet the views of the Opposition.
  In one important respect the Bill differs from previous nationalisation measures; the operating companies are not themselves disturbed and it is through them that the Corporation will normally work. In all previous measures a new chain of responsibility had to be forged, and this inevitably meant some dislocation. In this Bill the only immediate, but important, change will be the introduction of a new single shareholder, and this will secure the transfer of power with the minimum of dislocation. Naturally the Government build on their experience, and the present Bill reflects their flexibility in approach and their recognition that differing industries cannot be pressed into a common mould of organisation. We wish to preserve much of the structure within the steel industry and we hope that all in the industry, including the directors, who are willing to co-operate with the Corporation will remain.
  The Corporation will become the sole shareholder of practically every company that on the average of the years 1946 and
  988
  1947 produced more than 50,000 tons of iron ore, more than 20,000 tons of pig iron or 20,000 tons of ingot steel, including alloy steel, or shaped more than 20,000 tons of steel by hot rolling. The 20,000 tons figure means that the larger part of the industry, responsible for 90 to 100 per cent. of its basic products, will be brought in. The smaller concerns who make mostly specialised products, will be left outside, though they can come in later by agreement if they so desire. The total number of firms scheduled for transfer is ninety-six, representing the main producing undertakings in the basic sections of the industry. Along with these companies are 150 wholly-owned subsidiaries, and so for the purpose of the Bill there will be about 250 companies that will become publicly owned. There will in addition be about fifty companies which are not 100 per cent. subsidiaries but which are controlled by one or more of the 250 firms.
  The general duties of the Corporation are defined in Clause 3. This clause was also amended in another place. It reflects a fair measure of agreement with the interests representative of the consumers of steel, although the Government recognise that in discussing relatively narrow points, those representative bodies have not departed from their basic objections to the Bill. The Minister's powers of direction of the Corporation will, as in previous nationalisation measures, be limited to those of a general character in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest. Specific powers of direction are contained in other parts of the Bill, but the generality of the relations of a nationalised iron and steel industry to the State will be on all fours with those of the other nationalised industries. I am sure that in steel, as in other cases, a relationship of trust and confidence against a background of common recognition of the public interest will develop which will transcend any statutory formula. Consumer interests are protected by the provisions of Clause 6, which I understand reflects a full measure of agreement with the representatives of the consumer interests.
  In Part II of the Bill is defined the machinery for the transfer of securities to the Corporation. The general date of transfer under Clause 11 will be May 1, 1950, or such later date, up to eighteen months from the passing of the Bill. I

  989
  do not propose this afternoon to go into the very intricate questions of compensation. That matter was dealt with fully in another place, and I have no doubt that at a later stage, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, a fair amount of time will be taken up on this matter in your Lordships' House. The remainder of Part II, which comprises a substantial portion of the Bill, contains provisions designed to maintain the integrity of the companies named in the Third Schedule until the date of transfer, by ensuring that there shall be no dissipation of assets.
  I do not wish to detain your Lordships at this stage by attempting any detailed explanation of these complicated clauses. They were the subject of full discussion in another place, and I have no doubt will not be ignored by your Lordships' House at a later stage. I would, however, like to mention that my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply made it clear in another place—and I want to repeat what he said—that he had no reason to believe that the directors of the companies to be taken over would take any action detrimental to the interests of the new Corporation and of the iron and steel industry as a whole. For removal of doubt, however, the Bill states specifically what they should not do, and what the penalties for evasion would be. No proper action taken by any company in the normal course of business will be challenged, but if any company has any unusual proposal in mind, and the directors are in doubt about its validity, they can put their proposals to the Minister, whose consent would relieve them of any fear of subsequent trouble. As the Minister expected, however, the number of such proposals he has so far received has been few.
  Part III is the natural corollary to the acquisition of the companies in the Third Schedule. Part IV deals with finance and conforms to the precedents already established. Part V deals with a number of miscellaneous matters, and its provisions follow the precedents of previous similar measures such as the settlement of terms and conditions of employment which are dealt with by Clause 39. That clause gives legislative sanction to a joint procedure which has worked with remarkable success for a longer period than most similar pieces of machinery in other in
  990
  dustries. The relations between management and men within the iron and steel industry are a credit to all concerned.
  My Lords, after a very long examination this Bill has now arrived in your Lordships' House for further consideration, and I have no doubt that here, as in another place (that is, if it survives the Second Reading) the many debates will be conducted with the same good humour, although some of the speeches will, I have no doubt, be penetrating and hard-hitting.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: We will do our best!
  VISCOUNT HALL: I am sure that, with the noble Viscount leading, we can expect that. It is regretted that, notwithstanding the invitation from the Minister of Supply to the leaders of the industry, they have not yet put any suggestions before the Minister for any alteration or improvement of the Bill. Similarly, it is also regretted that, owing to the failure to make a voluntary arrangement on the time-table for the discussion of this Bill in another place, the Government had to apply the guillotine, a procedure which is not liked by any Opposition. But it was a weapon which was inherited by the present Government from representatives of noble Lords opposite.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The bad days during the wars.
  VISCOUNT HALL: Without the use of the guillotine this Bill would not have passed through another place for a very long period. It is as well to record that no fewer than thirty-six days were given to its consideration in Standing Committee, in addition to eight days for the other stages. How long it would have taken without the guillotine can be judged when discussion of Clause 1 alone, which contained no new principle whatever, occupied no fewer than seven of the thirty-six Committee sittings. There is no doubt that sufficient time was allotted for a reasonable discussion of the main principles and, indeed, the details of this Bill.
  There is a general acknowledgment that something must be done to re-organise the steel industry—as, indeed, is recognised by noble Lords opposite. Let me take the attitude of the Party opposite, as expressed by one of their

  991
  leaders in another place, who said with emphasis:
  "It is necessary for me to repeat that, as a Party, we do not believe that the industry should be entirely uncontrolled. Government ownership—no; Government control—yes."
  I take it that that is the policy of noble Lords opposite. If it is, then we are clearly of the opinion that Government control must be linked up with Government ownership, otherwise chaos will quickly follow. The Liberal Party also said, during the debates in another place, that something must be done, and in the course of the debate asked for an inquiry, although during the war a memorandum was issued by some of the leaders of the Party in which the principles embodied in this Bill were strongly advocated by those on whose behalf the statement was issued.
  There is no doubt that the majority of your Lordships opposite are strongly opposed to this measure, as indeed you are to most measures of nationalisation in principle. Although over a very long period of Conservative Government control national services, and, indeed, some national industries, have not only been continued but have been increased, on no single occasion where an industry or a service has been taken over in this country have a Conservative Government attempted to de-nationalise it—not even the "pubs" in Carlisle. Notwithstanding that, I have no doubt that this measure will be fought at every stage by the Opposition, and, indeed, by the industry, for we have discovered in the opposition to this Bill that there is the closest possible link between the industry and the Opposition. So much so, that the industry itself declares that many of the Amendments which were put in another place were not so much Opposition Amendments as industry Amendments, which were submitted by a policy committee of the industry. I am not complaining, but that fact gives an idea of the very close combination which exists. But this combination, strong as it is, has not been strong enough to arouse any hostility against this Bill in the country.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh, oh!
  VISCOUNT HALL: There is no doubt in my mind that not only the majority of the workpeople in the industry but the people of this country generally are
  992
  strongly in support of this measure. When it was first announced in 1946 that this industry was to be nationalised, it was strongly urged that immediate dislocation would be inevitable and it would be very serious. Fortunately, that did not occur; instead, the men and the management continued to produce iron and steel in largely increasing quantities. Indeed, since the date of the announcement production has increased from an annual output of just over 13,000,000 tons in 1946 to about 15,000,000 tons last year, and there is a further increase this year. These results not only dispose of the gloomy prophecies but are an indication that, by the provisions of this Bill, nationalisation can be applied to the industry without any dislocation whatever.
  One cannot refer to the present production of this industry without paying a tribute to the great achievement of the men and management in accomplishing in these large productions a superhuman task. These men, without any request being made to them, work a continuous shift system, while the surrounding industries work a five-day week. Men of this understanding will not let the nation down in any circumstances. I am convinced that under this Bill the management, the technicians and all bearing any responsibility will have ample opportunity for initiative and enterprise to carry out the developments required to meet what we hope will be a largely growing demand. The making of iron and steel in its many forms will be the responsibility of the managements of the existing companies, who will retain their identities, their goodwill and their loyalties which so many of them have built up, while conforming to the overall needs of the nation.
  In conclusion, I want to refer to what I said at the commencement of this speech. I made some reference to the evolutionary changes which are taking place in this country. The people of this country, with the people of Europe, believe that the logical sequence of social democracy is economic democracy, and our task here is to develop in the fullest way that democratic idea as the basis of our effort. Let it not be supposed that because we are building for the future rather than the present—by the only method possible in this country—the proposals of this Bill are not devoid of

  993
  historic significance. The conflict of the cold war which has been going on in Europe, and the fighting war in the Far East, is not a conflict between capitalism and anything else; it is a conflict between social democracy and communism. Democratic countries have demonstrated that politics and economics have come right into the ambit of government, and have come to stay; so if democracy is to govern—and govern it must—it must take over some of the basic industries of the country. This means the public ownership of the major industries, of which steel is one.
  If this Bill is carried through with its main principles intact, it will enable the steel industry, through its key position, to do much to lessen the severity of trade depressions, and it will offer greater security to those who are employed in the industry; it will enable increased co-operation with the peoples of the Commonwealth and of Europe, and will make a considerable contribution to their efforts in the rehabilitation of their industry and their economy. It is an integral part of the Government's plan for establishing a prosperous national economy. There can be no doubt that the vast majority of those employed in the industry, at whatever their level or job, whether in the office, the steel works, or in the Iron and Steel Federation or one of its commercial subsidiaries, or the very fine research organisation, will all, when this measure finally receives the Royal Assent and has been implemented, continue to make their valuable contribution as wholeheartedly as they have in the past. I ask your Lordships' acceptance of this measure. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hall.)
  3.26 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, there is one thing at any rate on which I think we can be all agreed, and agreed with the noble Viscount the First Lord; and that is his opening statement that this is a highly controversial measure. I think that through the long controversy which has been waged on the nationalisation of iron and steel, and particularly since this particular Bill was introduced, four things have increasingly impressed themselves upon the public mind. The first is that there is a complete absence of any sound economic reason for national
  994
  ising iron and steel; and for all the admirable qualities which the noble Viscount displayed, as we should expect, I am bound to say that I do not think that he has supplied in his speech to-day any additional or adequate reason.
  The second thing which has impressed people is this: the present Bill bears no resemblance to anything in the Election programme. The noble Viscount forgot the Election programme, on which I thought the claim was based, and he has dated everything from the announcement of 1946. But this Bill bears no resemblance to anything in the Election programme, or even to the Government's intentions as expressed in the Motion submitted in another place in 1946, to which the noble Viscount referred, which was to transfer to the ownership of the nation appropriate sections of the iron and steel industry. No one could imagine that we should see a Bill which, while leaving large parts of the so-called appropriate sections of iron and steel making outside, embraces huge engineering enterprises which are not steel-making at all. Indeed, whatever claim the Government could advance for a mandate to nationalise iron and steel, they have no authority whatever for this particular Bill.
  The third thing that has increasingly impressed people is the determination of the Government to get this Bill through, and to lay their hands on these vast and vital undertakings before the electors can express an opinion. For that discreditable and undemocratic purpose they are in process of altering the Constitution. And the fourth point which—particularly of late—has more and more impressed people is this: that not only is this a thoroughly bad Bill but it could not have been introduced at a worse time. We are more dependent than ever upon exports. As the First Lord himself said, steel products are the raw material of many of the industries on which that export depends. The First Lord said that at least half of our exports, and probably more, to-day depend upon steel. More and more we have to compete in a buyers' market, in which price will be the determining factor; and price depends on costs. Every exporting industry is already heavily handicapped in its costs by the increase in prices and charges of the nationalised industries—coal, power, transport and, I may add, the costs of raw materials due to bulk

  995
  purchase and State trading. If we are priced out of the world markets, the largest contributing factor will be the costs of nationalisation and State trading. My Lords, what a moment to add iron and steel to this list of liabilities!
  Let me take each of those four considerations and justify it. What is the case for this Bill or, in other words, the case against the industry? Just look at the record of the industry. Of course, the important thing, and the only important test, must be: What is the efficiency of the industry to-day? But as this Government, who are supposed to "face the future," prefer in this matter to disregard the present and dwell on the past, let me briefly review the past; for the facts will controvert all the Government's fancies. From the time the steel industry obtained the protection which every competing foreign industry had previously enjoyed, it made an impressive advance in production, efficiency, new plant and competitive prices. The prices to which the noble Viscount referred have always been controlled. From the very start they were fixed by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and the prices were always based upon efficient production carefully costed by independent accountants. Before the war, our prices were fully competitive with the European and American prices. To-day, they are below them. In the pre-war period after protection, production of ingots and castings increased in the United Kingdom by 35 per cent. as against a world increase of 11 per cent. and an actual decline of production in the United States.
  Then we come to development. To listen to the noble Viscount one would have thought that nothing had been done. As a matter of fact, in the five pre-war years, £50,000,000 was spent on development; and that, I suppose, was the equivalent of £120,000,000 or £130,000,000 to-day. All this was part of a comprehensive plan which, but for the war, would have been completed in the war years. It is true that some obsolete plant was kept in being. But why? At the request of the Government, because it was foreseen that, if war should come, every plant, every works, old or new, would be required for the war. That is the truth and I challenge
  996
  contradiction from any quarter. That is the truth about the industry before the war. It is an absolute refutation of the Government fiction that the present development and efficiency of the industry is a death-bed repentance. Since the last war, complete developments plans have been produced. It is true that they were produced in 1946, but that had nothing to do with the threat of nationalisation. The industry had been working on these plans in the later years of the war, at the request of the National Government, and long before the Election.
  The noble Viscount has spoken as though one could not trust this industry during a war, implying that, unless the steel industry were nationalised, we were bound to be beaten. We were not beaten in the last war. During the long war years, this industry never failed; it never fell down on its task. And since the war, it has gone from strength to strength. It is, indeed, the brightest jewel in the industrial crown. It has been set increasingly high targets. Every time it has been set a higher target, it has beaten it. It has pressed on with reconstruction and development. In spite of the rising cost of coal, prices are strictly competitive to-day with any prices in America or on the Continent. This record, indeed, reflects the highest credit on the management and the workmen. Whereas the noble Viscount rightly said that relations have always been of the happiest for forty years of unclouded peace, I wish I could say the same of the nationalised industries and the relations there. If we desire to have happy relations in an industry, I do not think that the best way, judging by experience, is to start on more nationalisation.
  To what is this efficiency due? I agree that, in a large measure, it is due to this close working, this mutual confidence between the management and the men; but it is due also to the efficiency and the quality of the individual firms, names which are household words the world over. The Government pretend that they are going to keep this. They are going to nationalise the industry and place it all under one ownership, where the power will be controlled and all the directors in all the hundred companies can be sacked at a moment's notice. The Government are going to keep the façade, the names. But it is not the name over

  997
  the door that counts; it is the individual management, experience and "know-how" that have made and maintain the reputation of these great firms. And if this industry is left alone, I see only one risk. It is this. I am genuinely anxious—and I think your Lordships probably are as well—whether the nationalised coal industry will produce the quantity and quality of coal and coke which an expanding steel industry requires.
  Let me pass now to the allegation that the Government must nationalise this industry in order to exercise control in the national interest. The noble Viscount made much of that; indeed, it was the staple of his speech—the only real reason for buying out this industry. Even in theory, as the Government well know, that is nonsense, for every industry to-day is working with the Government on their plans for export and the attack to be made upon markets. If the Government argument about steel were true, it would mean that every single industry had to be nationalised. Perhaps that is the ultimate goal. In all these months, the Government have not produced one single example, even the smallest, showing that the steel industry has failed to comply with Government direction, Government advice or Government control—even if the industry thought it foolish. The noble Viscount said, "You will get the right policy and development only by a single owner running the industry." Power! What then becomes of the independent management of the hundred firms? You cannot have it both ways. Either those firms are to go on with their independent management—in which case what is the need for buying them all out—or there is to be what is the intention here, as expressed in the Bill which will be examined in Committee: the Government are to take the control, the power, the ownership, the opportunity to sack, the right to give directions. All that is going to be taken into the hands of this single monopoly.
  The whole industry has been organised to comply with the general policy laid down by the Government. It was doing it before the war. It did it during the war. With the greatest respect, it really is nonsense to say that you cannot get the war production. We got it during the war. In war, the whole of the industry is concentrated upon winning the war and upon the
  998
  production which the Government need. As for peace—I speak subject to correction as there are steel-makers in the House—I suppose the amount of steel that goes directly into munition-making in peace time is, at the outside, 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. of the total production. The internal arrangements in the industry, working with the Steel Board, have proved in practice that that is the most efficient way of securing the execution of policy in action. As we shall see, the present Bill cuts right across all this and will make the execution of policy much more difficult. Surely, a Bill of this kind could never have been expected from anything which was written or said during the Election. Even after the nationalisers had carried the day in the Party fight—as we know there was one—the then Minister of Supply gave no indication that we should see anything like this extraordinary Bill.
  Now I come to the point upon which the noble Viscount based his argument. In May, 1946, the Government tabled a Motion which was carried in another place, in these terms:
  "To approve the Government decision to nationalise appropriate sections of the iron and steel industry with a view to its organisation in the public interest."
  The then Minister of Supply condescended to give some detail, explaining the sections of the industry which would be taken over. He itemised iron ore, pig iron, ingot steel, and primary or heavy rolling. He added:
  "When finishing operations are so closely integrated with iron and steel-making as to be virtually one process we intend to include the whole plant."
  Who could imagine from that, that the result would be the present Bill? This Bill does not take over the "appropriate sections;" it leaves out a great many. It takes over a great many inappropriate sections in the hundred or so firms selected—I think it has come down to ninety-six in all—and it leaves out the remainder of the 2,000 firms which have been effectively co-ordinated up till now under the supervision of the Steel Board.
  I am not talking theoretically here. Let me cite a few examples. Sir Andrew Duncan, to whom a very fine tribute has been paid to-day, had worked out some of the main categories, and cites them as follows: Heavy forgings, 45 per cent. capacity taken over 55 per cent. left;

  999
  drop forgings, 16 per cent. taken over, 84 per cent. left; steel castings, 23 per cent. taken over, 77 per cent. left; steel wire, 60 per cent. taken over, 40 per cent. left; bright steel bars, 40 per cent. taken over, 60 per cent. left. At the same time great undertakings which are purely engineering and not steel-making—such as companies concerned with bridge building, constructional engineering, locomotives, floating docks, barges, and many others—are taken over. The Government will become the owners of all sorts of businesses in Commonwealth and foreign countries, with all the political difficulties involved in Governmental activities in a foreign land.
  My Lords, this muddled plan, or absence of plan, cuts across the whole of the existing organisation which has been carefully designed to co-ordinate all steel-making activities by firms, great or small, the Government exercising a wide measure of direction and control—and exercising it completely effectively—but which at the same time is designed to leave alone the other businesses which are engineering and not steel-making at all. Compare that with the Bill. So much for the "appropriate sections"; so much for the "organisation in the public interest"; so much for the "well-being of the nation"!
  Introducing this Bill, the present Minister of Supply made the following rather strange statement on November 15 last year:
  "Our policy is simply this, that where an industry is basic to the well-being of the nation and it is evident, after the fullest consideration of the merits of each particular case, that that industry cannot, while it remains in private hands, do all that the nation requires of it, but will be able to do so under public ownership, then we nationalise it."
  Applying that test to the Iron and Steel Industry, there is absolutely no case for nationalisation.
  Your Lordships will have studied the measure and I think you will agree that the Minister could hardly have composed a less appropriate overture to this Bill. To bring the overture more in harmony with the theme and the reality, ought we not slightly to re-write it and make it run thus:
  "Our policy is simply this. Where an industry is basic to the well-being of the nation and it is evident, after the fullest consideration, that the national interest is being fully served (as it is), and that the industry in
  1000
  private hands is doing all that the nation requires of it (again, as it is), and would certainly not be able to do so under public ownership, but where the more irresponsible members of the Party insist on nationalisation, then the national interest must be subordinated to Party convenience and the industry must be nationalised."
  That would be a more true and accurate overture to this Bill. There was certainly no mandate for this at the election. The Bill fails to co-ordinate the steel industry; on the contrary, it will destroy it. The noble Viscount talked about chaos. He will be creating chaos with this Bill if it ever becomes law. It destroys the co-ordination which has worked so well, and it makes the Government enter into subsidised competition with large sections of the engineering industry; it even puts the Government into competition with foreign industries in foreign countries all over the world. Foreign relations are not too easy to-day and I should not think the Government would want to add to their difficulties in foreign policy.
  It is not surprising that the Government never submitted this ill-advised venture to the electors. What is surprising, if indeed this Government can still surprise us at all by their ineptitude—I withdraw the word "surprising" and substitute the word "shocking"—what is certainly shocking, is that the Government should seek to rush this Bill through without giving the electors any chance of expressing an opinion. What is still more shocking is that, in order to accomplish that end, they should pass the Parliament Bill to deprive a democratic electorate of its constitutional safeguards. So anxious were they to avoid the popular verdict that the Bill was guillotined through the House of Commons. The noble Viscount felt he had to offer some explanation for that. "Confession and avoidance" is, I believe, how lawyers would describe the admirable exhibition to which he treated us. What about reasonable discussion? A number of clauses were not even discussed at all. Over 300 Amendments were guillotined in Committee or on Report. This was done although there was no pressure on Parliamentary time. We are all to be given an extra holiday at Whitsuntide. We shall all appreciate it. No doubt during that time the noble Viscount will take his place with others in the dock at Blackpool. I am not at all sure that

  1001
  they and Parliament would not have been better occupied if, instead of having this extra week at Blackpool, an extra week had been devoted to the study of this Bill. I say no more about that, except that the country may indeed be thankful that there is a Second Chamber.
  Lastly, consider the time this Bill is introduced. A little while ago, the Lord President of the Council offered to his Party some very wise advice—wise politically and economically. It was that they should go slow with nationalisation, and consolidate the position which they had won. It is common knowledge that there were divided opinions inside the Party—even the iron curtain has not concealed that!—on this measure but, as usual, the extremists won. But the economic situation to-day is much more serious than it was when that ill-fated decision to introduce this Bill was taken. It did not require much foresight to see that there would be a rapid change from a sellers' market to a buyers' market. Salesmen were reporting it from markets all over the world. It was the common experience of exhibitors at the British Industries Fair. It is already shown in the April figures for exports, though those figures reflect the past only and are but an indication of the far more serious difficulties into which we shall run in the future.
  It really is no good Sir Stafford Cripps getting a cheap cheer by saying that costs can be cut if money is not transferred to reserve. That is strangely inconsistent with the advice—indeed, the urge—which he was giving to our companies only six months or a year ago, to transfer to reserve in order that we might have a fund for re-equipment. It was curiously forgetful for so clear-minded a controversialist to fail to inform his audience—even after dinner, though that is no excuse for Sir Stafford Cripps!—that more than half of the funds which he alleged were available to reduce costs, had, as Lord Cherwell has reminded him, already been taken by himself in taxation. I do not think that that was a particularly happy intervention on the part of the Chancellor. I am afraid that even nationalised industries cannot satisfy him. It is true they make no profits—they must have a good mark on that account—but although they have failed to make profits, it is certainly not true that they have reduced prices. Do not let us forget, do not let the Chan
  1002
  cellor forget, that it is on the free industries—on private enterprise, not on the nationalised industries—that we depend for our exports. It is these industries which have given the great results for which the Government claim so much credit.
  What are the elements of cost which are most important? First of all, I would say, there is up-to-date equipment. That is most important; and that up-to-date equipment can be supplied only by the creation of reserves and the investment of those reserves—which Sir Stafford Cripps decries—in that equipment. Take other costs. They include raw materials, coal, power and transport. These are now all outside the industries' control, and the Government have made themselves directly responsible. What is the result?—because these are the practical tests of nationalisation. Since nationalisation, coal has gone up from 39s. 4d. to 47s. 8d.—the pithead price at the end of last September. And if we are to continue to export coal in what is going to be a competitive market—and we must do so—we shall undoubted have to reduce the prices at which we sell the coal abroad. That does not mean a very happy prospect of reduced prices for the industrial and domestic consumers at home.
  Coal, of course, immediately reacts on the railways. Transport costs have increased, and with heavy deficits and wage claims, they look like going higher. Transport costs always fall most heavily on the heavy industries, and the easiest rates to raise are the heavy traffics, coal, ore, iron and steel, which must use the railways. Electricity is up. Gas looks like going up. Will any noble Lord on the opposite side of the House lay me any odds that gas will not go up in price, just as electricity has gone up?—What! no odds; not even from the noble Lord, Lord Quibell? Added to that, Government bulk buying keeps the price of metals far above world prices. Even allowing for the reduction made last week, at the urgent request of industry, metal prices are still far higher in this country than in the free market in the United States. Here are some comparisons: Copper—United Kingdom price, £130; United States free market price,£101. Lead—United Kingdom, £95; United States, £78 10s. Zinc—United Kingdom, £85; United States, £67 4s.

  1003
  And now it is proposed to nationalise steel, which at one stage or another is a raw material of most of the industries on which our exports depend. What hope is there, if this industry is nationalised, that it will not repeat the story—the story which has followed in every other nationalised industry—of decreased efficiency, increased cost and increased price? Could there be a more irresponsible moment at which to introduce this measure; or a more suicidal proposal? This is no case of competing theories. Every statement I have made in my speech this afternoon is factual. I do not believe that one of them can be challenged. I challenge the Government opposite to deny any one of the statements which I have made or, at any rate, to give me proof that I am wrong.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment? Since he has challenged anyone to deny statements which he has made, or any single statement which he has made, I would deny the statement that there has been decreased efficiency in British coal mining since nationalisation.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord may well be satisfied with his intervention. Machinery has been introduced into 75 per cent. of the mines. If the noble Lord is satisfied with the efficiency of the nationalised coal industry as compared with the coal industry in 1938 (that is, in the "bad old days") then he will, no doubt, say so. He has intervened and he has challenged me. He is always very ready to bob up. He is a Professor of Economics—or he was. It is true he belonged to another Party at that time. He has given his testimony to the efficiency of the coal industry. Let him go and consult the Chairman of the National Coal Board as to what he is saying to the industry itself about the need for improving its efficiency. Then let him come back to your Lordships' House and cite the coal industry as a reason for the nationalisation of steel. If there is no better reason for nationalising the steel industry than the monumental success which has attended the nationalisation of coal, then, indeed, the proposal is as bankrupt as the industry is likely to be if it is carried out.
  LORD PAKENHAM: May I take it that the noble Viscount withdraws his original and most inaccurate statement?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I withdraw nothing. I am on record in Hansard, and I am perfectly prepared to stand by what I have said. I hope that both our statements will receive the widest possible publicity. Surely the conclusion and the issue are plain. No case has been made for nationalisation, except in terms of political expediency; and no vestige of excuse has been advanced for denying the people of this country an opportunity of giving their verdict on this vital issue.
  4 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I do not want to cover the ground already covered by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton; I wish to confine myself to one particular subject. Before doing so, however, I think it right to declare an interest in the steel trade, in that I have been associated for fifteen years with the financing of the steel industry. If the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who expressed the view that the industry could not be financed through the normal channels, would care to see some figures I have with me of what one firm has done in fifteen years, he is welcome to have them after this debate. In regard to the same point, I think there is a certain amount of misunderstanding in the noble Viscount's mind. He spoke of the Finance Corporation for Industry as being necessary to finance the modernisation of the steel industry, but he is no doubt aware that the Finance Corporation for Industry is an organisation which was set up and is wholly owned and financed by private enterprise in the City. The Government have no part or lot whatsoever in either financing or controlling that Corporation.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I certainly do not want any misunderstanding in relation in this matter. I think it can be said that the Bank of England took the initiative in forming the Corporation and the Bank of England itself (I may be corrected) is closely associated with the other financial houses, banks and insurance companies which make up the Corporation.
  LORD RENNELL: The initiative was taken by the Bank of England, but the money is not found by the Bank of England.
  VISCOUNT HALL: I understand that some of the money is found by the Bank of England.
  LORD RENNELL: Some of the money is found by the Bank of England, but most of it is not. The greater part is found by the normal working machinery of the City. Leaving that out of the count, because it is not the point I want to touch on particularly, let me say that the steel industry has been subject to a great deal of very unfair and adverse criticism in the course of these debates. Indeed, the case made for the Bill, so far as there is a case, rests on the fact that the steel industry, especially in the inter-war years, allowed itself to get into a very inefficient and unmodern state. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said that at one moment the steel production of this country had fallen to 30 per cent. of capacity. That is perfectly true. It fell to 30 per cent. of capacity on more than one occasion. However, it is not true to suggest—I do not say that the noble Viscount suggested it, but it has been commonly suggested—that this is a peculiarity of the British steel industry. That is far from being the case.
  As everybody associated with it knows, the steel industry is subject to considerable fluctuation of production and demand. In point of fact, the low points of the steel industry in this country coincide with remarkable accuracy with the low points of the steel industry in the United States. It can be shown that, year after year, the courses of activity for the steel industry in the United States and this country have been parallel. The low points in production in the inter-war years in England were in 1921 to 1926 and 1931 to 1932. The industry was operating at about 30 per cent. of capacity in the first period and at about 40 per cent. in the other two years. In the United States the steel industry was operating in 1921 also at a little over 30 per cent. of capacity and from 1931 to 1934 at round about 30 per cent., except in 1932, when it fell to 19 per cent. Therefore, to suggest that the steel industry in England is responsible by its own inefficiency for these low periods of production is absolutely misleading, and entirely beside the point.
  The average figures for the whole of the inter-war years—that is, from 1918 to 1939—in the United States and this
  1006
  country run singularly parallel. The average ratio of production to capacity in the United Kingdom was over 66 per cent. and the mean deviation from that average was 15 per cent. In the United States from 1918 to 1939 the average ratio of production to capacity was 61 per cent., 5 per cent. lower than in the United Kingdom, and the mean deviation was somewhat greater at 16.5 per cent. So let us get out of our heads and let the public ear be disabused of the view that the situation of the steel industry was peculiar to this country. It was not.
  Let us consider for a moment what happened in the production of iron. The figures are approximately the same as those for steel. The average United States production of iron and ferrous metals and alloys from 1918 to 1939 was only 59 per cent. of capacity. The figures for England are more difficult to obtain, but as they have a very considerable bearing on the complaints of the noble Viscount and others about the lack of modernisation in England, I think it is fair to quote one or two to show how misleading and how misled a great many people are on this subject. It is true that the end of the First World War found us with a large number of small unit producers. The test of that can be seen in the number of blast furnaces in England. At the end of the First World War the number of blast furnaces in England was round about 500—just a little under; the figures are not easy to obtain, but that is the order of magnitude. In 1939 the number of blast furnaces in England was 182, very considerably less than half.
  It is a happy coincidence, when we take the figures of pig iron production in 1920 and 1939—I pick these years because production was practically the same at 8,000,000 tons—to find that in 1920 we produced 8,000,000 tons out of a little under 500 blast furnaces working at 60 per cent. capacity, and in 1939 we produced 8,000,000 tons out of 182 furnaces, also working, it so happens, at 60 per cent. capacity. Surely that is evidence of modernisation in an industry which had suffered a major war and the consequences of that war, parallel in those days to what we may see here hereafter. That that should have been achieved is not only very creditable to the industry; it is an absolute refutation of the accusation of the lack of energy, the lack of desire

  1007
  and the lack of capacity and ability of the industry in this country to modernise itself.
  In the second place, let me point out that in the production of iron in this country we happen to be at a serious disadvantage compared with the United States. As your Lordships know, our own native supplies of high-grade iron ores are running out. We have nevertheless in this country developed the smelting of iron from our lower-grade ores to a greater degree than any other country in the world has ever succeeded in doing. With this lower-grade ore, plus imported ores, we are still smelting, and smelting effectively; and we are producing iron as cheaply as in America, from an average of 40 per cent. iron ore, taken overall with imports, as against something over 50 per cent. in the United States. To have achieved that, and at the same time to have achieved the costs we have, redounds to the great credit of the steel industry in this country, and not to their discredit, as has been suggested in many quarters.
  So far as the financial consequences of these ups and downs of the steel trade are concerned, may I remind your Lordships that the experience of low earnings equally finds its parallel in the United States? The largest steel organisation in the world, United States Steel—which also, incidentally, is the largest single steel producing plant in the world—found it necessary for several years in the inter-war period, not only to pay no dividend on its common stock, but to reduce the dividend on its preference shares from a standard of seven to a standard of two, which was recovered in 1936 only by the payment of arrears. Let us therefore assume it is common ground that what happens to the steel industry in one country is liable to happen to the steel industry in other countries, and is the result of economic circumstances and not the result of the incompetence of any particular management.
  On the question of the quality of our plant, it is idle to pretend that it is today as modern as the plant in the United States, for the simple reason that our plant in England is a great deal older. We produced iron and steel in this country long before it was produced in America; and, owing to the rate of
  1008
  growth of the United States and the increased demand for steel products there, as against a virtually static demand in this country, there has always been a larger proportion of modern plant in the United States than here. It is an interesting fact that steel output since the beginning of the century shows a 25 per cent. increase every five years in the United Kingdom, but a 50 per cent. increase every five years in the United States. It follows from that that the average age of plant in the United States must be younger than it is in this country. That is not to say that the plant cannot be modernised and is not being modernised by the industry itself of its own initiative.
  As I understand it, it is very largely on the basis of the inefficiency of the industry and the possibility, as the noble Viscount said, of the national interests being let down in times of crisis, that the Government have thought fit to introduce a Bill to take over and control the whole of the steel industry; that is, to turn nearly the whole of the steel industry of this country into one single Corporation. Size is not always indicative of efficiency. There are a number of schools of thought in the United States that consider that even the United States Steel Corporation—which is by no means the only Corporation in the United States producing steel—is already too large for efficient production. That may or may not be the case, and it is not for me to comment or criticise, but I state as a fact that there are a number of people who think so, and they can show good cause for their argument. It is by no means certain that a larger Corporation than the largest we have in the United Kingdom would by mere size become any more efficient.
  I presume that the answer of the Government to that argument would be: "Yes; but we do not intend to alter the composition of the individual companies which go to make up the Steel Corporation as a whole." If one accepts that, one is inevitably driven to asking, "What is the Corporation which the Government are trying to set up to be or to do?" I have read the speeches of eminent spokesmen of the Government, and I have also read the Bill—oddly enough! But I have hitherto failed absolutely to understand what the Corporation's functions are to be. Your Lordships will remember that when the Bill was first introduced in draft form in another place there was a

  1009
  Clause 2 which appeared to have some sort of mystical meaning to the writers, or to the Bill's "godfathers," but which had virtually no meaning to anyone else. In point of fact, that Clause 2 was abandoned and substantially another Clause 2 finds itself in the Bill now before your Lordships' House. To my mind, that, alone, apart from other things, is evidence of a lack of clarity even on the part of the promoters of this Bill as to what it is they are trying to do. Even to-day I still do not understand what the Corporation's functions are to be.
  I want to ask a simple question. I am sorry the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, is not here, but no doubt the Leader of the House in due course will endeavour to find a reply to the question: What is the Corporation supposed to be? Is it a holding company, holding the shares of a number of other companies and behaving as a holding company, directing policy only at the top end; or it is an operating company? If it is an operating company, why are all the underlying companies left in existence and not merged into it? As the Bill comes to your Lordships' House, it appears to be a hybrid, which is neither one thing nor the other. Until that point is cleared up, it seems to me very difficult to know what it is we are going to talk about when we get into Committee on this Bill—if your Lordships go into Committee on the Bill. It is very difficult to discuss principles when those principles have never been stated anywhere; and, to the best of my knowledge, they have not been stated anywhere. The second matter which arises from that point is the question of planning. Are the Government going to plan, or are the Corporation going to plan? The noble Viscount spoke a great deal about the necessity of planning for steel to the economy of the country as a whole. The Government, presumably, are going to plan, and therefore are going to tell the Corporation what they want done. Are the Corporation, so far as planning is concerned, to be subservient to a Government policy, or are they to try and make steel as cheaply as possible? Those are two very different things. In other words, there is no statement of purpose in the speeches I have had the advantage of reading.
  I entirely concur with the criticism of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, on the experience of Government costs. The
  1010
  main difficulties we are facing in the competitive world markets are the high prices which are imposed on raw materials by the Government to the disadvantage of our own traders. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, quoted the case of base metals. I had lunching with me to-day an American friend whose comment on the subject of the price of base metals in England was that it was midnight folly to try and expect British trade to compete in the export markets when they were paying 30 per cent. more for copper than the Americans. Those prices are fixed by the Ministry of Supply, presumably to cover bad purchases made. Your Lordships will note that the experience in the cotton industry has been the same. If that policy is to be followed in fixing the price of steel, we shall have to look around for very different markets and very different types of trade in all the engineering industries which depend upon steel. The experience of the past few years, therefore, is not one out of which we can get any comfort in hoping, as we must hope, that if this Bill becomes an Act the steel industry will be made to work economically and well.
  The last point with which I want to deal is on the financial aspect of the Bill. I do not want to go into the method of compensation, but I think the Second Reading is an occasion in your Lordships' House upon which it is appropriate to comment upon certain misstatements which have been made, and which I think need correcting before further mischief is done. I do not propose to take up the question of the method of compensation, Stock Exchange values or others. I shall no doubt have an opportunity of speaking on this subject hereafter when we go into Committee, if ever we do. But there are two points which I think need to be exposed and dealt with here and now. In my opinion—I say this with all the regret that I feel in having to say it—where a Government has imposed a limitation of dividends on industrial concerns, and then uses Stock Exchange values to value those securities for the purpose of nationalisation, it is committing a dishonest act.
  Now in that context I must draw your Lordships' attention to a statement which was made in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on November 16 (Column 313, Hansard) when he

  1011
  made what, to my mind, was a most surprising statement. He said:
  "There is, therefore, neither in fact nor in theory, any justification for a general attack on Stock Exchange prices as under-valuing industrial securities as a whole at this time.…Limitation of dividends should, in fact, as it did, increase the capital value of industrial securities.…"
  Carried to its logical conclusion, the value of a security which pays no dividend should be greater than the value of a security which pays a large dividend! That is, with all respect, absolute nonsense, and proof of that is found in the case of two concerns in the steel industry, particulars of which I have here but whose names I shall not quote, although I will give them to the noble Viscount afterwards if he wishes to have them. These are two concerns which did not follow the Chancellor's injunction not to pay increased dividends. Both these concerns did pay increased dividends, as a result of which the take-over price to shareholders on the vesting date, if this Bill becomes an Act, is greater by something of the order of 12s. to 14s. per £1 share in the one case, and in the other case something of the order of nearly 35s. a share. To suggest that limitation of dividends increases the value of a share is, as I have said, not only nonsense but can be demonstrated by figures and facts to be entirely wrong.
  A further point, which I am afraid I regard as even more serious than that, is the failure of the Government to implement an undertaking given about adequate compensation being paid to companies who have expended moneys which have not yet borne fruit. Your Lordships will remember—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, referred to it in his speech—that in May, 1946, Mr. Dalton, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, repeated an undertaking which had been given by the then Minister of Supply, and which read in the following words:
  "Whatever the final method and basis adopted, proper allowance will be made in assessing compensation for the results of any expenditure incurred from now onwards on approved schemes of development or rehabilitation."
  That has been translated into offering shareholders Stock Exchange values which are based on current earnings and cannot by any means take into account the earnings of capital invested which
  1012
  have not yet fructified. That, I regret to say, I regard as a complete breach of faith.
  With those remarks, I would like to end by saying this: that if the principle of nationalising steel were accepted, and an inquiry had been made into the desirability of nationalising it which had found that it would be a good thing to do, then a better Bill could have been made than has been made. I repeat that the present Bill does not make sense. Secondly, the financial terms and the Government's engagements or policies have not been fulfilled, and the financial terms offered I regard as dishonest. For those reasons I personally am wholly and entirely opposed to this Bill in the form in which it stands, and shall remain opposed to it until such time as an inquiry is made which can convince me that there is some merit in nationalising companies which have served this country so well and which have kept themselves in the forefront of their trade as the steel companies of this country have done.
  4.28 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it may seem rather unusual that two speakers should rise from the Front Opposition Bench so early in a debate, but then the circumstances of this Bill, too, are rather unusual. The action which your Lordships are going to take over this measure is fraught with such moment that it seemed to me desirable—and I hope your Lordships will agree—that I, who have the privilege for the moment of leading the official Opposition, should give some guidance at an early stage to my own supporters as to the action which they might properly take with regard to the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who of course speaks on this subject of iron and steel with very much greater authority than I can, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who spoke for the Liberal Party and who also has great knowledge of the conditions of the industry and the financial implications of the Bill, have already gone fully into the detailed provisions of the measure. I rise merely to examine the broad issues and, as I say, to give advice, so far as I can, to my own supporters as to the course which, in my view, they should adopt towards this Bill.
  The debate which has begun this afternoon, and which is to continue over to

  1013
  morrow, is bound, of course, to be of the first interest and importance, not only to this House but to the country at large. It is concerned with a Bill whose purpose is to press into public ownership an industry which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall said, is perhaps in many ways of all industries the most vital to our national existence. For after all, we in Great Britain live on our exports. If we fail to sell abroad, we shall starve. And our exports, both in respect of the actual products of the iron and steel industry which are sent abroad and the machinery which is used at home for the manufacture of other goods, depends upon a cheap and abundant supply of iron and steel. For this reason I say—though I speak entirely as a layman—that the iron and steel industry is essentially different from other great undertakings which have already been nationalised by the Government.
  Railways, road transport, electricity and gas may be regarded as public utilities. Their actual operation is confined to this country. Whether they are more cheaply and efficiently run under public ownership than private is, of course, a matter for doubt. I should have thought that at the present time all the evidence was in the opposite direction. But at any rate they are not the subject of any direct competition from foreign operators. Coal, of course, may be said to have something in common with steel. That, too, is an important element in the life-blood of our export trade. But of coal, at any rate, this can be said, and has been said: that it was not working—and we should all admit it—entirely satisfactorily under private enterprise. Unhappily, for a long period of years a feeling of bitter antagonism had grown up in many districts between masters and men, which had interfered with the full flow of competition. The reasons for this unhappy state of affairs are rather outside the scope of this debate to-day, and I will confine myself to saying merely that it might be argued, rightly or wrongly (and I am not going into the rights and wrongs of the matter), that the existing unsatisfactory state of that industry might be held to justify the experiment of public ownership.
  But such an argument as that cannot possibly be used of iron and steel. This is a model industry, an industry which
  1014
  is the admiration of the whole world. It is modern; as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has said, the charges which have been made against the industry in this respect are not justified. It is efficient; and to the best of my information the relations between employers and employed in that industry have been outstandingly friendly and contented. During the last difficult years of war and the postwar years, it has been, and we are proud to recognise it, the main element in our national recovery. Masters and men have combined together in patriotic harmony to raise production, while keeping prices at a competitive level with production in other countries. I am not competent to go into details about these matters, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, have done; but there are certain broad basic figures which are intelligible even to a layman. Production in this industry has already far outstripped the target figure of 100 per cent. above pre-war. That is a significant fact. Wages have risen by over 100 per cent., and prices have risen by only 70 per cent.—compared with 145 per cent. in the nationalised coal industry, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, paid, just now, so glowing a tribute. The iron and steel industry has a magnificent record, which reflects the highest credit on all concerned. But this makes us wonder all the more why the Government want to alter the basis of an industry which is working so smoothly and so efficiently.
  So far as I can understand it (and I have read a good many speeches on the subject), there are three main reasons put forward by the Government, some of which have been dealt with already to-day. First, it is suggested that inadequate steps were taken by private enterprise to modernise and reorganise plant and increase production. That aspect, of course, has already been covered by Lord Rennell and Lord Swinton, and therefore I shall say, very briefly, only this. I listened to the opening speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. He gave us some astronomical figures of the necessary capital expenditure required for the industry. I know that capital expenditure is a thing at which this Government are particularly good.
  VISCOUNT HALL: May I interrupt the noble Marquess, and say that I was quoting figures which were given by the

  1015
  Iron and Steel Federation itself as to what would be required? It is true that I added £50,000,000 to £60,000,000 because of the increase of prices between 1945 and the present time.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, I accept that. But the fact remains that the noble Viscount did devote himself to the question of capital expenditure, and did not give us any figures to support the charge that private enterprise had failed in its duty of production. And, as Lord Rennell has said, there are no such figures. In fact, so far from there being a fall in production under the existing management of the industry, there has been a steady rise—and that rise is still continuing. I do not think that either the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, or Lord Pakenham, were he here, could give equally convincing figures about coal, which has already been taken over by the country. So far as my information goes, I understand that, in the coal industry, the production in 1937 of saleable deep-mined coal was 240,000,000 tons, and that in 1948 it had fallen to 196,000,000 tons. In 1937 the production of coal per man was 304 tons per annum, and in 1948 the production per man was 270 tons per annum—in spite of a great increase in the provision of mechanised equipment for the mines. I quote that only as showing that this great panacea, which is at present being offered to the steel industry, does not fill us with quite such glowing hopes as apparently it inspires in noble Lords on the other side of the House.
  Moreover, these figures which I have quoted, and the figures which Lord Swinton and Lord Rennell have quoted, are also the answer to the second charge, that production has been artificially restricted in order to maintain high profits. That is a charge—I think a very reckless one—which has been made during the course of this controversy, and I was glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, did not use that argument this afternoon. It is indeed an argument which, in the light of the facts and figures which have been quoted to-day, is too fantastic to be taken seriously. It may be all right for an uninstructed audience at a public meeting, but not for your Lordships.
  Nor is there any truth in the other suggestion, that the industry, under private ownership, has been unwilling to
  1016
  co-operate with the Government in the general interests of the community. On the contrary, it has submitted voluntarily to a very extensive measure of Government control under the Steel Board; and we have it on the authority of Sir Andrew Duncan, to whom Lord Hall has paid a tribute—and so far as I know what he said has not been disputed in any way by the Government—that during the two years in which the Ministry of Supply have exercised control of the industry through the Steel Board there has not been a single complaint
  "…either against the co-operation the industry has given, or against the willingness of the industry to measure up to the full requirements of the public interest."
  That I believe, too, to be the answer to the "strategic" argument which was used by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, this afternoon. He said: "It would be too dangerous from the strategic point of view to leave the steel industry in private hands." I have no reason to suppose that there would not be exactly the same co-operation, if the Government wished it, in this sphere as there has been in other spheres covered by the Steel Board.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, quoted the Minister of Supply as saying—I did not get the words exactly, but the gist of them was—"But all this machinery of co-operation was temporary and futile." That, I think, was the effect of the Minister's remark quoted by Lord Hall. But the noble Viscount adduced no facts to support this view, and I am not surprised, for as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said in his speech that there are, I believe, no economic arguments in favour of making this change, which can tend only to disturb the industry and to reduce output at the very moment when it is most vital that it should be maintained.
  What other arguments do the Government put forward to justify the introduction of this Bill? There is the argument which, to my great surprise, was advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall: that the country, by its votes at the last General Election, demanded nationalisation.
  VISCOUNT HALL: I did not say so.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I understood the noble Viscount to say so. That argument has certainly been used by several of his colleagues in the past, and

  1017
  I understood him to say that to-day—I am sure he said it to-day. Anyhow, I gather that he would agree that he said the country is in favour of this proposal now. I have never heard a more specious argument in my life. Everybody knows—I am going back now to the last Election—that the votes cast against the Socialist Party at that Election greatly exceeded the votes cast in their favour. I want to be perfectly fair. It is, of course true that the anti-Socialist forces, of which the main elements were the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, were divided. That is why the Socialist Party got in. But on this particular issue the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are at one. They both oppose this Bill. It must therefore be concluded by anyone who uses his mind at all that there is a very large majority in this country against this Bill. I was astonished to hear the remark of the noble Viscount, whether he referred to the Election or not, that there is at present a majority in the country in favour of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT HALL: In the course of my speech I did refer to a memorandum which was issued by certain leaders of the Liberal Party which advocated dealing with the nationalisation of steel in exactly the same way as this Bill does. The present Leader of the Liberal Party in another place, had himself admitted that he signed this memorandum.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the Liberal Party and the Labour Party can settle this difference between themselves.
  VISCOUNT HALL: So we did have a majority.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no doubt that anyone who reads the statements of the Liberal Party at the present time will find that they are against this Bill, and that is really what concerns us.
  There remains one single argument, which has been used principally by the Minister of Health and those who share his view. That is, that the industry is too important to be left in private hands. This, with one other reason which I will mention later, is no doubt the real motive behind this measure. It was stated quite definitely by a supporter of the Government on the Third Reading debate on
  1018
  the Bill in another place, a Mr. Evans, I think his name was—I will quote what he said—that
  "Steel and insurance are the citadels of twentieth century power, and no society moving towards a planned economy, can afford to concede autonomy to two such giants within its ranks. I do not think that it is of any good to deny the political implications of this measure and for my part I make no attempt to deny them—nor, indeed, to conceal them."
  Nothing could be more definite than that. I will therefore repeat—and I think everybody really knows it—that the motive is purely political—
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): The motive for what?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The motive for the introduction of this Bill. That motive is purely political, and all those elaborate economic arguments about the necessity for increasing production and the closer integration of the industry and so on are pure "ballyhoo" to deceive the public.
  The inspiration of this Bill is far simpler than that. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who made a most charming speech to us this afternoon, tried to paint a picture of this Bill as if it represented a mild, natural evolution in the production of steel which ought to be as acceptable to Conservatives as it is to Socialists. But, in our view, it is not evolutionary at all; it is definitely revolutionary. It is not, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, tried to indicate, a bar in the way of Communism. It is a definite step towards Communism. It is the latest example of the Marxian doctrine of control by the State of all the means of production, distribution, and exchange. That is what it is. That is the long-range policy which is being imposed by the Government upon this unhappy country. That is the issue before us in Parliament to-day. The Government have already nationalised coal, gas, electricity, road and rail transport, and now they are stretching out their hands to take iron and steel. Then, if they win the next Election—which I am glad to say at this moment looks rather improbable—they will proceed to take over the great insurance companies and thus, through the investments of those companies, secure control of most of the other industries still left in private hands. And so, gradually but inexorably, free institutions and free enterprise are going

  1019
  to be utterly obliterated, and an all-powerful State is going to be set up. I see the Leader of the House smiling.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That then leads me to what I was in any case going to say next. Such is, no doubt, not the intention of most noble Lords opposite. I shrewdly suspect that in their heart of hearts they dislike this Bill just as much as we do. But, as I was bold enough to say on the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill, it is not they, the noble Lords opposite, who dictate the policy of their Party. They are there merely to give an air of respectability to what is in reality a very "shady" concern. I hope that all noble Lords who are sitting on those Benches will search their consciences as to the way things are going.
  Finally, I come to the last motive which I suggest has inspired this Bill to take into public ownership this great and prosperous industry. Perhaps it is not so sinister as that which I have just described, but it is even more "grubby" (if I may use so homely a word). It is a very simple motive: it is the Government's frantic need of money. They are in the position of a young man who has come into a great and wealthy estate and has been occupied during the last three years in the congenial occupation of "blueing" it. Now the Government are coming to an end of their resources, and they are looking about, right and left, for some means of what I believe is called "raising the wind." The cost of the social services is going up by leaps and bounds. The nationalised industries are running at a heavy loss. The cost to consumers is steadily rising. Charges cannot be further raised without causing serious discontent. That discontent is already evident. Taxation has reached a point when the law of diminishing returns is beginning to operate. No wonder the Government are worried! No wonder they are looking round for new sources of revenue!
  One can almost hear the Cabinet saying, "Here in the iron and steel industry we have an industry which seems to be paying very well. Let us take that over." In the old days—and by "the old days" I mean the beginning of this Parliament—it was the unsuccessful industries which were to be nationalised, which were to be given the advantages
  1020
  of public ownership. That was the doctrine which, your Lordships will remember, was enunciated in particular by the Lord President of the Council. But such ideas as that have long gone by the board. To-day it is not the weaker vessels which are to be acquired—there is no money in them; it is the prosperous concerns, such as the iron and steel industry, the insurance industry, and the sugar industry and so on. The best chance that an industry has to-day of remaining in private hands is to be thoroughly unsuccessful and to declare every year a thumping loss. But, my Lords to be more serious, what a dangerous policy it is on which the Government are now embarked! It can result only in discouraging initiative amongst all those who are engaged in industry and commerce. No longer have those people any incentive to do well; it would mean only the confiscation of their business.
  Such, my Lords, is the Bill which we are asked to consider to-day—conceived in the wrong spirit, likely to be deplorable in its results, and actuated as I believe by utterly unworthy motives. Indeed, if I were a racing man (which I am not) I should describe the breeding of this Bill as "by Greed out of Lust of Power"—a word used rather significantly by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in the course of his speech. And if I were to pursue that sporting metaphor just a little further, I should say that the "Lust of Power" strain was very dominant among certain Ministers of the Crown to-day, though I should hope not among those in your Lordships' House. Those Ministers to whom I have referred love power. They think they are competent to manage any great industry, whatever their lack of experience or business capacity; and they say so very loudly.
  The other day I was reading Shakespeare's play, Measure for Measure, and I came across a passage which seemed to me, and still seems to me, to be applicable to the general attitude to life of these particular Ministers to whom I refer. If the language is a little strong, I would ask your Lordships to remember that it is Shakespeare's language and not mine. It is a very well-known quotation, and it runs as follows:
  "…man, proud man,
  Drest in a little brief authority,
  Most ignorant of what he's most assured…
  Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
  As makes the angels weep…"

  1021
  I have no doubt that in that quotation noble Lords opposite will be able to recognise some of their colleagues. At any rate, my Lords, in our view, it is the mentality described in that quotation which produced the Bill with which we are concerned to-day. The question is—and here I come to the gist of my speech—what are we in this House to do about it?
  No doubt there are those in this House who might fairly advocate the propriety of throwing it out now, on the Second Reading, for the purpose of providing a breathing space to enable the British public to give it further consideration before it is passed into law. But, my Lords, I say frankly that I feel very reluctant to advise this particular course if we can avoid it; for though we have no obligation to do so—and indeed in certain circumstances our duty might very well lead us in the opposite direction—we have, in this House since the last Election made it a general practice, when a measure has been on the programme of the Labour Party at the last General Election, to give it a Second Reading and to do our best to amend it and improve it: and, quite frankly, I dislike the idea of altering this general practice for a single Bill, however important, especially if we can achieve what we want—an opportunity for further consideration by the people—by another method. Fortunately, I believe that in this case that is possible.
  What I am going to recommend to your Lordships is this. Let us give this Bill a Second Reading. Let us amend and improve it as best we can on the Committee stage—and, heavens knows, it will need plenty of amendment, for, as Lord Swinton has pointed out, some of the clauses were not discussed at all in another place. And, in particular, let us put in an Amendment that the Bill shall not come into operation until October 1, 1950—that is, after the latest date of the next General Election. That will give the electorate a chance of having another look at it and coming to considered conclusions. If the electorate return the present Government to power, nothing can prevent this Bill coming into law, however pernicious we ourselves may think it. The people will have decided
  1022
  on it. If, on the other hand, the Government are not returned to power at the Election, then it is evident that the people will have rejected nationalisation of iron and steel.
  Nor is there any unreasonable delay involved in the course which I recommend. I would remind the Government that they have left this Bill until the very last months of a dying Parliament, when their mandate is already clearly fading. The earliest possible vesting day under the Government's own Bill is fixed as late as May 1, 1950. I may say, in passing, that I have always thought it rather odd that a Government which prides itself on being democratic should choose the date for the final transfer of shares at just about one month before they must appeal to the people. One would have expected them to postpone the bringing into operation of this Bill until some time after the Election, to ensure that the people were consulted on a matter of this importance. Such, surely, would have been the correct procedure for any democratic Administration. At any rate, my Lords, it is to bring about that result that I now suggest this Amendment. I hope on reconsideration that the Government will consider the propriety of the course which I recommend, and will show themselves willing to accept the Amendment.
  My Lords, in making this proposal I do not for a minute wish to conceal the fact that in our view this Bill, to get which the Government have not scrupled to upset the whole balance of the Constitution, is an unnecessary Bill, a bad Bill, and indeed a thoroughly dangerous Bill. If we had to consult merely our own judgment I have little doubt that we should throw it out on Second Reading. But this is a democratic country—and none of us would wish it different. And in a democratic country the people must decide, or at any rate should decide. It is to give them an opportunity of deciding, on a matter of vital importance to each one of them, that the proposed Amendment is directed. I believe that it is a wise Amendment, and that it is a thoroughly democratic Amendment. As such, as I have said, I hope most sincerely that the Government will feel able to accept it. If they do not, I tell them, here and now, that on that Amendment we shall stand.
  4.50 p.m.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I hope that no noble Lord will feel it necessary to rise in his place and move me out of Order if I do not follow the noble Marquess in his interesting display of dialectical tactics, or indeed discuss at all the Bill which we have before us, but tell your Lordships of a dream I had last night. I dreamed I was reading a story of an unknown island in the Antipodes where, as your Lordships know full well, men walk about upside down and live in a sort of Through the Looking Glass world, which, from our point of view in this country moves backwards instead of forwards. The island to which I am referring, I learned, had the name of "Niatirb." If your Lordships will spell that backwards you will understand its significance. In this island of Niatirb there had been manufactured, for many years, a product of essential national importance, upon which depended the whole economy of the island in peace and, more especially, in war. And because it was recognised that this was so, the industry was owned and controlled by the people as a whole, and it rested upon the Government to lay down the main plan to which it should conform. Profit was not the ultimate motive of the production, but such profit as was earned belonged to the people as a whole. Throughout the island, there were different plants manufacturing specialised forms of the product but all were co-ordinated and fitted into the nationalised plan.
  I regret to say that in my dream I found that a terrible event had taken place in that island. In place of the co-ordinated scheme for the production of this essential product, there came a body of people eager to seize power in the island, and they set about and carried through a revolutionary change. They sold out the property of the nation to a number of individual shareholders; they subjected the industry which had been run hitherto for the national good to the decision of hundreds of thousands of people who held individual shares. But, to meet criticism, they established a negative control by the Government of the island, which enabled the Government to forbid certain things being done but which did not provide the stimulating positive control which the Government had had
  1024
  in the days before. And for a time they were satisfied with that position.
  But, after a little while, they were ousted by a further body of people who claimed that this negative control produced the worst of both worlds and that it was much better to have no control by the Government at all, so that the individual plants throughout the country could be run entirely unco-ordinated by any main Government plan, go each their own individual way and make as much profit as they could for the individual shareholders of these respective plants. So they got rid of the control of the Government, negative though it was, but they still retained a protection in the form of import duties which enabled the industry as a whole to remain a monopoly and to squeeze out or to prevent the incoming of any fresh blood or newcomers into the industry. In that way, as the country urgently needed a certain amount of this product, they were able, by keeping production down and limiting output, to keep up the price so as to ensure that the most inefficient firms in the country paid their way, while the efficient firms could make a substantial profit.
  Time went by, and then a number of people said: "Yes, but this is now a monopoly. We feel that the great benefit of private enterprise is competition, so monopoly must go." And they established competition throughout the whole industry and there were then a number of quite independent isolated plants, up and down the island, from one end to the other, each entirely on its own, each seeking its own advantage, unco-ordinated by any plan either by the Government or by the industry itself, each pursuing its own unregulated way. Then came a number of people who said: "These plants are much too big. We want smaller units." So the units got smaller and smaller, each producing this product in its own way.
  I was pondering upon this wondering what would happen next. Then I saw two things. In the first place, I saw that the arguments which must have been put up against the first main step of taking away from the people of the nation as a whole the right to govern their own essential industry must have been far greater, far more powerful, than the arguments which have been put forward to-day from the other side as against making a change

  1025
  in the opposite direction. I imagine that the counterpart of the noble Marquess who has just spoken must have had far more potent arguments to use than have ever been used in this debate or were used in another place in the debates on the Bill when it went through there. That was the first thing I realised. The second was that once you depart from the main principle that an essential industry of a country must be planned for as a whole, not by the industry itself but by the Government representing the people of the nation, you have taken a fatal step and that the other steps backwards in the production of essential articles are much easier to take and are faced with much weaker arguments.
  I never learned what precisely happened to the industry of the island because at that time, I woke up. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for telling you this story instead of devoting myself to the precise details of the Bill before your Lordships' House.
  5.8 p.m.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I must first of all divulge my interest in the iron and steel industry, with which my family have been closely connected for a good many centuries. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, when he introduced this Bill, referred to the early days of smelting iron using coal instead of charcoal, and he attributed that invention to a Welshman, an ancestor of the noble Viscount, Lord Wimborne. I think that if he is interested enough to refer to the British Iron and Steel Institute, which, as he knows, is the scientific body of the industry, he will find that the official handbook on the subject is a book called Metallum Martis written by an ancestor of mine, a certain "Dud" Dudley, who invented, while still an undergraduate at Oxford, what is virtually the blast-furnace process. In this document he applied to James I for a patent for his process, giving as his reason the depredation of the forests of England for the purpose of making charcoal, which constituted a threat to the shipbuilding industry. I do not wish to adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude, but should there be any royalties still appertaining to this invention, I want to stake my claim.
  VISCOUNT HALL: If the noble Lord would allow me, I certainly do not wish to take from his ancestors any credit to
  1026
  which they are entitled. I dealt solely with the difficulties in South Wales, the district which I know best. I did not cover the whole country because I did not wish to assume a knowledge which I do not possess.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: And I do not wish to take away from South Wales anything which is their due. I have been a member of the Executive Committee of the British Iron and Steel Federation for over twenty years, and chairman of the Corporation since its foundation. I suppose that in the eyes of noble Lords opposite, or at any rate in the eyes of their friends, I am one of the "villains of the piece." I am not in the least ashamed of my record. On the contrary, I am glad to think that in some way, like my family before me, I have contributed to the organisation and development of this great industry, of which the country has every reason to be proud and which provides a lucrative livelihood to millions of citizens in itself and in its ancillary and consuming trades (the average pay packet for all classes of steel workers is now £7 12s.) and which has been brought to its present high level by private enterprise; by the ironmasters, scientists and technicians who have shaped it in the years gone by and up to the present time. That fact is at least recognised by the promoters and supporters of the Bill, and was stressed by the noble Viscount in his opening speech. They propose to do all they can to retain the good will of the industry, to keep the names of the various groups and companies, famous and respected as they are throughout the world, and to disturb as little as possible the present managers, who they know full well are vital to its future welfare. I think that in that respect the Government are nursing a vain hope, and that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, was guilty of a certain amount of wishful thinking in his speech.
  This question of control and management is so important that, in my opinion, it cannot be over-stressed, though it has already been adequately dealt with by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. No business, whether publicly or privately owned, has any hope of success unless it is properly controlled and managed by first-class men, and unless there is a carefully studied chart of decentralisa

  1027
  tion and flexibility from the top. I have known ironmasters all my life. I have worked with them and in competition with them. They have to be of a sturdy, hard-headed sort. They have to know their business, and that takes a life-time. They have to be shrewd, enterprising, bold, diligent taskmasters, ready to take immediate decisions and accept great responsibilities on their own authority, and on theirs alone. They cannot be, nor will they be, replaced or overborne by civil servants, or by people who know nothing about steel making. If under nationalisation they were to be given by the Government the same authority, the same incentives and the same personal responsibilities as they are given by the shareholders now through their boards of directors, the arguments against this Bill on this particular score might not be so strong. But to achieve that we should have to redraft the Bill, because at present it demonstrates that this will not happen.
  The transfer to the Corporation of the ownership of all the Third Schedule companies will produce over-centralisation, uniformity and rigidity, and the enterprise and initiative of the managers will be stifled. They will have no security of tenure, unless they are complete timeservers. Much of the craftsmanship and technical development, for which British industry is justly renowned, has originated in men of strong individuality and personality who are by no means "Yes-men." They are not going to work under the orders of a bureaucratic Corporation; and they will be lost to the industry. So without that firm skilled grip and driving force at the top levels, the efficiency of the industry will deteriorate very rapidly. As regards the lower levels of the management, staff and executives, all those thousands of men who are working their way up to higher and the highest posts, the same arguments apply. They will be frustrated, handicapped, shorn of their ambitions and initiative, subjected to governmental yardsticks and red tape, surrounded by fears and jealousies, and will find themselves unable to give of their best. That has become abundantly clear in those industries which have already been nationalised.
  As regards the workers in the industry, their main concern is their weekly pay
  1028
  packet, their continuity of employment, their conditions and hours, their amenities of work and living, and the opportunities they have for advancement and promotion. Many of them no doubt did think that they might be better off under public, rather than private control; that the Government might prove to be a more lenient and progressive taskmaster than the present managers. But I am quite sure of this: that the majority of those who had that thought in their minds are being sadly disillusioned by the example of other nationalised industries, where the workers find that they fare no better, and in some cases a good deal worse, under the rigid mentality of civil servants. In any case the regulations and agreements over all those matters which I have enumerated in the steel industry, which are so important to the workers as well as to the managers, have been carried out in the past so smoothly by central bodies representing and covering all sections of the industry that the spirit of discontent is almost negligible—the feeling is exemplary so far as good relations in any industry are concerned. Therefore it is right to assume that the number of workers who wish to see this violent change carried out is very much smaller than the supporters of this Bill try to indicate.
  I have never heard it claimed by anyone that any of the great steel-consuming industries is in favour of this Bill. Even taking into account the recent advance in steel prices of some 9 per cent., consequent on the abolition of subsidies on imported raw materials, the prices of practically all kinds of British steel remain lower than those of our Continental and American rivals, as your Lordships have already heard to-day from other speakers. During and since the war all those prices were settled by statutory order, after due examination by an outside control of the industry's costs and profits. They are fixed in relation to the cost of efficient plant. Whereas, according to the Board of Trade figures, the prices of industrial materials and manufactures in April of this year were 142 per cent. above 1938 level, and that of coal was 145 per cent. above, the prices of steel were only 86 per cent. higher than pre-war. Steel consumers know perfectly well that, should this Bill become effective, there will be a very different story of steel prices, and a very different

  1029
  standard as regards quality, service, and delivery. How can the Government then take an impartial view of these matters, as they do now? How can they take an impartial view, when they are the owners and are responsible to Parliament for the profits they make? The profit motive which is present in every man is too strong for the Government to be able to resist having a good balance sheet to read in another place every year when the annual Vote is taken.
  Nor, so far as I know, is there any demand for this Bill from any of those countries which import our steel products, or from which we ourselves buy our essential raw materials and semi-finished products. On the contrary, they are generally strongly antagonistic to it. So far as the United States are concerned, this Bill, if it becomes an effective Act, may do untold harm, not only to the flow of materials upon which the industry so vitally depends, and which has been so carefully nurtured, but to the whole fabric of restoration and rehabilitation in this country which they have placed at our disposal and which is so necessary for our future well-being. The Government ignore all these facts, and claim that they have a definite mandate for the nationalisation of the industry. This question has already been referred to this afternoon, but I think it is one to which your Lordships cannot remain indifferent.
  One of our principal duties is to ensure that legislation proposed by the Government shall not override the will of the nation. I submit that any mandate to which the Labour Party may lay claim at the last Election was secured by false pretences, and that the proposals contained in this Bill go far beyond it. The Labour Party stated their case in one sentence in Let Us Face The Future. They said:
  "Private monopoly has maintained high prices and kept inefficient high cost plants in existence."
  That sentence contains three errors of fact. It is not true that the privately-owned steel industry is or ever has been a monopoly; it is not true that it has maintained high prices; and it is not true that it has of its own volition kept in being high-cost plants. Up to fifteen years ago there cannot have been any question at all of a monopolistic state of affairs or of exaggerated prices. No
  1030
  industry in the world was subject to fiercer competition, and no consumers in the world, unfortunately for our industry, were able to buy more cheaply in relation to costs of production than the consumers of British iron and steel. For fifteen years on end during that period the return on capital employed in the industry did not average more than 2 per cent. But even at that time, in spite of what the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has said, we were able to produce steel, on the whole, more cheaply than they were able to produce it in America.
  Then from 1935 until the outbreak of war no price increases were allowed, except with the approval of a public body—namely, the Import Duties Advisory Committee. So far as the charge of maintaining high-cost plants is concerned, that was fully and adequately dealt with this afternoon by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and I will not follow him in what he said. If it had not been for the war, we should have had then, as we have now (some of it is only in skeleton form, it is true, but it will be completed by next year or the year after), plants all over the country comparable and superior to any in the world. Had it not been for the production in these high-cost plants—which, as your Lordships have been told, were kept in being on the instructions of the Government, and that pre-vision was Fully justified—we should have had to rely to a far greater extent during the war on imported steel from the United States, with all the hazards and dangers which that would have entailed. Indeed the rather unflattering and ungracious remarks from Washington to which the noble Viscount Lord Hall referred—I think rather unnecessarily—show that the United States ought to be very grateful for the production of those surplus plants. The Labour Party are not content only to dispossess us but they always try to blacken our past records in every way they can.
  The British steel industry is not opposing this Bill on political grounds, or because it happens to be Socialistic legislation. We are entirely in favour of any change in administration, control or ownership which we honestly feel would be in the best interests of the country and of consumers. But we fail to see any advantages in the Bill over the present system of private ownership under public

  1031
  control; nor have any spokesmen of the Government yet enumerated them. The partnership between the industry and Government, which has been going on for the past fifteen years, has been a highly successful one. It is ridiculous for the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, to describe it as unregulated and uncontrolled. Its soundness has been proved by the present production of the industry, its comparatively low-price structure, the smoothness of its relationship with labour and the swiftness with which its development plan has been put into operation. Why then disturb this happy relationship? What adequately replaces it in the Bill? If it should be advantageous to give the Iron and Steel Board further powers, then by all means do so. That is perfectly possible, and nobody would have any objections.
  But the Bill we are discussing to-day is not a Bill merely to nationalise iron and steel. It is a Bill to establish a Corporation which will have a virtual monopoly of iron and steel production and distribution; which may determine all its prices without proper protection to the consumer; which may compete with privately-owned companies in many ancillary trades; and which is to have statutory powers to expand itself into numberless activities having no connection whatever with iron and steel. And it is a Bill which enables the Corporation, on account of the wide terms of the Articles of Association of those companies which are being transferred to it under the Third Schedule, to take over virtually the whole of the industry and the services of the country. Do the Socialists really say they have such a wide mandate as that? Do they honestly think that all this is in the best interests of the country, the consumers and the workers? I submit that they have produced an instrument which constitutes the greatest threat to the liberty of the subject seen in this country since the days of the Protectorate, and which is a most dangerous one in the hands of any Government. It is very natural that we in the industry should oppose the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, referred to that opposition, and complained of the fact that the industry had not suggested any amendment to the Government. But he answered his own question later on in his speech by saying that the flow of suggestions from
  1032
  the industry to improve this Bill has been going on continually—through the proper channels, if I may say so, which is the Front Opposition Bench, both in another place and in your Lordships' House. If the noble Viscount reads his paper to-day he will see that some very potent suggestions have been made by the President of the Federation, Sir Ernest Hunter.
  I will take up your Lordships' time for only a few more moments. What can the Government do, once the industry is in their hands, which cannot be done under the present system to secure employment for the workers? That is a vital question, and I think your Lordships should insist on an answer to it during the course of this debate. We are coming to the end of the sellers' market, and in a year or two, when our steel production under the development scheme will be as high as 18,000,000 tons a year, there may be great difficulty in disposing of these products. The Corporation, whatever noble Lords opposite may say, will have no alternative but either to close down some of their works or accumulate huge stocks which nobody wants at a vast cost to the taxpayer.
  The remedy for unemployment in the steel industry does not lie in change of ownership but in a policy which can promote general business stability. To this end, the Bill makes no contribution whatever, and, if anything, may indeed hinder it. Business stability can be promoted if large investment projects are kept in reserve by both public and private authorities for the first sign of a slump. To launch out on considerable capital expenditure when sales are falling takes courage, flexibility, and rapid decisions; and it is a step which can be taken far more easily by privately-owned rather than by publicly-owned industry. Our steel development plan, for example, is greatly threatened at present by a shortage of coking coal. This is due to the hesitant and timorous attitude of the National Coal Board over the question of enlarging its coke oven capacity.
  It would be safe to assume that the new Steel Corporation will be considerably less fitted in every way to discharge the difficult task of exporting our steel products all over the world in falling markets, than the industry as at present organised, with its vast experience of these difficult matters. The existence of

  1033
  a State monopoly—already stressed this afternoon—on the export market may well be very harmful, and that market may tend to look elsewhere for supplies at a moment when we are in the greatest need of foreign currencies. We have seen the difficulties of State monopoly in regard to purchases of meat from the Argentine. It seems a very great pity that this fine industry of ours, like many others, should have fallen into the political cockpit, especially at a time when it is playing such an important rôle in our national economic recovery. It is clear now that its fate hangs upon the decision of the electorate at the forthcoming General Election. I believe that the Socialist Party will have a rude shock when that decision is made, and that their downfall will be largely due to the blunder of trying to bludgeon this Bill through Parliament. Instead of setting forth to pluck the ripe peach—as Dr. Dalton described the spoliation of the steel industry—I think their theme song is much more likely to be the old nursery rhyme:
  "Here we come gathering nuts in May."
  And I believe that it will be for them a very
  "cold and frosty morning."
  In view of the brutal tactics adopted in another place, resulting in the ill-consideration of this Bill, your Lordships will desire to give it the closest study and amendment during its later stages through this House. For the sake of our national welfare I hope that everything will be done to defer the vesting of the industry in the Corporation until the voice of the people is heard again.
  5.35 p.m.
  LORD LLOYD: My Lords, the introduction of this Bill marks, as it were, the opening of the fourth nationalisation season since 1945. These seasons, as your Lordships are only too painfully aware, start every May and close, conveniently, just before the holidays, in order to give the Government time to hatch out the next batch of trouble for the following October. If the Socialist Party is returned at the next Election and they carry out their threat of nationalising industrial insurance, sugar, cement, water and so on, there seems to be every prospect of this becoming a sort of national—or, should I say, nationalised—institution, until either the supply of efficient
  1034
  industries to be nationalised runs out or the country goes bankrupt, whichever comes first.
  A new tradition is growing up, and it seems to me that there is much that is traditional, both in this Bill—in which we have the usual system of expropriating the shareholders, the usual penal legislation against directors, the usual legislation against contracts, and so forth—and also in most of the speeches of noble Lords opposite in support of the measure. As we have come to know, any industry which the Government wish to acquire is always either an undesirable monopoly or grossly inefficient, or sometimes both. As a respecter of tradition, I was very pleased to see the noble Viscount, in introducing this Bill, sticking so valiantly to those time honoured excuses, though I must confess that I felt a certain anxiety for him—and I think he must have felt an unusual anxiety—over the difficulty of marrying his brief with the facts, because, after all, if the industry is inefficient, is it not astonishing that all production records have regularly been broken? On the other hand, if it is an undesirable monopoly, despite twenty-five years of close Government supervision, is it not rather astonishing to find that the best cure for that is to create a larger monopoly? In the circumstances, I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, was wise not to attempt to explain either of those things.
  Equally in keeping with tradition seemed to me his decision not to risk wearying your Lordships by any explanation of how the Bill was going to achieve higher steel production or cheaper prices, or even how the Government were going to produce more coking coal to permit that higher steel production. Nevertheless, although we appreciate his consideration in this matter, the explanation did seem to me to be rather an important one, because, as has already been pointed out by a number of noble Lords, the Bill disrupts the whole of the existing relationship of the industry with the Government and the whole of the internal structure of the industry. On the one hand, it is proposed to abandon the whole system of partnership between Government and industry, the fruit of twenty-five years' experience which has never failed the country, either in war or peace. Here again, I think the noble Viscount was going a little far when

  1035
  he said that the Government could not trust private enterprise with an industry of such vital national security. We have had no experience of nationalisation of this industry, but we have had experience of this industry in the war years between 1939 and 1945, and it served the country admirably. On the other hand, it is proposed to mutilate and distort the whole framework of this great and vital industry.
  As has been pointed out, there is no logic in this Bill. It would have been logical, if possibly unwise, for the Government to nationalise all firms producing iron and steel as opposed to finished iron and steel products—for example, tennis racquets, curtain rails, parts of electric irons, parts of golf clubs, kegs, drums and umbrella frames, to mention a few of the more fantastic. Apart from logic, this would have the merit of complying with such a mandate as the Government claim to possess. In point of fact, this is not a Bill to nationalise any coherent section of the industry; it is a Bill to nationalise a certain number of firms.
  In the circumstances, therefore, I felt that such an explanation from the noble Viscount was something which we had a right to demand, because it is the only possible justification for the Bill. Yet, despite the economic crisis, despite the failure of other nationalised industries, despite the lack of proper mandate, despite the disruption and dislocation which the Bill must occasion, we had no explanation whatsoever from the noble Viscount. So far as I can make out, the magic word "nationalisation" was good enough for him. It seemed to me that when he said that nationalisation would lessen the severity of trade depressions, his ideas of what nationalisation might achieve were really very extravagant. Nationalisation is apparently the magic cure-all. It is good enough for him, but I wonder whether it will be good enough for your Lordships. Certainly it is not good enough for me, for it seems to me a most reckless gamble and one which is likely to imperil the whole of our economic recovery.
  Now a great deal has already been said about the iron and steel industry itself, but very little has yet been said about the effect that this Bill is going to have on various other people who are not
  1036
  actually nationalised—and, of course, the Bill extends over a very wide area of British industry. As your Lordships are aware, it extends to the small producers of the Second Schedule products, none of whom are going to be allowed to operate except by the Minister's consent and on terms imposed by him. Those small producers who are already in operation will, under Clause 30, have to limit their production, while new entrants under Clause 29 may not only have to limit their production but may be restricted as to whom they may sell their products. In any case, licences may be for only a limited period—quite regardless of the capital involved. In other words, these people are to be allowed to exist so long as there is no danger of their competing seriously with the new monopoly—a curious provision in view of the Government's apparent confidence in their superior efficiency.
  I turn now to consumers, whose interests in this Bill, as in other nationalisation Bills, are the last to be considered. In this case their interest is mine, since I am in fact a director of a company of structural engineers who are large consumers of steel. As your Lordships are aware, many consumers are also producers of finished steel products, and if this Bill becomes law they will find themselves in direct competition with publicly-owned companies. Now, competition with a large monopoly is difficult enough anyway. It is all the more vital, therefore, that this competition should be fair; and yet, when we look at the Bill, we find there is a whole maze of difficulties which will stand in the way of the private competitor. To begin with, under Clause 7 he may never even start at all, because his works may be compulsorily acquired by the Corporation, without any ado. If he survives that danger he is still dependent on the Corporation for all the raw materials, of which the Corporation will have an effective monopoly. If the Corporation are unwilling to supply either the quantity or the quality required, he will be out of business in a few weeks. If he escapes acquisition under Clause 7 and obtains adequate supplies of steel, he will still have to pay the price which the Corporation, under Clause 3, can fix without any reference to anybody. Since the Corporation will have a monopoly of intermediate products it is not difficult to see that by fixing the prices for those

  1037
  products as high as possible they will undercut their private competitors in the market for finished products and still comply with the provision of having to make both ends meet, taking one year with another. In addition publicly-owned companies will be financed at gilt-edged rates and will have tax advantages, in that no profits tax will be payable on dividends paid to the Corporation.
  The only safeguard will be the Consumers' Council. I was astonished to hear from the noble Viscount that the consumers' representatives had withdrawn their objection to this Council. I shall be interested to hear when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House replies, whether that is indeed a fact. Obviously, the consumers are completely at the mercy of this new monopoly, and the prospects of fair competition are remote. In the circumstances the Minister's remarks on this point are really astonishing. He said:
  "I can see no harm in the possession by the Corporation of the shares of closely-linked engineering or other firms who are now the subsidiaries of iron and steel companies.…Critics suggest that is it undesirable for a publicly-owned company to be in competition with a privately-owned company. On the contrary, this is likely to be highly beneficial, in that both the publicly- and the privately-owned companies will be subjected to the competition of each other. What is wrong with that? Do people fear that private industry cannot withstand the superior efficiency of public industry?"
  Those were the words of the Minister. Of course, private industry does not fear such competition provided it is fair. The only thing that is wrong, it seems to me, is the Government's idea of fair competition, which is that competition is fair only if all the cards are previously stacked by the Government in their own hands. We shall no doubt be told that none of these things will happen and that we must trust the assurances of the Government. But, quite apart from the fact that no Government can bind their successors, it seems to me that the industry's confidence in the Government must be shattered by the breach of the undertaking given in 1946 to ensure proper allowance being made in compensation for expenditure on approved development schemes. In any case, why should the industry trust the Government, seeing that the Government shows no disposition to trust the industry? Look at the pro
  1038
  visions about directors, the disclaimer of agreements, and so forth. There is no indication of good faith on the Government's side. Why should the industry show this faith when it is not extended to them? If the Minister really has this glowing faith in the beneficial results of fair competition, let him demonstrate it, not by vague assurances but by accepting suitable Amendments to this Bill.
  As I have said, this is the fourth nationalisation season. During the last four years we have witnessed a series of these Bills—and we have seen the results. Despite the failure of nationalisation in every other country where it has been tried, I was still not entirely unsympathetic towards the Government's original experiment of nationalising coal, provided it was clearly regarded as nothing more than an experiment. Having witnessed the depressing results of that experiment, one would have hoped that it would have become generally recognised that whatever the shortcoming of any particular industry, no remedy could be expected from nationalisation. Even if we make allowance for the fact that the Government's powers of perception are definitely sub-normal, we might have hoped that, after nationalising coal, civil aviation, transport, electricity and gas, it would at last have been borne in upon them that nationalisation raises prices, lowers output per man-hour, and eliminates profit—a fact of which an increasing number of consumers are becoming only too painfully aware.
  This Bill is the most illogical, unnecessary and reckless of all these Bills. It shows that the Government have still to learn their lesson. If one is charitable one questions their sanity; if one is less charitable, their motives. My belief, however, is that even if the Government have not learnt, the people have. I do not believe that the people understood the implications of this measure at the General Election. I do not believe that the people want this Bill to-day. If they do want it, why are the Government so anxious to rush it through before they have a chance to express their opinion? I hope that this manœuvre of the Government's will be circumvented; and I am sure that if it is, the great sanity of the British people will prevail and that this futile measure will never reach the Statute Book.
  5.50 p.m.
  LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I ask your kind indulgence for a few moments, for two reasons. One of these may perhaps not be unknown to some of your Lordships. The other is that I felt it might not be inopportune if I were to say a few words on the subject of compensation prices. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, did not go into the question of compensation prices, and I am bound to say that I am hardly surprised that he did not. I hope that I shall not be guilty of repetition. The subject of these compensation prices can be dealt with by other noble Lords far more ably than by me, but I felt that I should not be out of place if I were to speak from personal experience and try to throw what weight I can in the matter, having particular regard to the fact that I am a member of the Council of the London Stock Exchange.
  The prices quoted in the Stock Exchange Daily Official List are based on dealings which take place from day to day in an open and free market between a willing buyer and a willing seller. It may be that A has bought fifty shares from B, or that C has sold 500 shares to D. It is the business done which creates the official quotation, and not the quotation which governs the prices at which dealings will take place. In the present case, as we all know, there is no question of a willing buyer and a willing seller. There may be a willing buyer, of course: the buyer has a gun in his hand. But the seller is certainly very far from willing. In addition to this, I think it will be appreciated that the ordinary daily deals which take place on the market are one thing. The whole basis of prices may become very different when one is dealing in a large number of shares. In fact, without wishing to detain your Lordships with technical details, I may say that we have a particular symbol which is placed against a price where an unusual number of shares are involved, and we call that "marking the bargain at a special price."
  When it comes to the case of buying and selling a whole business, however, the Stock Exchange Official List is no criterion whatsoever for a deal of such magnitude. A strong protest was lodged in the proper quarter by the Stock Exchange Council at the time of the nationalisation of the railways. No
  1040
  further action was taken with regard to electricity stocks because it was felt then that no fresh argument could be advanced; but, in the case of the iron and steel companies, a new and much more sinister element has crept in—I refer, of course, to dividend limitation. At the time when these proposals were first made public, we forwarded a further memorandum to the Minister. This memorandum appeared in the Press, and the contents of it may be known to a number of your Lordships. If I may, however, I should like to read just one sentence, which is as follows:
  "The Council feel it to be their duty, on behalf of the very large number of stock and share holders involved, to make the strongest possible protest against the use, as a basis for compensation, of Stock Exchange prices which have been artificially held down as a result of voluntary co-operation with the policy of His Majesty's Government which is now to take powers for compulsory purchase on its own terms."
  Is it to be wondered at that from week to week we see certain companies in the other threatened industries tending to increase their dividends? Is it to be wondered at that the directors are doing what they can to try to obtain a reasonably fair deal for their stockholders before they are silenced for ever?
  Perhaps the worst feature of this shabby deal is that the limit upon dividends, and therefore the artificial prices which have been established, was not brought about by legislation. No, my Lords, what makes the Bill so shocking to all that we used to stand for in this country and in the City of London, is that the limitation of which advantage is being taken was arrived at by a voluntary and honourable agreement. In my business, I am glad to say, we still have power, if a firm with whom we are dealing does a thing like that, never to deal with that firm again.
  5.56 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I feel honoured to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, who has given us such a thoughtful and interesting speech. I am sure that we all hope that we shall have his great knowledge of financial affairs placed at our disposal on many occasions in the future. But, of course, he and all the Stock Exchange may be entirely wrong, because I understand from some of the noble Lords opposite that the less the dividend the higher the

  1041
  price of the share. Be that as it may, to come to the main theme of my speech, I want to say a few words about the effect of this Bill upon the consumer. I do not think it is a point of view that has been sufficiently emphasised. Of course, as other noble Lords have said, a very large proportion of the industries of this country are consumers of steel. In fact, one noble Lord stated that no less than 50 per cent. of our exports depended upon steel products.
  I think that one should look at the extremely wide range of steel products. For instance, take steel wire, which ranges from hair pins to the steel used in reinforced concrete, for wire fencing and in the hawsers of great ships which we used when I was in the Navy. Steel tubes range from the largest pipes used for hydro-electric schemes down to the hypodermic needle used by the doctor. I do not think I have ever heard of any consumer who felt that he would be better off under nationalisation. Did the Government approach any of the consumers' organisations to ascertain their views before they introduced this Bill? No, of course they did not! One can well imagine why this was not done. The result would scarcely have been calculated to strengthen the case for nationalisation!
  Mention has been made of Clause 6, which we have been told by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, will completely look after the consumers' interests. I very much doubt it, and I know that the consumers are not at all satisfied. Many people are apt to forget that steel is an infinitely variable product. A consumer who uses over 1,000 tons of steel a week wrote to me recently as follows:
  "We naturally consume many different classes of steel, even if they are all bought in the same outward form, and buy from many different steel-makers. Years of experience have shown us that steel-maker A produces the best steel for one purpose, steel-maker B for another, steel-maker C for a third, while steel-maker D is perhaps mainly engaged in certain of the many ramifications of the steel trade which really preclude him from producing anything which is generally suitable for us."
  There is, of course, the closest co-operation between the supplier and the consumer, not only between commercial representatives, but between their metallurgists and their production men. If the consumer requires steel of a special analysis the reason for this is explained
  1042
  to the steel-maker and he fully understands the position.
  My Lords, I am afraid that consumers are very nervous that when they have to deal with this Steel Corporation it will probably be necessary for them to fill in numerous forms if they require any steel outside the ordinary run. One consumer said to me the other day, "Our customers buy from us not because they like us (although I hope they do), but because we have made a study of their requirements and know what they want. So we, in turn, have spread our orders amongst various steel-makers as they are best able to serve us." The Government say that they do not intend to disturb the entity of existing firms and existing trade relations. If that is so, why on earth nationalise the industry? The nationalisation of the coal industry brought about an almost immediate deterioration in the quality of coal. The consumer is very much afraid that the same thing will happen with steel. He fears that instead of getting the type of steel he wants he will be told what he is going to get—which situation will mean, of course, that the quality of many kinds of steel products will, in turn, deteriorate.
  I should like to turn for a moment to an entirely different aspect of the situation, and one with which the Party to which noble Lords opposite belong have made a great deal of play—I refer to the attitude of the steel-worker towards nationalisation. It has been said that there will be demoralisation among a large section of the workers if the Steel Bill fails to go through. My Lords, what has happened in the past? As practically every speaker has said this afternoon, the steel industry has been singularly free from labour troubles. Does this indicate that the working man in the steel industry mistrusts the boss? On the contrary.
  To illustrate that, I should like to tell your Lordships of an incident which occurred recently in a large steelworks. This steelworks has a sports club and playing fields which are run by a committee for the use of their workers. Recently the committee asked to see the managing director, and they asked him whether it would be possible to purchase their club and playing fields from the company. They qualified their request with this remark: "We should like to

  1043
  get this fixed up, sir, before this nationalisation business starts. We know where we are with you, sir; we are sure we shall get a square deal." Another steel firm that I know took an unofficial ballot amongst the men in the various shops, as to whether or not they were in favour of nationalisation. All the shops, except one, voted for a continuation of the present régime. It was rather interesting to note the reason given by the one shop which was in favour of nationalisation; it was very illuminating indeed. The reason given was this, "We shall not have so much of this nonsense about increased production when we are working for the Government."
  My Lords, I have no connection with the steel industry, but I have taken the opportunity of seeing and hearing something about it during the past few months. Only a few weeks ago I was present when a new and most ingenious ore-loading and grading plant was started up for the first time. It was a magnificent project, and this one contract cost somewhere in the region of £1,750,000. Here is a shining example to refute the allegation that the steel industry has not done its best to modernise equipment and put its house in order. I personally am quite satisfied that we have an efficient and well-run steel industry, and that the Government have adequate powers for controlling both price and production. This whole vast machine is working smoothly, and at full throttle. For heaven's sake, leave it alone to get on with the job!
  6.6 p.m.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, in speaking on this Bill I should, as I have done before, declare my connection with one of the companies proposed to be taken over. It is becoming almost a matter of routine with me to have to do this. I speak also with some knowledge of industrial conditions connected with steel making, and with the needs of industrial consumers of steel. I find it difficult to approach this Bill in the same way as many of your Lordships did the earlier nationalisation Bills. Then there was a fairly clear case to be made in each case, there being a public utility, a need for co-ordinating skilled services in gas and electricity, and matters of that sort; so that, even though not convinced of the virtues of nationalisation until they had
  1044
  been tried, one was willing to say that there was at any rate a case for it, and that the proper procedure for us in this House to adopt was to amend the Bills in Committee, so far as we could, in an honest attempt to make them work. We spent a lot of time doing that and one or two noble Lords who speak for the Government from time to time have been good enough to say that in that process the work of this House was very useful.
  This Bill, however, seems to me to be entirely different, because I cannot yet see any real justification for its introduction. One has heard many arguments, publicly spoken and written about, of the necessity for public ownership of steel, some of them based on political theory, some on misconception—and some, perhaps, merely wishes, which were not based on very great knowledge. I was careful to listen to the reasons advanced by the noble Viscount who introduced the Bill this afternoon, the chief of which, if I understood him aright, were as follows. One thing that he made a great point of was the importance of steel-making for the defence of industries. He did not, however, elaborate that proposition and he did not, I think, say anything about the failure of the steel industry in the past to meet the programme of munitions required for defence. In fact, I think I am right in saying that he, with others of your Lordships, congratulated the industry on its output and its performance.
  Furthermore, even supposing the steel industry as at present constituted and organised had not done as much during the war, or had not before the war prepared itself as it should, it was, and still is, open to the Government at any time to take steps to improve the performance in that direction. They could have made suggestions before the war through the Import Duties Advisory Committee, through the Iron and Steel Control during the war, or through the Iron and Steel Board in the last two or three years. Such suggestions could have been in the form of very strong pressure on the industry, either as a whole or in part, to install certain plant and to carry out certain operations. If necessary, had there been no commercial demand to justify the production which might have been proposed, there could have been methods of Government supply

  1045
  or raising of capital to meet what they considered to be the special needs of the State for munitions production, as opposed to the ordinary commercial demand. Further, there could have been put into operation the system which was used during the war when the Government owned and operated plants working in parallel. Had that been done on a purely commercial basis, it would have been possible to see how different kinds of operation in industry would work out.
  The noble Lord also referred to the question of monopoly. I think he said that this was too important an industry to leave in the hands of a monopoly. In saying that, I thought that he had forgotten the implications of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act, which has recently become law. I believe that he has overstated the closeness with which the industry is organised. The price-fixing machinery, which is I think the key to monopoly control, is, and has been for a good many years, operated by, in conjunction with and at the direction and guidance from time to time of the Ministry of Supply or their agents. To me the essence of a monopoly is that it can restrict production and can force prices up; that by agreement it can refuse to sell below a certain price. At the present time we have, on the one hand, the consumer wanting cheap and plentiful supplies of steel and, on the other, we have the producers in what is called a monopoly, organised in what is called a Federation, with the Ministry of Supply or the Iron and Steel Board, whichever it may be, in between. It seems to me that there is there such protection against the bad effects of monopoly that we are in danger of getting into a worse monopoly in which, owing to the ownership of companies by the Iron and Steel Corporation, we shall have price fixing, on the one hand, and the consumer on the other hand, without a third party, in the person of the Government, to whom appeal can be made. I leave aside for a moment the protection of the-Consumers' Council, which I think experience in other industries has shown to be at any rate somewhat illusory.
  The noble Viscount referred to the difficulty of finding finance to carry out the development programme of the Iron and Steel Federation. I think it is agreed that the programme produced in 1945
  1046
  then met the views of the industry, and of the Government's planning agencies, as to the total need, in terms of tonnage, of the various products required annually after the next few years. Subsequent developments have shown that the capacity provided will slightly exceed, by reason of various adjustments which have since been made, the amount then proposed. The noble Viscount quoted a figure which was estimated for the cost of this development work as stated in the Report of the Iron and Steel Federation. The programme was to cost £168,000,000 and to take seven-and-a-half years. That, of course, was at prices current in 1945. The noble Viscount said—I think rightly—that it was more than likely that those prices now would add up to something around £250,000,000; and he referred to the method of financing one or two of the enterprises which are now getting going with their development work.
  He also said that although the steel industry had produced a record quantity of steel products during the last year or two, and had largely met the nation's needs during the war, it was not so efficient or so up-to-date as it might have been. I think he implied that before the war the rate of capital investment in equipment in the industry was not so high as it should have been. I would refer to the very simple summary of that expenditure which is contained in the Report of the Federation in the same part where they discuss the total cost of the present development programme. They say that on the average—and an average is, of course, apt to be a little deceptive—the industry spent £6,250,000 a year for the last eight years before the war. That gives a total of £50,000,000 for the eight years. And to get the same amount of machinery and equipment in 1945 would probably cost double as much as before the war—I refer to 1945 because that was the date of the Iron and Steel Federation Report.
  The plan, outlined in the Report was for re-equipment at the rate of £22,500,000 for seven-and-a-half years. The Report then goes on to discuss the amount which the Federation think can be found in the industry. I feel that those figures are of interest because they show, first, that, taking pre-war rates of re-equipment, the comparable expenditure by the whole industry in post-war terms was about £12,000,000—which is

  1047
  not far behind the estimated amount of £22,000,000 a year required for the same number of years to re-equip the industry following a period when the industry was very heavily worked and no replacements were possible. I think those figures tend to show that the industry was not by any means so guilty of failure to keep itself up to date as has sometimes been suggested.
  I have tried to understand how this Bill is going to work, and what will be its effects on the industry. Functionally, I have the greatest difficulty in seeing what will happen. It is clear that the Corporation will acquire the shares of the companies listed, and that the Corporation will be responsible to the Minister for policy on all the general matters, but that they will not operate any steelmaking plant except through their ownership of the companies. Nowhere in the Bill is there any connection between the Corporation and the companies, except that the Corporation will be the only shareholder and have the right or power to call a special meeting of a company at which resolutions may be passed to decide a particular matter. So, I take it, that the companies will go on operating, will go on doing what they think best and, suddenly, the Corporation, represented by one person—as is certainly scheduled—
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Why does the noble Lord say "suddenly"?
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: It might take long, or it might, so far as one can see, happen at any moment. The Corporation can call a special general meeting and then dismiss the people in charge of the company. That seems to me a sanction. I am not suggesting that it would by any means be the normal procedure, but if it were it would be too impossible to contemplate. It strikes me as a little odd that nothing is included in the Bill to show any means whereby the Corporation can control the companies they own except by that one procedure. It makes it look as if security of tenure for the people who are operating the companies might in certain circumstances be a little uncertain.
  I think this Bill suffers from the same fault as other nationalisation Bills, in that it seeks again to centralise authority
  1048
  into one body. I am convinced that in every form of undertaking, whether producing steel, coal or anything else, there is an optimum size of organisation which can be operated with success and efficiency. I fear very much that changes of this sort may tend to increase the size of units. The smaller units which are allowed to make Second Schedule products, so far as one can see, must always stay at this low level of production, because they can get a licence only for an unspecified period; they will have no guarantee of operation at whatever level it may be; and there is in that a great risk of preventing the growth of small undertakings. In the past small units have often been the most successful in producing new ideas and working out new principles. It seems to me that there is on the one hand a danger of bigger firms being centralised into too big units, and on the other hand a danger of smaller firms being forced to remain too small.
  I am puzzled about Clause 3, which deals with the protection of the consumers. Second Reading is not the occasion on which to go into details of this sort, but I see in Clause 3 the greatest opportunity for a Corporation that do not wish to be entirely fair to their consumers to do exactly what they like. It would seem that companies owned by the Corporation may sell to consumers whatever category of products they like at any price. Even if Clause 3 applied to publicly-owned companies, the question to my mind is not so much discrimination between one consumer and another, but discrimination between the consumers of an intermediary product (which may be a Second Schedule product) who are outside consumers, and consumers who are owned by the Corporation. The Corporation might be selling billets for re-rolling to one of their own companies at any price they like to mention, and that company, in association with other companies and through the Steel Corporation, can easily make the price of billets almost anything they like, so that they may put up the price and take the profits on the sale for themselves. That would be a considerable handicap on their competitors.
  One of the old arguments of the steel business is when is the right point in the chain of production to take the profit on any product, and what margin is allowed

  1049
  on each process. There may be unlimited opportunities under this clause for an unscrupulous Corporation, if there be such, or for anyone directed by a Government or a Minister, to do infinite harm to many manufacturing industries. I feel that this Bill may bring into the steel industry all sorts of semi-political considerations which are not there now. The present atmosphere between employers and employed in the industry is very good. Wage negotiations work on a complicated but very rational system and I hope very much that that will not be disturbed. I will not say more on that point than that in other industries which have been nationalised there are as yet no signs that they are going to be on a better basis than private industry in that respect. I should deplore anything which would lead to such a risk in the steel industry as well.
  There are further points in the Bill which I think are of danger—for example, the effect on foreign sales. Most of the exports of the steel industry are of manufactured and further processed materials rather than of iron and steel as products themselves. I think it is in the interests of this country to process and manufacture from our steel to the highest degree of finish, so that we can get as much as possible from our exports. That means that we must concentrate more on capital goods for the industries of other countries, and these goods are subject to severe competition and must not run the risk of there being a further range of prices.
  One matter which does not come directly into the Bill but which I think is going to cause a great deal of difficulty is the question of the location of steel-works. There will come a time—in fact, there already have been cases—when, under the new development plan, difficult problems of the location of steel-works will have to be decided. The economy of steel-making depends on the siting of a plant in relation to its supplies of coking coal or coke and ore and on whether we import high grade ore by sea or use basic ore from this country, and all of those points are connected with the type of product sold and the distance from probable markets. It is an extremely complicated question when taken as a purely economic calculation on its own, but when it is argued, as it has to be, in relation to the needs of the public and in the sense of the needs of the people who are employed in
  1050
  the steel industry, it becomes even more difficult. I have come to the conclusion that, difficult question though it must be, it is bound to arise some time or another in the future.
  Suppose that the time comes for the closing of a fairly large steel undertaking on economic grounds. That decision as to the economics of the industry should surely be taken on its own merits, but any action that might result should not be taken without regard to the social factors involved, such as unemployment and distance from work. I would be the last to suggest that such factors should be ignored. It is far better that the Government should be in a position as an over-riding authority, to step in and say to a certain undertaking that they must not close their steel-works because of the work provided and the men's livelihood. It is far easier for the Government either to make special arrangements with such a company on their own financial footing or to make other arrangements for the men to be given employment elsewhere.
  It will be very difficult for a Corporation belonging to the public and directed by a Minister even to entertain the possibility of a change in the volume of employment in any place. To my mind, there are clear signs that the same difficulty is already appearing in the future plans of the National Coal Board. They have, I understand, extensive plans for reorganisation re-equipment and re-development. Where a part of the coalfield works out and they work up towards another area, they want to increase production at one pit and other pits have to be closed. There is then the difficulty of a nationalised body being, as it were, part of the Government, and it is not easy for them to carry out such proposals.
  On that sort of subject, in connection with steel-making I feel it would not be inappropriate to refer briefly to the history of what happened in the town of Jarrow. It is an old story, and it has often been told wrongly. There was the case of a town which had grown up around the industry of shipbuilding, which later developed its own steel works. It was an industry started in the second half of the nineteenth century, when this country was expanding production; we were going through the end of the Industrial Revolution, and becoming the supplier to the world of capital goods,

  1051
  ships, coal and steel. It so happened that after the First World War, when this country began to feel the intense competition of other manufacturers of products of this kind, competition in the export of coal, and so on, the whole of the areas where heavy industry had grown up got into serious difficulties and became known as "special areas." Jarrow was one of the places that suffered most. It must have been very difficult for any one to decide to cease production there.
  The point I wish to emphasise is not so much that fact but the efforts which were made to start a new undertaking in the area. It became almost a burning political question, and there was a tendency to overlook the facts of the case. There had been a shipyard, building relatively small ships, which had gradually expanded to build big ones; and there had been a small steel-works there. There was room for very little more, but there was a suggestion, which was widely canvassed, that a modern, fully integrated steel-works should be built there. This was the subject of much discussion; Committees were appointed, and so on. It was clearly a case of the industry having grown too large for the place, because when the scheme was examined by a consulting engineer with experience, and definite plans were put in hand, three things at once became obvious. One was that there was not room on the site without pulling down part of the town; the second was that the transport facilities by rail were totally inadequate for getting the products away; and the third that a great deal of reconstruction of the dock would be necessary. There was no doubt whatever that a modern steel-works could not be put there. I do not suppose that in 1935 or 1936, when this was considered, anybody would have contemplated that it was economical to put up a steel-works to produce less than 300,000 to 400,000 tons a year.
  The interesting thing, however, was that it did raise the question—which was taken up by the Import Duties Advisory Committee, who then had a good deal of control over relations with the governing Federation—as to whether the Government should not take part in such a decision. That seems to have been clearly right. That principle was established then, and has been carried on since. In actual
  1052
  fact, a subsequent development there was to build a modern processing plant—though it has not a re-rolling plant—which is as modern as any in the country. Indeed, had it not been for the war there would have been developed a number of ancillary products—as there probably are now. Therefore, I think the right solution was reached. It taught the practical lesson that it is quite possible for an economic decision to be taken on its own merits, and for the machinery to be developed by the Government, with the Ministry of Supply, the Iron and Steel Control or the Board to vary it for quite different reasons. It seems to me that that is necessary, but it is something which must be kept on its own footing.
  There is one point about which I feel a little uncertain and which I do not think was mentioned by the noble Viscount who introduced the Bill, although I have seen it dealt with by other Government sources—namely, that although the Iron and Steel Board have ample powers to see that the firms in the steel industry do not build or spend money without their approval, they have not the authority to force any expenditure which the Government think is necessary. They say it is only a one-way control, whereas two-way control is necessary. That seems to me to rest rather on a fallacy because, so far as I know, there are no records of a lack of desire on the part of the firms to rebuild or repair. In fact the opposite is the case; most of the firms in the industry, I believe, are anxious to get on with their rebuilding plans. If that is now said on behalf of the Government, I would like to know whether it is based on any experience of anything that has happened, or only on the belief that something may happen.
  There are many things in this Bill which are difficult to understand. First, as I have said, it is difficult to understand for what reason it is introduced. I was very much impressed by the speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition on that point, and also with his advice to give the Bill a Second Reading. Had he not spoken so convincingly, I should have felt very dismayed indeed at the idea of this Bill being given a Second Reading. I feel that it has been regarded as a political expedient, and that it runs the risk of damaging an important industry. If there is to be a Bill to increase the control of the Government

  1053
  over steel-making, let it be a different Bill from this; one more precise in its implication, and confining its activities to a narrower range.
  6.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, an immense amount of interest has been taken in this Bill up and down the country, and small wonder, because it intimately affects the great engineering industry, the shipbuilding industry, the structural steel industry and a variety of other industries which use steel as a raw material. As has been pointed out during the debate, steel forms one of the most important of our exports at the present time. Anything that will interfere with the flow of steel materials in the export trade will be bound to react most seriously on the economic position of the country. It came as a great shock when this Bill was given such abrupt treatment in another place, because many of the clauses which were ruthlessly guillotined should have been carefully examined and might have improved this very unsatisfactory Bill. It is almost as if the Government were determined to get the Bill through at any cost and as if industry did not matter. They had to satisfy certain of their followers, and a Bill of some kind or another, whether good or bad, was all that mattered.
  It has been pointed out that we have had a number of nationalisation Bills during the last four years. This Bill more nearly approaches the Coal Bill in the type of industry it is sought to nationalise, because the other industries—transport, gas and electricity—were industries which were protected to a certain extent by franchise in the area in which they operated, and in that way were protected from competition by rival undertakings. The coal industry consisted of many independent companies, all to a certain extent competing with one another, and at the same time with a certain overriding control. The Coal Bill was advocated in your Lordships' House and elsewhere as being a measure which would appeal to the miners, who at the time were very dissatisfied with the conditions in the coal mines. As we all know, there has been a great deal of labour trouble up and down the country. We were told that the miners would welcome working for a benevolent State and that they disliked intensely working for the hard-hearted
  1054
  and wicked owners. What has happened? We have seen this benevolent State throwing off its cloak of benevolence and acting as a dictator, doing things in the coal industry which no private individual would dare to do. We see the miners beginning to think that the hard-hearted and wicked owners were not quite so bad as they were made out to be in the old days.
  We were told that one of the reasons why the Coal Bill should be passed was that the system was inefficient, and that all that had to be done was to nationalise the mines and a great change would come over the scene: coal would be produced in greater quantities, of better quality and at no increased price. In fact we were informed that we were on the threshhold of a golden age. Now what has happened? We know the miners are dissatisfied, and that conditions are nothing like they were made to understand they would be. And what about the price in cut coal which, in the end, is the standard of efficiency? Instead of a golden age we are rapidly going back into the dark ages. I have to pay 84s. a ton for coal in the West Country, and I am now told that it is going to be put up another 12s. a ton. I feel that when we are asked to consider the efficiency of a nationalised industry we must be careful to remember these facts.
  This Bill is put forward by the same Government who recommended to us the nationalisation of coal, and on that account we must look upon it with the greatest care. I submit that there is no industry in the country more complicated than the iron and steel industry, and no industry less suited for nationalisation. On the iron side there is mining and the melting, and then you have to take into serious consideration whether to use low grade ore or high grade ore. You have to consider the location of the industry, you have to consider transport and you have to consider the sources of your supply. These are all matters which can be dealt with only by people well versed in the industry, and they are not in any way suitable to be dealt with by a Government department, which is really what the Steel Board will become. On the steel side there is an infinitely greater complexity than the complexity on the iron side. Steels differ greatly in chemical composition and in physical properties.

  1055
  On the one side there are low grade carbon steels, which are made in great quantities and which form the greater part of the output. At the other end there are the high alloy steels, the steels alloyed with all sorts of elements—nickel, chronium, molybdenum, tungsten, and so forth. Steel of this character requires greater flexibility and experience of treatment. Steels used for biscuit tins are different from steels used in crankshafts or wireless magnets.
  The engineer is always making fresh demands upon the steel industry to meet new specifications and, as we all know, one of the latest triumphs has been the steel blades for gas turbines for jet aircraft, without which it would not have been possible for any of those aircraft to fly. All these products are required in an endless variety of shapes and sizes—sheets, section plates from rolling mill, forgings from the great hydraulic presses, small forgings from the drop stamps, and so on. To melt the steel there are the great 100-ton open-hearth furnaces, used chiefly to supply ingots for the rolling mills, some using hot metal, some using cold scrap. To-day, as those interested know, the Bessemer steel-making process is returning to this country after many years absence. For many years now it has been adopted on the Continent under the name of the Thomas process, and it is now coming back to this country, for reasons which I do not think I need explain.
  Another interesting point in connection with the steel industry is that over 5 per cent. of the steel used at the present time in this country comes from electric furnaces. These steels, of course, are extremely costly, but they are absolutely vital for the particular purpose to which they must be applied. Surely for such an industry as this, with its immense complexity in its different technical aspects, to fall under the dead hand of nationalisation, will lead only to the industry becoming mediocre in its outlook. It will play always for safety first, which will prevent these new developments coming forward as they are doing at the present time.
  The Bill seeks to do more than that. If your Lordships turn to the Second Schedule, you will see mentioned there only casting and rolling, but by implication this Bill takes over all the great forges
  1056
  in this country. The three biggest hydraulic presses in the country will become nationalised by the Bill. The forging for every big turbo alternator, if this Bill becomes law, must come out of a nationalised factory. So must every big high-pressure chemical reaction chamber. A large proportion of the heavy engineering industry is going to be nationalised as well. All the biggest forging presses in the country will also come under nationalisation. The machines in these big forging shops are heavier than those found elsewhere. These are for the special purpose of dealing with very large forgings, and it will be impossible in the future to obtain the bigger size forgings anywhere else.
  When one thinks of the scope of this Bill and the immense difference it will make to the steel industry and the country, one would expect to find some very good reasons advanced for putting it into force. If, for instance, there had been bad relations in the industry there might have been an argument for a Bill of this kind; but, as has been said repeatedly in this debate from both sides, labour relations are exceptionally good in this industry. Nobody, therefore, can say that the Bill is necessary for that reason. It has been said that the industry is falling behind in technical efficiency. If that were so, that again might be an excuse for the Bill. But it has been pointed out that the industry has been romping ahead; it has beaten its own record, quarter after quarter. It has been able to meet the different specifications of the engineers. If the industry had failed and could not raise sufficient capital to carry out the necessary alterations, that again might be an excuse for the nationalisation of the industry. But we have heard that there is no difficulty in raising capital, and I am certain that if ever there was an industry with a "song in its heart" it is the steel industry at the present time.
  Part of the attack on the industry has been based upon what happened earlier—in the 1920's and early 1930's. I was in those days the manager of one undertaking; and I know that things were very bad indeed then. Production varied from 3,600,000 tons to 9,600,000 tons in the 1920's and the early 1930's—a very big variation, which gives an indication of the difficulties which steelmakers had to face in those times. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, pointed out, it was not

  1057
  only the British steel industry that was in difficulties; world production in 1929 was 118,400,000 tons, and in 1932 it had fallen to 49,400,000 tons. The great United States industry, which has always been pointed to as an example to us, produced in 1929 56,400,000 tons and in 1932 only 13,700,000 that is to say, the United States output was reduced far more than our own. There is nothing in this Bill which can in any way control the steel industry of the world; and the steel industry of the world depends, in its turn, on the engineering industry. It is the supplier of raw materials to other industries. Yet up and down the country it is being said that a repetition of the unemployment of the early 1930's will be avoided if this Bill comes into law. I say with great respect that that is absolute nonsense.
  Another attack on the present industry is based on the statement that the industry is heavily subsidised. The cost to the Exchequer last year was £18,800,000. The figure is generally quoted as £22,500,000, but it came out to only £18,800,000. This was a subsidy on imported semi-finished and finished steels. It was not a subsidy to the steel industry; it was a subsidy to the users of steel, the engineers and re-rollers and so on. A further £6,000,000 was a subsidy on ore and manganese freights, and the reason for it was that in the old days ships used to go out loaded with coal and come back loaded with ore. At the present moment, thanks to the nationalisation of the coal industry, the ships are going out empty and coming back loaded with ore. Therefore, you have to pay double freights on your ships, and the subsidy was given for that reason. The industry is not, I submit, benefiting by these subsidies, because they are subsidies to the user. The industry in 1947 said that they were quite prepared to shoulder these subsidies; then, as your Lordships will know, in March this year the subsidies came to an end, and as a result the price of steel was increased by 9 per cent. I feel that it is highly unfair on the industry to pretend that the steel industry is being boosted to the extent of £22,500,000, when it is not the industry but the user of steel that is benefiting.
  Furthermore, the industry is accused of being a huge monopoly. We have heard that claim made, and it has already
  1058
  been adequately disposed of in this debate. It is strange to hear noble Lords representing the Government in this House say that they object to a huge monopoly, because after all what this Bill is setting up is a terrific monopoly which will put a stranglehold on the whole industry. The future development of the industry is not a haphazard affair: it is carefully guided by those who can best judge the different factors in the case. This Bill nationalises all the big firms, but alongside them there are many small firms who are also doing very good work. What is the position of these little firms vis-à-vis the great monopoly? Are they to be entirely in the power of this monopoly, so that the small firms can be crushed out of existence without being able to do anything to help themselves?
  Another factor in this Bill which gives me great anxiety is that no large ingots can be obtained from any source other than a Government-nationalised factory. This means that a large number of heavy engineering firms up and down the country who have medium-sized presses, or presses up to 2,000 tons capacity, and who have been accustomed to getting ingots from steel firms, cannot forge those ingots into various shapes, guns and whatnot, machine them, and then sell them to customers. If this big monopoly gets short of work—and we cannot possibly pretend that the steel industry is always going to romp ahead at its present output—what will be the first thing which will happen? The monopoly will want all this work for their own machine shops, and they will kill these outside heavy engineering firms, not directly but by putting up the prices of forged ingots to such an extent that it is not worth while taking them.
  I was interested to hear the opening statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, about the strategic importance of the country owning the steel industry. With all due respect, it seems to me that that statement is absolute nonsense. I have myself been in this particular side of the industry, and out of the same furnaces in the morning you pour ingots for a gun tube, or something like that, while the next type of ingot is for a reaction chamber and so on. It all works in together. You cannot segregate the works entirely for one particular aspect of the steel industry; you have to keep this great work going all the time. It is

  1059
  an extremely skilled work running a big rolling mill and forging heavy presses, and if you shut down the works and open them up only when you have Government orders, there will not be a man in the country capable of working this heavy machinery.
  I am unable to follow the reason why the Government are bringing forward this measure. It seems to me that they are activated by the idea that nationalisation is good in itself. An industry may wither and decay, but if you tell your friends "It is all right, we have nationalised it," it seems that that is what matters. As one who was in the steel industry, first in a small way and then as the manager of a large undertaking, but who is no longer connected with it other than by virtue of taking a keen interest in its fascinating development, I for one should look upon the bringing into law of this measure as an absolute disaster.
  7.5 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, when the question of nationalisation of steel was first debated in this House in 1946, I declared my interest, and I do so again by telling noble Lords that I am a director of two of the companies which at present figure in the Third Schedule of the Bill. It is two years almost to a week since we first debated this question in this House, and I sometimes think that so much has been written and talked about this question of nationalising steel, that we are running the great risk of having the main issues obscured in our minds, particularly on Committee points. Therefore, I think we should now try to stand back and realise, as we look at the picture as a whole, how very little argument there is for this Bill at the present time. I feel that the position is in a way rather like the Berlin blockade. It started by technical difficulties in transport, and gradually, as we grew used to the idea, we began to accept the Berlin blockade as something which was almost justified, and we had to think again to realise that there was no justification for it whatever. I suggest that we should think again on this Bill and, if we do think again, we shall come to the same conclusion.
  It seems to me that this Bill comes forward with the main case for it still quite unproved. I want to go back to the debate of June 4, 1946, when the noble
  1060
  Lord, Lord Winster, who at that time spoke for the Government, said that the nationalisation of iron and steel represented the fulfilment of decisions taken after long and intensive research, and was fairly and squarely put before the electorate at the General Election. Whether it was in fact put forward fairly and squarely before the electorate at the General Election is an arguable matter—as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said. But if what the noble Lord, Lord Winster said was true—and I am certain it was—then the grounds on which the nationalisation decision was made must have been those which existed in 1945—namely, because of opinions which were formed, not by everybody but by the Socialist Party, of the work of the steel industry between the wars. "The system had wrought such havoc," said the Minister of Supply the other day. "The old system," said the noble Lord, Lord Winster, "was demonstrably a failure." So we are faced, I think, with the consequential effects of a decision taken in 1945 and not in 1949.
  My Lords, 1945 and 1949, seem to me to be two very different years. In 1945, so we were told, the Socialist Party were "facing the future" and they were facing it with great optimism; and no doubt they were justified at the time in doing so. But I do not know whether we face the future—particularly the immediate future—with great optimism; and certainly those who are concerned with the steel industry at the present time do not face it with anything like the optimism which would be needed to cope with the difficulties of a Bill such as this. It is common knowledge, I think, that a very critical time is coming for British industry as a whole. So many speakers have made this point that I shall not go back over the ground again. I want to ask you merely to think of a graph on the wall, with the curve of Marshall Aid running out, as it is bound to do, and the curve of exports struggling to reach the point where they replace the need for foreign aid, realising, as so many of you have told us to-night, that steel is a component in almost every single export, whether as the export itself or as going to make machinery for the manufacture of the product, or the factory in which the product is manufactured.
  I would merely repeat what other speakers have said: that export output at

  1061
  the moment is certainly not so bright as we should like, and certainly not so bright as it was six months ago. It was only this morning that those of us who read the papers saw that further difficulties will arise in exporting goods to South Africa. Any of your Lordships who went round the British Industries Fair at Birmingham, as I did myself, will have noticed that although it was a magnificent display, the bees were not so busy in the garden. The buyers were not so active as they were last year. Every day, with difficulties in export, rises in prices and rises in wages, industry is struggling to keep up exports by cutting profits, even at the expense of reserves which ought to be set aside for the renewal of machinery—a subject about which the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and other noble Lords have spoken to-night. Speaker after speaker in this debate has referred to the achievements of the steel industry since 1945. Again, I shall not repeat it, but I shall simply remind you that even some of the ranks of Tuscany have not forborne to cheer.
  There is no doubt that the whole of the industry has been fully behind the Government in the effort which we are all making for economic recovery, and that every bit of iron and steel has been made which it has been possible to make with the coke and the iron ore which has been allocated through Government controlled sources. Where does that lead us? I think it shows that, whatever may have been the case in 1945 (and I do not think it matters very much what was the case in 1945), here in 1949 not merely is there no production reason for this Bill, and no production reason that I have heard has been advanced to-day, but there are some very serious dangers which, in view of the state of our exports, it would be more than rash to incur unless absolutely necessary. I was not quite clear what the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, meant about strategic reasons. If he meant that the steel industry could not be relied upon to accept the directions of the Government in any strategic matter and do their best to work them out, then I think he was wrong. If, on the other hand, he meant that the heart of the steel industry might not be in meeting the strategic need, then I fear he must have been insulting the steel industry.
  Now let us turn to another point that has scarcely been touched upon this
  1062
  evening. Is there any labour reason why this change should be made? I want to go into this a little more fully because, although perhaps it is not for the likes of me to talk about what the unions have done, it is such an important aspect of the whole question that it ought not to be left out. I do not think it is sufficient to say merely that we ought to do this because there has been no hostility. I want to look at what happened, so I am informed, each time the matter was raised in the Trades Union Congress. In 1946, a resolution—I need not quote the actual words to your Lordships—was moved by the representative of the Constructional Engineering Union, which is not at all what we call a Second Schedule union. In 1947 a similar resolution was moved by Mr. Gardner, of the Amalgamated Union of Foundry Workers, which likewise deals with a section of the industry which is not in the Second Schedule. In 1948, our foundrymen came into the lead, and they were supported by the Electrical Trades Union, whereas the Confederation moved an amendment which did not quite mean the full nationalisation of the steel industry at once. I think it is right and proper that we should ask why, if it was so necessary and so much wanted, the unions which are concerned with Second Schedule activities did not take a more leading part, why they left it to three unions, two of which are known to be very largely influenced by Communist officials. I want to ask that as a definite question, because I think it has a good deal of bearing upon what I am going to say in a moment, if I have the time.
  But before I do that, may I go back for a moment to this question of efficiency? Your Lordships have heard a great deal from a number of speakers, who have said that efficiency will be retarded. In the old days it was maintained that efficiency would be increased, but I am absolutely certain that, whatever may happen in the long run, in the short run with which we are now concerned, where now we have to watch our export market, there is bound to be some dislocation. The mere creating of a dividing line—nationalised and non-nationalised industries, the sheep and the goats—is bound to cause dislocation. The mere fact that under this Bill agreements can be disclaimed in Clause 13 (an unlucky number) is bound to cause dislocation and

  1063
  hesitation in carrying forward plans which would have been carried forward unhesitatingly in the days when a contract which was valid in law could not be disclaimed in the steel industry. I think that we are going to have a lot of small upsets when some parts of the industries not connected with the Second Schedule fall to be dealt with, to come under the control and to remain under the control of nationalised industries, while others carry on outside. Both my noble friends, Lord Ridley and Lord Falmouth, made those points.
  Whatever happens, however carefully we plan, however knowledgeable we are about an enormous industry like this with all its ramifications, horizontal and vertical, right down to the safety pins that we have heard about, unexpected stoppages and difficulties are bound to occur. That would be heartrending to anybody who has taken a part, however small, in the struggle to straighten out production in the interests of our best efforts since the war. I can see all the difficulties, such as confusion in ordering, coming back and so much of the work which has been put in to straighten out those things being lost merely because this Bill enforces changes which are bound to cause dislocation. One may say that it would not be dislocation because it is the intention of the Government to maintain the managements and the boards as they are. Very well. So what? If the managements and the boards of directors are to be maintained in their present position, and are to go on doing what they have been doing up to now, what then is the argument for nationalisation?—because we have not heard it. If, on the other hand, some change is to be made, then, as I say, that change will be made at the expense of a disruption which we cannot afford.
  I have been thinking from time to time that it would be quite interesting to be a director of a nationalised company with one shareholder. As a director of a company one is accustomed to meeting the shareholders face to face once a year. They are real people. You meet them man to man and, if they do not like you, they can say so. What could be more democratic than that, the big and the small shareholders all coming in and saying what they like? I am surprised that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, thinks
  1064
  it is more democratic to have a totalitarian shareholder. As the old soldiers say: "We can try everything once."
  Before I sit down, I want to look at the slightly wider angle. I mentioned just now, and I mentioned it on purpose, that there was a very large Communist element among those who were vocal at the Trades Union Congress in support of the nationalisation of steel. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in introducing this Bill, said that if democracy is to govern, it must take over. I have been unable to see any political advantages in this Bill, just as I have been unable to see any production or industrial advantages in this Bill—unless, of course, one is a Communist. I can imagine that, if one were a Communist, one could see some great advantages in a Bill of this sort. I have no doubt that it would be magnificent for noble Lords opposite to have the nationalised steel industry with a Socialist Government. It might be tolerable to have such an industry under a Conservative Government—I do not know. But surely we must look a little further ahead; and, before going much further with this Bill, ought we not to think what it would be like supposing, by any mischance, this Bill had to be worked under a Communist Government—or, if you like, under a Fascist Government?
  All I can say is that every nationalisation measure is cumulative in its effect. It places more and more control in one quarter; more and more horses are being driven from the same pair of reins; and therefore, if the pirate crew come on board, the damage will be infinitely greater than if we were to continue this industry by what I consider the real democratic method on which it has been built up and by which it is now being controlled. But I will leave that point with your Lordships and come back to my main point—namely, that, judged in the light of the present economic situation and the extreme danger of doing anything to interfere with the flow of our exports, there is a very strong industrial case and a very strong economic case—and therefore, I should consider, a very strong political case also—against the Bill. We have the choice whether we are going to be guided in this matter by the bright hopes of 1945 or by the grave facts of 1949.
  7.21 p.m.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, as the time is getting late and there are several other important speakers whom I am sure your Lordships wish to hear, my remarks will be very brief. In addressing you on the Second Reading of this Bill, I wish to say at once that I disagree fundamentally to the Bill. I think all its provisions are unworkable and unnecessary, and that this is a totally inappropriate time to bring forward a measure of this nature. The few observations which I wish to make to your Lordships to-night are made in a completely detached way because I have no personal interest in the iron and steel industry. I have listened to-day to most of this debate with great attention, and especially to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. I was really amazed at the flimsy arguments he put forward when he recommended the Bill to your Lordships' House. What were the main reasons he gave? If I may summarise them once again, they were the inadequacy of modernised plant in the steel industry; that it is an industry which cannot get adequate finance from private sources for the construction of new works, except by going to the Finance Corporation, and that there is an inadequately controlled monopoly in the industry.
  Although the case against these reasons has been so well argued from these Benches, I should like to add one or two further words. After a major war of nearly six years, it would have been, in my humble opinion, utterly impossible to have completely modernised the steel industry. If that industry had not been sufficiently modernised in 1938, we should never have got through the last war. We were told that there were reasons for the nationalisation of the railways, electricity, road transport and so on; but after six years of war there must be a big run-down, and the fact that an industry is not able to replace machinery quickly is, I think, not an adequate reason for bringing forward this suggestion to the House. I have recently had the pleasure and privilege of going round some of the large steel-works in England and Wales and I have seen some of the great modernisation schemes which are in progress. I can assure your Lordships that in a year or two we shall have some
  1066
  of the most modern steel works in the world.
  I should like to say a word on the point of finance. As everybody knows, some of the finance for new steel-works schemes is coming from the Finance Corporation, but some of the finance was obtained, as my noble friend, Lord Rennell, said, from City finance houses. It is quite true that the Bank of England provided a proportion of the capital in the Finance Corporations which have been established by Parliament, but those Corporations were financed to a large extent by well-known finance houses in the City of London. New capital can come only from the savings of the people, and if you take a large proportion of their incomes away, how can you obtain all the savings that are necessary? We heard that point very well put the other day by the noble Lords, Lord Rennell and Lord Brand. They were very apprehensive whether the savings were sufficient for all these new capital schemes. I think it is remarkable that we have been able to do as much by private enterprise as we have.
  I should like to say a word or two about this alleged monopoly. I do not agree that it is a monoply. It is true to say that it is a trade association, but when that trade association was established in the very difficult times between the two wars it was formed for the specific purpose of stopping foreign dumping into this country; and in exchange for protection against foreign dumping the Government set up the Export Credits Advisory Committee, which was afterwards succeeded by the Iron and Steel Board. I feel that the person who naturally should be protected most is the consumer. Even if you wish to strengthen the Iron and Steel Board, the consumer is going to get far greater security by having a privately run industry publicly controlled than by having a publicly run and controlled industry from which it is very difficult to get any information as to what is happening—as we on these Benches know.
  In conclusion, I would like to refer back to the speech which was made by the Lord President of the Council in Toronto, I think in 1946, when he said it was up to the nationalisers to prove their case. Has their case been proved? I think this House has a great responsibility to the people of this country as

  1067
  a revising and delaying Chamber, to examine very carefully what is being done. I cannot see that the case has been proved. Let us take coal, civil aviation, railways and electricity. Nearly all those industries are now operating with largely increased costs of production and, I think, with not such a high degree of efficiency. We must take that point very much into consideration before we proceed any further with this measure. I was glad to hear my noble Leader's suggestion, that we should send back to another place an Amendment to provide that the Bill shall not come into operation until after the date of the Election, thus giving the people another chance (because this is our function here, as a delaying Chamber) to make up their minds, and avoid the mistake of operating the provisions of this Bill in regard to certain aspects of steel production and not in regard to others. I conclude by saying that I heartily disagree with every provision of this Bill.
  7.29 p.m.
  THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, like the previous speaker, I hope to be brief, and I also have no connection with the steel industry, but I wish to bring up one point which arose in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall—namely, the question of public opinion. He stated that he considered the great majority of public opinion in this country was in favour of this Bill. I am bound to say that I heartily disagree with that point of view. I am quite certain that public opinion in this country is dead against it, and that the one question which everybody is asking themselves is: Why nationalise an industry which has such a fine record behind it? To an outsider, there may seem to be good reasons for nationalising gas, electricity, transport—and even coal. But is it necessary to take such a revolutionary step as we are attempting to take in this Bill? I may be wrong, and I stand open to correction, but has any other country carried out such nationalisation? I do not think so. Noble Lords opposite, if I am right, may suggest that this is a new form of pioneering. I sincerely hope that noble Lords on this side will agree with me when I say that, if that be so, it is a very rash form of pioneering.
  1068
  Since the present Government came into power, they have set up the Iron and Steel Board, to which many of your Lordships have already referred to-day. Many noble Lords have paid tribute to the valuable service which that Board have done to the community and to the industry. Surely that is a unique experiment in what one might describe as "the middle way," giving the Government all the control they require and preserving, at the same time, all that is flexible and efficient in private enterprise. Knowing the problems and difficulties which have cropped up in connection with the nationalisation of coal, do the Government think that they will be able to make the steel industry more efficient by nationalising it? I can tell the Government, from personal knowledge, of a very strong sense of frustration and of delay, slackness and discontent that exist among employees of the Coal Board, both management and workers. If these exist in one Government monopoly, are they going to be avoided in another when the nationalisation process is applied to steel? I very much doubt it.
  We have heard many arguments against private ownership, and we have heard the argument that the general situation would be very much better for these industries if they became publicly owned. Does that argument hold water? Surely, what is actually happening, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, has told us, is that the Government have already turned these other industries into huge State monopolies. By nationalising steel they are going to turn this industry into another State monopoly. Therefore, I come again to the question which is in the minds of everyone to-day, and to which we still require a specific answer: Why nationalise?
  7.34 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, your Lordships will agree that we have had an interesting debate, and that the balance of argument has been against the Bill. In fact, except for the stouthearted speech which we had from the noble Viscount, Lord Hall—which we expected from him—and for a lone and sudden intervention by Lord Pakenham, and a rather pleasant parable from Lord Pethick-Lawrence, the case for the Bill has not been presented to-day. But we have had a wealth of argument against it. To-morrow, doubtless, we shall hear

  1069
  more from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. We are also to hear from Lord Morrison, who, I understand, will speak first, and that emboldens me to say a few things about Scotland in my short winding-up speech.
  Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to begin with a personal explanation which I think I have made on another occasion but which, in order to make doubly sure, I am now going to repeat. My family for four generations have been engaged in steel-making in Scotland. And let me, as proof of my faith in the industry, come what may, tell your Lordships that my son is in it now. There is difference of opinion as to what is best for the industry and I honestly try to voice this to-night. I agree with the noble Viscount who opened the debate, that this is an extremely important measure. In fact, I would say that though it is difficult to assign relative values, it is the most, important measure of this Parliament. Yet I think it has been accorded rather cavalier treatment. It has been introduced late in the present Parliament and after much indecision. It was taken in Committee upstairs. Perhaps that was inevitable, but its importance, I should have thought, might have justified a Committee of the whole House. Last, and most important, it was mangled by the guillotine. The noble Viscount has said that that was inevitable. He believed that no Government could have avoided the use of the guillotine. But in the result, I would remind your Lordships that sixteen clauses and six Schedules of the Bill were not discussed in Committee, and seven clauses were not discussed at all, either in Committee or on Report. Surely, your Lordships will agree that there is a clear case for this House to examine the Bill searchingly, and, in view of the past treatment which it has had, I do not think the Government can complain if we do so.
  Ever since the debate on the gracious Speech at the opening of this Session, we have been waiting to hear some new and cogent reason for the nationalisation of steel, and I am bound to say that I do not think it has been forthcoming. We have heard much "about it and about," but fresh and cogent reasons have not been advanced. So we must come back, at the end of a long day, to ask ourselves three questions about the proposed nationalisation of the industry. Will it
  1070
  produce more steel? Will it produce cheaper steel? Will it improve labour relations? I would apply these three tests, and I would ask your Lordships, even at this late hour, to concentrate on them. I take the first question: Will it produce more steel? The record output of the steel industry, together with its marked success in promoting its own great development plan, gives very high promise that the large requirements of steel which have been asked for will be obtained. I do not know of any other industry which has shown such expansion. Certainly no nationalised industry has shown any such signs of vitality. There is no reason at all to suppose that nationalisation will produce more steel.
  Now as to the next question: Will it produce cheaper steel? Again, your Lordships will be aware that all the experience of the nationalised industries shows that in every case prices have risen—coal, railway fares, transport charges, gas, electricity and now telephones. Even when an industry or a service makes a profit it is pocketed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as seen by the extra charge put on the telephone. In the case of coal, there was an increase of 4s. a ton in 1947, 2s. 6d. a ton in 1948, and no less than 25s. 0d. a ton for export coal during the period; while in electricity, since nationalisation in April, 1948, charges have risen in many districts from 20 per cent. to as much as 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. There has been a much greater rise in all these industries than in the steel trade when the subsidies were recently removed. Then there was a small rise of somewhere between 6 and 9 per cent. over a wide range of steel products, which still leaves these products highly competitive. So I answer the second question by saying that nationalisation will not produce cheaper steel, and I have yet to hear any argument that it will.
  Next comes the question: Will it improve labour relations? The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, paid an eloquent tribute to labour relations in the steel trade with that complete fairness which we know we can always expect of him. He said that over a long period of years there had been adequate and proper machinery to adjust labour matters in the industry. I believe that the State, with the best will in the world, tends to

  1071
  become a remote and impersonal employer. There may be a way to secure closer relationship in management, but this has yet to be found. Looking at examples of nationalised industries, I feel no confidence that this measure will effect any improvement in labour relations. Indeed, if one may judge by all the standards of nationalised industries, the reverse may well be the case. Take, for example, the trouble on the railways and in the coal industry. I recognise that these industries are experiencing initial difficulties, but, in reply to the question whether nationalisation will help labour relationships in the steel industry, the answer is "No." No such argument has been adduced. I think therefore that your Lordships are bound to agree that the Bill which comes before the House to-day fails on these three extremely important tests.
  What is the attitude of the workers in the industry at the present time? The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, in his interesting and thoughtful speech, told the House that a large number who had thought that nationalisation would provide greater security of employment were now a little less sure about it. That is also my experience. The workers in the steel works thought there might be greater continuity of work in bad times and more security of employment if the trade were nationalised, but they have seen coal mines closed down in my own county of Lanark and elsewhere. These mines have been closed down of necessity, because they are worked out, and closing them down was probably the only course the National Coal Board could adopt. But, in face of the economic difficulties, it would be very unwise to hold out to the workers in the steel industry that, on becoming a nationalised industry, they would be kept working at all plants in the same way as workers in the old coal mines hoped they would be kept working in all circumstances. I hope no one is suggesting to the workers that under State ownership there can be security of employment in the steel works in all circumstances, because that would be an unfair thing to lead them to believe. Efficient industry is the best security for their employment, and I believe that efficiency can better be secured under present ownership and control than under national ownership.
  1072
  I should like now to say a word about the steel industry in Scotland. It has grown up round that great cradle of shipbuilding, the Clyde. I can tell your Lordships that much anxiety is felt in Scotland about this Bill. The steel industry in Scotland is not carried on behind an iron curtain drawn across the Border. It is closely integrated with the industry in England in regard to prices, wages and in many other ways. There is no narrow nationalism. But that is under the present system of voluntary co-operation, secured through fully representative bodies. It would be far different if an unimaginative bureaucracy should arise at Whitehall to dictate policy without full knowledge of local conditions. What I say about Scotland is true also of the North of England and the more remote parts of the country. There is a growing realisation that remote control will not give the personal contact that they have at present. I expect the Government will say that that will not happen under the present measure. They will say that the plan provides for a large amount of local autonomy and that the present management will carry on. But I have no real confidence that that situation will continue under State ownership. All experience of nationalised industries goes to prove that there is an almost irresistible tendency to centralise control. I feel that there are real grounds for the anxiety I have expressed. None the less, I would tell your Lordships that important extensions and developments are going forward in Scottish works just now which represent a real act of faith on the part of Scottish steel-makers, while they have the sword of Damocles hanging above them. Taking a broad view, we think it is the right thing to do, but our anxieties remain.
  As many speakers have pointed out to-day, the iron and steel industry in this country is highly and efficiently organised. Competition between firms in the matter of costs results in good service to the public. Prices are fixed by the Government on the basis of efficient production, and the public interest has been fully safeguarded by the existence of a Board drawn from both sides of the industry, the consumer and the State. The success of this organisation is clearly seen in the great contribution which the industry has made to post-war recovery. Why should all this be jeopardised? In the few

  1073
  remarks I made on the gracious Speech at the beginning of the Session, I said that those who urged the nationalisation of the steel trade were using arguments which reminded me of Rip van Winkle, who slept for many years. Old arguments are used that do not apply to modern conditions in the steel trade but look back fifteen or twenty years or more. The trade went through a very difficult time during the slump in the 'twenties, and that has been held up more than once, and I think by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, to-day, as an argument against the private ownership of the industry. But was unemployment the fault of the industry? Nobody wants to keep a steelworks idle; it is the most costly thing in the world to do so. The trouble during the slump was that there was a lack of demand. Will nationalisation create a demand? Should we not have to nationalise the consumer to do that? There is no sense there.
  The hour is late and I will not keep your Lordships longer. It is rumoured abroad that the more thoughtful members of the Government are themselves a little anxious about this Bill. Perhaps they may find a sense of relief in the thought that after all it may be the electorate who may decide this matter, one way or the other. I hope your Lordships will accept the advice of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to give this Bill a Second Reading, though we do not approve of it, and then to examine it carefully and objectively and, if possible, amend it in such a way as to give the people of the country a chance to decide this grave and important question.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Morrison, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

  TERRITORIAL ARMY BANDS
  TERRITORIAL ARMY BANDS