Sitting of 2 July 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FALMOUTH) BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  CIVIL AVIATION

    Long-Distance Flights (Safety Precautions)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Civil Aviation what international arrangements there are for facilities covering long-distance flights over barren territory, having in mind the recent air accident in the Sahara.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. R. Maudling): It is the responsibility of the sovereign state concerned to provide adequate navigational aids and facilities for search and rescue within its territory. All these facilities are planned and agreed internationally, and are reviewed at Regional Meetings of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
    Mr. Dodds: In view of the great suffering of the passengers and crew of a Hermes aircraft that had to land in the Sahara, will any representations be made to this international body in an effort to see that in future helicopters will be much more readily available?
    Mr. Maudling: As I think the hon. Member knows, this particular accident is being investigated by the Chief Inspector of Accidents. I think it would be wrong of me to make any sort of statement in advance of the receipt of his report, but certainly the point that
    398
    the hon. Member has made will be considered.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. Friend undertake to make a statement to the House when the inquiry is completed, because there is considerable concern that the aircraft was 1,300 miles off its course? Will he do that at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Maudling: I shall certainly raise that matter with my right hon. Friend when the report is received.
    Mr. Mikardo: Do the terms of reference of the inquiry to be carried out by the Chief Inspector include the question of rescue facilities available, or are they concerned only with the causes of the accident?
    Mr. Maudling: I am afraid that I was not accurate in my reply to the first supplementary question. The inquiry is, of course, carried out by the French authorities, but the Chief Inspector, or one of his representatives, will be present as an observer for this country. The responsibility for the inquiry as to the cause of the accident, like the responsibility for rescue, rests with the State in whose territory the crash takes place.
    Mr. Rankin: What reserve supplies of food and water are carried in aircraft on flights of this type?
    Mr. Maudling: I am afraid I should want notice of a question like that.

    South Bank Site (Helicopters)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Civil Aviation how far the recent helicopter flight over the South Bank site has demonstrated that the site is technically in a suitable position for use as a helicopter passenger station.
    Mr. Maudling: The flight helped to confirm that the site is technically suitable, but there are, of course, other considerations to be taken into account in selecting an airstop.
    Mr. Dodds: Whatever the considerations, will the responsible authorities endeavour to come to some finality, because helicopters will be the travel of the future, and it is necessary to get the South Bank site going to encourage other local authorities to provide sites?
    Mr. Maudling: I am certainly aware of the great importance of the development of the helicopter. We are also aware that an early decision is desirable. However, I think it would be misleading the public if the impression were given that the regular operation of helicopters to a point in the Metropolitan area is likely to be possible in the very near future.

    Backward-Facing Seats
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether, for the better protection of passengers, he will now require the installation of backward-facing seats in aircraft.
    Mr. Maudling: The full benefit from the installation of backward-facing seats can be obtained only if the seats and their attachments are strengthened to withstand the deceleration forces encountered at the time of a crash. Such strengthening involves an addition to the weight of the aircraft with corresponding economic penalties. These practical problems are being studied.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: But has not experience shown backward-facing seats to be a help in saving life in the event of a crash, and has not the time now come when, despite the economic considerations referred to by the hon. Gentleman, steps now should be taken to ensure the maximum possible protection against death in case of accident?
    Mr. Maudling: It is not merely an economic matter. I agree that there are advantages in backward-facing seats, but it is also a technical matter, and technical experts themselves would not give an unanimous and clear opinion on the relative merits of backward-facing seats and a strengthened and improved form of forward-facing seats. However, I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is very much aware of the great importance of maintaining the highest possible safety factor in civil aviation, particularly in view of the great improvements in safety in civil aviation that have already taken place.

    Scotland
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Civil Aviation whether the application recently made by a private Scottish
    400
    company to operate air services in Scotland is, under his regulations, required to be considered initially by the Air Transport Advisory Council.
    Mr. Maudling: The future organisation for air services in Scotland presents a special case and my right hon. Friend does not at present contemplate that it should be dealt with by application through the Air Transport Advisory Council in the ordinary way.
    Mr. Beswick: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that under the new policy this will be a special case; and does he mean to say that in precisely these more important and controversial cases the protection which the Advisory Council is alleged to provide will not in fact be given?
    Mr. Maudling: What I said was that special considerations apply in the case of Scotland. In matters like this the House always recognises that special considerations apply in the case of Scotland. There is however a very great difference between internal services, where it is a question of the possibility of superseding existing services, and external services, where it is merely a question of new services or new types of service.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the Minister bear in mind that the public Corporation has met, in the most excellent fashion, every demand made upon it in Scotland to date for civil air transport?
    Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend will certainly bear all relevant considerations in mind.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the nationalised Corporations are doing nothing of the kind, and that there is a large area of Scotland which is entirely free from any form of air service which we used to have under private enterprise?
    Mr. Maudling: I think that was covered by my previous answer.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend be careful not to interfere with the Scottish services until he makes quite sure that it is not disturbing the well-balanced arrangements where aircraft serve the public for civil aviation purposes, and also for the Highlands Health Service and many other public utilities?
    Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend will certainly not make any change until he is convinced that such a change is in the general public interest.

    Private Services
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Civil Aviation how many routes have been allocated to private air operators over the past three years; and in how many cases have the services not been started, or have been started and since terminated.
    Mr. Maudling: Over the past three years, 226 applications for associate agreements involving 148 routes have been provisionally approved. Of the services covered by these applications, 90 were never started and 15 were terminated before the expiration of the period for which the services were approved.
    Mr. Beswick: In view of the number of apparently irresponsible applications, can the hon. Gentleman say whether any penalty attaches to those operators who make applications for licences, are granted the licences, and do not fulfil them?
    Mr. Maudling: The majority of these applications which were made and subsequently not completed took place during the tenure of office of the previous Government; and in fact during the tenure of office of the hon. Gentleman asking the Question. This is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend is considering an alteration in the terms of reference of the Air Transport Advisory Council.
    Mr. Beswick: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that those applications were for minor services; that under the new policy these new services will be very important and likely to damage the forward planning of the Corporation; and in these new circumstances does he not think it is essential to have some penalty on irresponsible applicants?
    Mr. Maudling: The new policy is to be governed by the new terms of reference of the Air Transport Advisory Council.
    Mr. Mikardo: What is the use of reconstituting and strengthening the Advisory Council and giving it new terms of reference, and then by-passing it in respect of what ought to be a very important part of its functions?

    Freight and Mail Rates
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Civil Aviation to what extent it is the practice of the airways Corporations to consult with him in regard to any proposal for a change in freight rates or mail-carrying rates.
    Mr. Maudling: It is the normal practice of both Corporations to consult my right hon. Friend about proposals for changes in freight or mail rates.
    Mr. Beswick: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there have been any consultations about the changes in mail rates; and will he undertake to try to end the anomalous position under whch the short-haul operator is paid less than the long-haul operator?
    Mr. Maudling: The final decision on mail rates does not rest with my right hon. Friend, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the importance of this to the Corporations, and we do keep in very close touch with the other authorities concerned.
    Mr. Beswick: That is not quite good enough. Is the Parliamentary Secretary following on the good work of his predecessor in this matter?
    Mr. Maudling: I should be delighted to follow on any of the good work of my predecessor.

    Germany (British Traffic Rights)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Civil Aviation what traffic rights exist for British airlines within the American zone of Germany.
    Mr. Maudling: B.E.A. have no traffic rights on sectors wholly within the American zone of Germany. B.E.A. have full commercial traffic rights at Frankfurt for services to London and Brussels and at Munich for services to Dusseldorf and London.
    Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that the airlines of certain other foreign countries have traffic rights in the American zone; and if so, is it not rather extraordinary that we have not?
    Mr. Mikardo: It is because we are their allies.
    Mr. Maudling: The whole question of who is to have traffic rights within

    403
    Germany is settled by a tripartite body on which the United Kingdom Government and the American and French Governments are represented. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that United Kingdom operators are receiving their fair share of operating rights in this respect.
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Civil Aviation why no traffic rights exist for British European Airways between Frankfurt and Munich.
    Mr. Maudling: I understand that the Tripartite Civil Aviation Board, representing the Allied High Commission in Germany, was unable to grant British European Airways' application for traffic rights between Frankfurt and Munich, because there are already five airlines operating between these points who provide ample capacity for local travel requirements.

    UNITED NATIONS (CHINA)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now take further action to provide for the representation of the Central Peoples' Government of China in the United Nations organisation.
    The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the replies given by my right hon. Friend to similar Questions asked by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on 18th June.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not realise that the time has gone for relying upon technicalities in this fundamental matter which affects the lives of millions of people; and will he undertake to do everything possible to see that as many nations as possible are represented in the United Nations organisation?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not agree that the war in Korea or the operations in Korea are technicalities. I think that when an armistice is concluded there we may hope to make some progress over this difficult matter.
    Several Hon. Members—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sydney Silverman.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister not realize—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sydney Silverman.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: I understood there was a reference in the answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. The Minister, perhaps unwittingly, has misrepresented me in his answer. He replied that I had said or implied that the war in Korea was a technicality. I did not mention the war in Korea. Far be it from me to suggest that it is a technicality.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr. Sydney Silverman.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Will the Minister bear in mind that since the answer to which he referred only made the point that nothing could be done until the war in Korea was over and implied that something might be done when that occurred, many Members of the House of Commons and the other place have had the advantage of hearing a speech by the American Secretary of State, in which he said that any discussion of the recognition of the Chinese Government or its admission to the United Nations was purely academic, and that he could see no conditions in the foreseeable circumstances in which it would be anything else?
    Mr. Lloyd: That statement of policy seems to support what I said earlier. I certainly did not mean to suggest that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) was suggesting that the operations in Korea were a technicality. What he did suggest was that the present situation was a technical situation causing delay in considering this matter, and what I am pointing out is that the condition precedent to making progress over this matter, which is a difficult matter, is an armistice in Korea.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the presence in the field of nearly one million Chinese troops in action against United Nations' Forces is hardly a very good qualification for representation at U.N.O.?
    Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree.
    Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that there is a most fundamental difference

    405
    between saying that this is a matter to which we could agree once the present hostilities were over and saying that this is a matter to which we could not agree in any foreseeable circumstances; and in view of that deep discrepancy between the policy of this country and the policy of the United States on this most important matter, will he not consider whether any step ought not to be taken in good time to reconcile those differences, or, if not, to put our point of view to the opinon of the other members of the United Nations, or to the International Court?
    Mr. Lloyd: I think our view is perfectly clear, and it is the view of the Government which preceded us. There is a difference of view on the part of other Governments, but it seems to me that it is hypothetical until we get the essential condition precedent fulfilled, which is an armistice in Korea.

  KOREA

    Truce Talks
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the negotiations for an armistice in Korea have now been proceeding for nearly a year and have now apparently reached a deadlock, he will consider proposing the summoning of a special meeting of the Assembly of the United Nations to consider the situation.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. While the armistice talks are still in progress and the possibility of resolving the deadlock that has arisen there exists, I do not consider that the summoning of a special session of the United Nations General Assembly would be necessary or desirable.
    Mr. Cocks: Are there not many difficult and intractable subjects, such as the exchange of prisoners, the position of Syngman Rhee, the political direction of the war and the possibility of establishing an honourable peace, which might be discussed with beneficial results by an early meeting of the Assembly?
    Mr. Lloyd: My experience of these meetings of the General Assembly is that opportunity is taken to use that body as a forum for propaganda and, as far as the armistice proceedings are concerned, I
    406
    think that such a proceeding would cause delay.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether the United Nations ever discuss the war in Korea and its implication and possible repercussions?
    Mr. Lloyd: At the last meeting of the General Assembly we were very anxious that while the armistice negotiations were continuing the General Assembly should not discuss the matter, because we were certain that if they did discuss the matter in the way that other matters had been discussed it would raise tempers on both sides and make an armistice more difficult.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that Great Britain shall become immediately represented in the truce talks now taking place in Korea.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the statement which I made to the House yesterday.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister agree that the events of the last week have stressed the importance of the British point of view being expressed and implemented in these talks?
    Mr. Lloyd: As I tried to say to the House yesterday, I do not think that the alteration of our representation on the armistice delegation will make any difference at all. I think that these talks are being very competently handled now.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that those who have sons and husbands who are prisoners in Korea and those who have sons and husbands who are fighting in Korea would feel that the best interests of these men were looked after if we were directly represented at these talks?
    Mr. Lloyd: That is a matter which I should have thought most certainly ought to have been borne in mind when this delegation was set up when our predecessors had responsibility, but I do not feel that this is the appropriate time for a change in the delegation; but the fact which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is certainly one to be borne in mind.
    Mrs. Mann: Are we to understand that the war in Korea is now continuing on the question of the repatriation of prisoners? Is that a sufficient reason to continue the war in Korea? Cannot we get an armistice and allow this question of repatriation to stand over?
    Mr. Lloyd: We would be very willing to do that, but one thing which we are not going to agree to do is forcibly to send people back to a Communist country.

    Prisoners-of-War (Screening)
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that public anxiety in this country and elsewhere would be greatly relieved if a decision were taken to re-screen the prisoners in Korea by an impartial international commission, whether such action was agreeable to the Communist delegates at Panmunjom or not, thereby establishing a principle calculated to impress the non-Communist world; and what steps he is taking to try to get this done.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As I informed the hon. Gentleman on 25th June, this suggestion has been put forward and has been discussed with interested Governments. The most important thing now is to improve the prospects of achieving an armistice, and I am doubtful whether any re-screening would achieve this unless both sides agreed beforehand to abide by the results.
    Mr. Cocks: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that if this decision were taken the Communist negotiators would no longer be able to describe the screening of prisoners as a fraud, and will he say how far the discussions he has just mentioned have gone?
    Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree that the advantage of a re-screening now would be to deprive the Chinese Government of that propaganda point. On the other hand, I am not at all satisfied myself that impartial re-screening would in fact assist the armistice. I think that a formula on a rather different line has to be sought.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the Opposition in
    408
    no uncertain terms that it is quite impossible to play lawn tennis with a man who will not send the ball back?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is a strong feeling amongst Scottish soldiers in Korea that they should be screened and have an opportunity of being repatriated to their own country?
    Mr. Lloyd: All I can say is that I found absolutely no trace of any such feeling.

    China (Indian Delegation)
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Indian delegation which has recently visited China, which says that the delegation gained the impression that the Chinese Government and people were weary of the Korean war and might make peace if a face-saving formula were put forward by a neutral nation; and whether he will investigate the possibility of action along such lines.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. In consultation with other interested Governments, we are urgently trying to find a formula which would break the present deadlock at Panmunjom.
    Mr. Cocks: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the fact that India and China have been on terms of friendship for 1,000 years, and that there is no Power in Asia so capable of influencing China as India and the spiritual forces she represents?
    Mr. Lloyd: I can appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said, and that is certainly a factor which Her Majesty's Government are bearing in mind. There is, however, one other matter which arises out of this Question. He refers to a face-saving formula, and if a formula is in fact to save faces it is probably not best described in that manner.

    Destroyed Power Stations (Value)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the estimated value of the installations destroyed in the raid on Korean power stations on 23rd June.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The cost of the original construction of these plants is estimated at about 200 million United States dollars. I have no information as to the value of the parts destroyed.
    Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the fact that we are pledged to a policy of helping to rehabilitate and reconstruct Korea, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman now say how much greater the financial contribution of this country will be for that purpose in view of the damage caused by this raid about which we were not informed?
    Mr. Lloyd: Of course, attacks on military targets do involve certain costs, but the point is to try and maintain the security of the United Nations troops.
    Mr. J. Hynd: Would the Minister give the comparable cash figure to represent the value of lives lost had these bombs been dropped on Chinese troops instead of on bricks and mortar?
    Mr. Nally: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what was the value of these power stations at the time when the Japanese built most of them? Could he further say what is the estimated present value of the installations in providing radar and other services for planes which may potentially be used against United Nations troops in the field?
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that that is a calculation which could be made in terms of money, but it is relevant to consider it in terms of human life.

    Air Raids (Civil Population)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what estimate of the numbers of the civilian population living in the area of the Korean power stations was taken before the air raids were ordered.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Account was taken of this factor before the attacks were made. The plants attacked were in maintainous country removed from any large centres of population.
    Mr. Hughes: Could the Minister assure us that the fate of the civilian population is always taken into account in these raids, and is he not aware that recently a colleague of his, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
    410
    Defence, defended large-scale bombing of civilians on the ground that it was not practicable to give them any warning?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am quite certain that the possible damage to the civilian population is always considered in deciding whether a target should be taken on or not.
    Sir I. Moore: Can my hon. Friend say how many people were living in South Korea before they were wantonly attacked by the North Korean Communists?

    U.N. Broadcasts
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present arrangements for broadcasts on behalf of the United Nations to China and North Korea, respectively; and how the content of these broadcasts is decided.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I understand that American transmitters in various places carry news programmes prepared by the staff of the United Nations in the Chinese and Korean languages.
    Mr. Grimond: Is there no continuous liaison between the various broadcasting stations, and if that is the case, would it not be desirable that there should be such liaison in view of the great importance of getting across to the people of China and North Korea the reasons why we are fighting in Korea and emphasising that we bear them no ill will?
    Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman's question related to broadcasts on behalf of the United Nations. I was dealing with broadcasts which are under the supervision of the United Nations Secretariat at the United Nations headquarters.
    Mr. Profumo: Can my right hon. and learned Friend indicate to us what proportion of the Chinese and North Korean populations are in possession of high-powered wireless receiving sets?
    Mr. Lloyd: No. Sir.

    Bacteriological Warfare (Allegation)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain from the International Red Cross organisation whether any reply has yet been received by them from the Chinese Government in Pekin to their

    411
    offer made in March last to conduct an investigation into the charges of bacteriological warfare.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The International Committee of the Red Cross announced on 29th April that no reply had been received from the Chinese authorities to their message of 12th March. There has been no further development since that date.
    Mr. Henderson: Is it not significant that, after having launched a world wide propaganda campaign alleging this monstrous crime against the Allied Forces in Korea, the Chinese Government have refused to allow impartial investigation, and that only yesterday the Soviet Government's representative at the Security Council announced that he was going to veto the proposal for independent Red Cross investigation?
    Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree. I think both the actions to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred are lamentable.

  EGYPT AND SUDAN

    Cairo Riots (British Claims)
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any compensation has yet been paid by the Egyptian Government in respect of loss of life, loss of employment and damage to property, sustained by British subjects in Cairo during the riots which took place last January.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): A number of British firms who suffered damage during the Cairo riots have received loans from the Egyptian Government. These loans are subject to the final assessment of damage by the Egyptian courts and do not represent compensation. Otherwise the position remains similar to that outlined in the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory) on 7th May. We have since then made further representations on these points to the former Egyptian Government and will continue to do so to the new Government.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is a very big
    412
    feeling on this issue not only among the relatives of those concerned but also among a much wider public, and will he state what further steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to enforce the payment of compensation for these very dastardly outrages?
    Mr. Nutting: We cannot enforce compensation from another Government, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to make representations to the new Egyptian Government. We have already put in a statement of claim in respect of material damage done during the riots, and, in addition, Her Majesty's Embassy in Cairo have asked for payments of £200,000 and 100,000 Canadian dollars to the dependents of those killed and injured during the raids. We shall continue to press those claims.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Would the Joint Under-Secretary inform his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury of the fact that we cannot enforce compensation because he took a very different view in regard to Albania?
    Sir D. Savory: Has my hon. Friend taken no further action with regard to obtaining compensation for those civil servants who have been dismissed in breach of contract and are now in this country living in very unfortunate and depressing circumstances?
    Mr. Nutting: A certain amount of compensation has been paid to those people who were employed by the Egyptian Government, namely, three months salary in lieu of notice, but we do not consider that that compensation has been adequate and we are still pressing their case. With regard to teachers employed in private schools—not Government schools—legal action has already been started, and Her Majesty's Embassy will give all the necessary help.

    King Farouk (Sudanese Title)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the representations he has made regarding the recognition by the Greek and other Governments of King Farouk of Egypt as the King of the Sudan.
    Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government's views on the question of King Farouk's title are well known to the

    413
    House. Recognition of a change in the title involves in the eyes of many Sudanese recognition of a change in the status of the Sudan and we are pledged not to recognise such a change without consultation with the Sudanese. This point of view has been put strongly to all the Governments concerned. I therefore regret the action taken by the Governments which have recognised the new title without waiting to hear what the Sudanese had to say. I am glad at least that some of the Governments have made it plain that recognition is not intended to have any political significance.
    Mr. Henderson: Is it correct that there was an understanding between the countries associated with N.A.T.O., including Greece, that they should take no action which would embarass the present negotiations between the United Kingdom Government and the Egyptian Government?
    Mr. Nutting: Such an understanding most certainly did exist.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Did I understand my hon. Friend to say that this was a question of consultation only with the Sudanese people? Should not it be "agreement" rather than "consultation?"
    Mr. Nutting: By "consultation" we most certainly implied "agreement."
    Sir T. Moore: And willing agreement.
    Mr. Driberg: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Foreign Secretary took the opportunity of discussing this matter recently with Mr. Acheson and, if so, could he say whether the State Department now appreciate the Sudanese point of view?
    Mr. Nutting: This subject was discussed between my right hon. Friend and the United States Secretary of State. The United States Government have consistently supported Her Majesty's Government in this matter.

    Relations
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement on the discussions that have been going on between the Umma Party in the Sudan and the Government of Egypt on the question of Sudan's relations with Egypt.
    Mr. Nutting: Although they welcomed this exchange of views, Her Majesty's Government were not a party to the discussions between the Egyptian Government and representatives of Sayed Abdel Rahman E1 Mandi. I am not in a position to give the House any information as to their outcome. Her Majesty's Government are glad, however, to see any direct contact between the Egyptian Government and the Sudanese which may lead to a better understanding.
    Mr. Price: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the recent change of Prime Ministers in Egypt has any connection with the return of the Umma Party to the Sudan and the consequent developments there?
    Mr. Nutting: I should prefer not to be drawn into commenting on the new Egyptian Government at so early a stage in their development.

    ICELAND (FISHING DISPUTE)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Government of Iceland in reply to his last note concerning the extension of their territorial waters; and what further action he is taking to safeguard our position.
    Mr. Nutting: No reply has yet been received to the Note addressed to the Icelandic Government on 18th June. I should prefer to await the Icelandic reply before making any further statement.
    Mr. Hoy: In view of the long delay in replying to the last Note which was sent, could the Under-Secretary state whether any consideration has been given to the suggestion that an international conference might be held to deal with this problem?
    Mr. Nutting: That question is most certainly under consideration by Her Majesty's Government, but I would ask the House not to draw me into further comment upon this matter until we have received a reply from the Icelandic Government.
    Mr. Woodburn: Could not the Foreign Office give a delicate hint to Iceland that good will is a thing that works on both

    415
    sides? Fishermen are getting very concerned about the sever restrictions which have been placed on their opportunities to earn a livelihood.
    Mr. Nutting: The Foreign Office have given more than a delicate hint to the Icelandic Government to that effect, as has already been stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State.

    FORMOSA (CHINESE NATIONALIST FORCES)
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to make it clear to the Government of the United States of America that public opinion in this country will not tolerate the support of any military action which may result from the activities of the Chinese National forces in Formosa.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In his declaration of 27th June, 1950, President Truman ordered the United States Seventh Fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa. At the same time he called on the Chinese Nationlist authorities to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland of China. So far as Her Majesty's Government are aware, this "neutralisation" of Formosa remains the policy of the United States Government and it would therefore be unnecessary to take any steps such as those envisaged in this Question.
    Mr. Price: In view of the serious situation that might arise through an action by the Nationalist forces in Korea, would the Minister of State continue to keep the United States Government—his opposite number—informed as to the state of public opinion in this country in regard to this matter?
    Mr. Lloyd: I can only remind the hon. Gentleman of the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House on 26th February, when he said that few adventures could be less successful or fruitful than for Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek to plunge on to the mainland.
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement made by Mr. Chiang Kai-shek yesterday, favouring the bombing of industries in China, and saying that he hoped the time would come when he would lead Formosans on
    416
    to the mainland against China? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman dissociate himself from being allied with these plans?
    Mr. Lloyd: I adhere to the form of words use by the Prime Minister which, I think meet the point of the hon. Gentleman.

    MIDDLE EAST (AMBASSADORS' MEETING)
    Mr. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the conference recently held in London of Her Majesty's ambassadors and ministers in Middle Eastern countries.
    Mr. Nutting: I will, with permission, arrange for the text of the Press communiqu£ of 24th June, together with a list of those who attended the Conference, to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    I would only add that my right hon. Friend regards these periodic meetings as of considerable value, not only because of the opportunity which they afford for reviewing and discussing at first-hand all developments affecting the policy of Her Majesty's Government, but also because they serve to demonstrate the importance which Her Majesty's Government continue to attach to the security, prosperity and independence of the Middle East.
    Mr. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that this meeting provides encouraging evidence of the patience and skill with which the Foreign Secretary is improving our relations with the Middle East, as compared with a year ago?
    Following is the communiqué:
    The Conference of Her Majesty's Representatives in the Middle East closes this afternoon. It has given the Foreign Secretary the opportunity of exchanging views and information with the Heads of Mission attending, and the discussions have covered the whole field of problems affecting British policy in the Middle East. It has also been possible to give the Heads of Mission an up-to-date picture of Britain's overall position.
    The present Conference, which is the third of its series, was summoned in accordance with what is now an established practice. It was not intended that the Conference should take any major policy decisions, and it has not done so.
    At the closing session this afternoon, the Foreign Secretary is arranging for Mr. Acheson,

    417
    who has just arrived in London, to meet the British Representatives attending the Conference.
    The following is a list of those attending the Conference:—

    Her Majesty's Representatives at

    Cairo.

    Damascus.

    Bagdad.

    Jedda.

    Ankara.

    Amman.

    Tel Aviv.

    Tehran.

    Beirut.

    The Political Resident in the Persian Gulf.
    The Head of the British Middle East Office.
    Sir Robert Howe, Governor-General of the Sudan, being on leave in the United Kingdom, attended some of the meetings as an observer.
    Sir Henry Knight (British representative on the Advisory Commission of the U.N.R.W.A.) also attended certain meetings.
    Other Government Departments and the Chiefs-of-Staff were represented at appropriate meetings.

    FOREIGN SERVICE (MISSING DIPLOMATS)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the appointments of Mr. Guy Burgess and Mr. Donald Maclean were officially terminated.
    Mr. Nutting: The appointments of Mr. Guy Burgess and Mr. Donald Maclean were terminated on 1st June, 1952, with effect from 1st June, 1951, the date on which they were suspended from duty.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the reason for this extraordinary delay of one year in finally deciding to dispense with the services of these two men?
    Mr. Nutting: It is because the search for them was continuing. Indeed, the search is still continuing. But, having been absent without leave for a year, my right hon. Friend has considered that as a disciplinary measure their appointments should be terminated and that they should be dismissed the Service.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it to be understood that disciplinary measures can be applied to absconding Government civil servants only after they have absconded for 12 months? Is that an essential qualification which must be taken into account before people are given the sack?
    Mr. Nutting: No, Sir.
    Sir H. Williams: Was not this information given about a fortnight ago in answer to one of my Questions?
    Mr. Nally: In view of the fact that among large sections of the Press, during slack periods, it is becoming customary to fill in with stories about these two gentlemen, could the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that it is a fact that prior to the departure of these two gentlemen they were in fact already being considered by the Foreign Office as not quite suitable for the offices which each of them held?
    Mr. Nutting: That is another question and, what is more, it happened at a period when the present Government were not responsible. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could address his question to his right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison).
    Mr. Nally: On a point of order. I am sorry, but this is a relevant question and I would ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, whether, when a question is within the purview of a Minister and he has the information which would enable him to reply now—although he can refuse—he is in order in referring me to his predecessor and suggesting that I take advantage of the procedure which does exist in this House but which is not used, whereby one private Member can address a question to another?
    Mr. Speaker: I understood the reference to be somewhat jocular in its tone.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment.

    REFUGEES (INTERNATIONAL TRACING SERVICE)
    Captain Ryderasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what organisation is to undertake the International Tracing Service formerly carried out by the International Refugee Organisation.
    Mr. Nutting: The International Tracing Service is now supervised by the Allied High Commission for Germany. The question of its continuation under international supervision is now being discussed.
    Captain Ryder: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that those interested in refugees and displaced persons are very concerned that this valuable organisation should not go by default, and will he get his Department to keep a watch on it to see that it is maintained in efficiency?
    Mr. Nutting: Most certainly. The Foreign Office very much hope we shall be able to continue this excellent organisation, whose records are of considerable use still to Belgium and Holland.

    GERMANY (MILITARY SERVICE)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent, in his official interviews with Dr. Adenauer on the German contribution to Western Defence, the question of Germans being allowed to appeal as conscientious objectors from military service, was discussed.
    Mr. Nutting: This matter has not been discussed with Dr. Adenauer.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that during the last five years a large sum of British money has been spent on anti-militarist propaganda in Germany with the result that very many intelligent Germans are now conscientious objectors, and is it not time that the Government considered this matter in case these people are put into jail for being anti-militarists?
    Mr. Nutting: Whatever money was spent by the previous Government in converting Germans to pacifism, Her Majesty's Government have now no responsibility for it. What is now in the contract is that this is a matter of internal German law.
    Mr. J. Hynd: But is it not the case that the German Basic Law, which is the West German constitution, provides specifically that no German will be forced to serve in the military forces against his conscience?
    Mr. Nutting: That is perfectly true. No one may be compelled against his conscience to perform war service as a combatant under Article 4 of the Basic Law, but that does not alter the fact that it is not a matter for which Her Majesty's Government have any responsibility.

    OVERFISHING CONVENTION (RATIFICATIONS)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the recently concluded pact to regulate fishing in the North Sea.
    Mr. Nutting: There is no inter-governmental agreement to regulate fishing in the North Sea subsequent to the Convention signed at the International Over-fishing Conference held in London in 1946. I would refer the hon. Member to a written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on 29th May last. The situation has not changed since that date.
    Mr. Grimond: Is it not the case that all the nations concerned have now ratified the 1946 agreement? If that is so, does that not mean that the agreement can now be put into force in some respects?
    Mr. Nutting: I am informed that Spain has not yet ratified it and that that is the only ratification still outstanding. The position has not changed since the hon. Gentleman was given the previous reply.

    SAN MARINO (WAR DAMAGE CLAIM)
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the amount of compensation offered to the Republic of San Marino in respect of damage caused in June, 1944, during aerial bombardment of the area.
    Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. In 1944 the Republic of San Marino was bombed by units of the Desert Air Force and was fought over and finally occupied by Allied Forces. The Government of San Marino subsequently submitted a claim for compensation amounting to 732 million Italian lire, approximately £421,000 at the present rate of exchange. Her Majesty's Government have consistently repudiated any legal liability for the damage caused in San Marino on the grounds that the neutrality of the Republic had previously been violated by the German occupation. But out of consideration and sympathy for the sufferings and losses caused to the citizens

    421
    of the Republic through the use of their territory by the German Armed Forces, Her Majesty's Government offered, first in June, 1949, and on three subsequent occasions, an ex gratia payment of £26,000 in final settlement of any claims against Her Majesty's Government. The Government of San Marino have not hitherto felt able to accept this offer.
    Mr. Dalton: Would it not be more appropriate if we were to send this claim to the West German Government?
    Mr. Nutting: The Government of San Marino have already asked us to support a claim which they intend to make against the German Federal Government, but no such claim has yet been made. In any case, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, Her Majesty's Government are precluded by the Paris Agreement of 1946 from making on their own behalf or on behalf of anybody else claims for further reparations on Germany pending a definite settlement.
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, but could the Government not use their good offices with Dr. Adenauer to get him to pay up in this case?
    Mr. Nutting: No claim has been made. Therefore, no question of using our good offices with Dr. Adenauer can arise.
    Mr. Driberg: Can the hon. Gentleman give a rough indication of the extent of the damage, since £26,000 is a very small sum? Is it not true that this offer expires this coming Saturday, and if that is so will the hon. Gentleman consider extending the time?
    Mr. Nutting: It is the case that this offer expires on 3rd July, which is tomorrow. We have felt bound to set some time limit upon the acceptance of the offer by the San Marinese Government because it has been pending since June, 1949. Her Majesty's Government wish to discharge their obligations towards the San Marinese people in this matter, but we cannot go on indefinitely making this offer.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that in the claim by the Republic of San Marino it was stated that the Allied Forces were the first to violate the boundary of the country and whether there is
    422
    any evidence in support of that contention? Can he also say whether their claim against us is based upon that contention, and if those facts are not accepted by us, would it not be a suitable question to refer to some kind of international third party judgment.
    Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, the San Marinese Government have claimed that it was the Allied Forces who first violated their territory, but they have adduced no evidence whatsoever in support of that contention.
    Mr. Driberg: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my supplementary question?
    Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that the Government of San Marino are all Communists, and why should we finance the Communist cause?
    Mr. Nutting: The Government of San Marino is dominated by the Communist Party, but nevertheless Her Majesty's Government feel that they should discharge their obligation to the San Marinese people.
    Mr. Driberg: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the first part of my original supplementary question?
    Mr. Nutting: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. So far as I am aware, this sum will cover the extent of the damage caused.

  MINISTRY OF FOOD

    Eggs (Black Market)
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the widespread disapproval in the country concerning the black market in eggs; and what results have been obtained from the investigations ordered by his Department in the Midlands.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): My right hon. and gallant Friend is aware of substantial black market activity in eggs. Between 1st October, 1951, and 31st May, 1952, the number of convictions, mostly for large scale operations, was 186, eight of which were in the Midland area.
    Miss Burton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his right hon. Friend recently said in the House that only 45 per cent. of the eggs produced in this country reached the egg grading scheme? Would he do something about this matter, so that everybody may have an equal share of eggs?
    Dr. Hill: In giving that figure of 45 per cent. my right hon. Friend explained, as the hon. Lady will recall, that eggs from flocks under 25 in number can properly come on to the market free of control. However, my right hon. Friend is reexamining the whole scheme of egg control, and will take into account the point raised by the hon. Lady.
    Mr. F. Harris: Would my hon. Friend not consider derationing eggs altogether?
    Dr. Hill: The choice is between decontrol and the strengthening of enforcement.

    Stocks
    Mr. Donnellyasked the Minister of Food the foods in which the country's stocks have decreased since 1st November, 1951; and how, in the light of existing financial policy, he expects food stocks at the end of 1952 to compare with the figures for the end of 1951.
    Dr. Hill: For reasons of commercial prudence my right hon. and gallant Friend cannot make any statement about our present and prospective stocks of food.
    Mr. Donnelly: Is the Minister not aware that that kind of verbal smokescreen makes it impossible for us to form any assessment of the balance-of-payments situation?
    Dr. Hill: It is the same kind of adjectival smoke-screen as was put up by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember, as he surely does, that when that answer was given by Labour Ministers it was universally condemned by Conservative Members? What does he mean by coming to this House and giving the same answer as he and his hon. Friends condemned universally?
    Dr. Hill: The reasons for secrecy about commercial stocks, as about emergency stockpiling, remain unaltered.
    Mr. Shinwell: May we have a secret Session on this subject?

    Home-grown Fruit
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that there is likely to be an exceptionally heavy crop of all kinds of home-grown fruit this year; and what steps he is taking to ensure the sale of this crop at prices which will offer a reasonable return to British growers.
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend is aware that a heavy crop is expected of some kinds of home-grown fruit. But as will be appreciated, reductions in imports of fruit pulp and soft fruits generally will afford a measure of protection for the home grower, and my right hon. and gallant Friend will do his utmost to ensure that sugar and tinplate allocations do not restrict unduly the purchases of jam manufacturers and canners.
    Mr. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that this year, so far, in spite of the import cuts intended, enormous quantities of foreign fruit and vegetables have been dumped here, to the detriment of our home growers? Will he say what he is going to do over the rest of this year to ensure that the home producer shall have first place in the home market?
    Dr. Hill: The position is that, strawberries apart, imports of fruit for this year will amount to about one-quarter of the imports of fruit last year. I would add that it is not within the power of my right hon. and gallant Friend to ensure the sale of more than the market can absorb at prices the consumer will pay.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman expecting a bumper crop of raspberries?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not see how any serious answer can be given.
    Mr. Alport: Is it not a fact that one of the reasons for the depreciation of price that has taken place and which has seriously affected the soft fruit growers in this country is the very substantial imports of fruit pulp which took place under the previous Government?
    Mrs. Mann: On a point of order—and this is a real point of order. Question No. 34 has managed to get on to the

    425
    Order Paper, although my own Question, which was exactly similar, was held off. Perhaps I ought to be able to get a supplementary question in.
    Mr. Speaker: I did not see the hon. Lady's Question which was refused at the Table, but the refusal of a Question at the Table has never been considered a valid ground for asking a supplementary question.

    Jam (Fruit Content)
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the exceptionally large quantity of home-grown fruit which will be available for canning during the coming season, he will permit canners and jam manufacturers to provide a larger fruit content in their products.
    Dr. Hill: The relevant orders prescribe only the minimum weight content for tins of canned fruit and the minimum fruit content for jam.
    Mr. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the minimum sugar content at present prescribed by this Department is as low as can be arranged for purposes of preservation? Would it be possible to cut it down still lower?
    Dr. Hill: The Question referred to the fruit content. The jam manufacturer is free to increase the fruit content above the minimum, provided he feels that a sale can be found at the higher price that would be necessary.
    Mr. Mitchison: What is the rest of this jam?
    Captain Duncan: My hon. Friend says it will be necessary to increase the price of jam which was above the minimum fruit content. Does he realise that, owing to the very heavy fruit crop which has brought about a reduction in the price of fruit, there would not necessarily be an increased price? Will he therefore increase the minimum fruit content?
    Dr. Hill: My right hon. and gallant Friend is advised that to raise the minimum content, even taking into account the recent fall in prices, would of itself have the result of increasing the price of jam.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has permitted an extra
    426
    5½d. per lb. to be charged for the improved sausage? Why does he refuse even ½d. or 1½d. for an improved pound of jam? Why does he continue to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel?
    Dr. Hill: The connection between jam and sausage is indeed distant.

    Feedingstuffs (Wholesale Licences)
    Mr. W. G. Bennettasked the Minister of Food to what extent it is the Government's policy to restrict the granting of wholesale dealers licences in animal feedingstuffs to firms dealing in that commodity prior to 1939.
    Dr. Hill: Before 1939, wholesale trading in imported feedingstuffs was combined with direct importing. The Government is now the sole importer and, so long as this position continues, restriction to pre-1939 traders materially reduces the costs of distribution. Additional licences are granted in appropriate cases for trading in home-produced feedingstuffs.
    Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister not aware that at the moment his Department are restricting licences although firms have the materials available and are able to help the trade? Is it not the policy of the Government to free trade where possible?
    Dr. Hill: It is the Government's policy to depart from the 1939 position in this matter of licensing, as in the matter of pre-war datum usage allocations. In this case, there are immense practical difficulties.

    ATOMIC ESPIONAGE (PRESS ARTICLES)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    45. Mr. WIGG: To ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered the substance of the newspaper articles recently written by Mr. Alan Moorehead, a former Public Relations Officer of the Ministry of Defence, to which his attention has been drawn and what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the publication of these articles does not involve a breach of the Official Secrets Act.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I will with permission, answer Question No. 45.
    I am informed that it was decided during the last Administration, with the then Prime Minister's approval, to give an established author enough access to official material, within the limits permitted by official secrecy, to enable him to write an accurate account of events concerning atomic espionage. The text of the articles was examined by the Departments concerned and there is no question of any breach of the Official Secrets Act.
    Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that if any reference was made to the Ministry of Defence on this matter of disclosure for the purpose of authorship it was not referred to the Minister?
    The Prime Minister: The initiation of this project took place before I had to assume the burden of responsibility for public affairs.
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but is the right hon. Gentleman not a little surprised to find disclosures of this kind in the Press which were not submitted—at any rate the material of which was not submitted—to the Minister in order to ascertain his views about publication?
    The Prime Minister: I really think that is not a matter which particularly affects the present Administration. We followed
    428
    the course which was being pursued, I think a beneficial course, a very right and proper course. I am by no means sure on the spur of the moment that the Minister of Defence, among other Departments, was not consulted in the final stages.
    Mr. Shinwell: Then may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Defence, since assuming office, was consulted about this matter?
    The Prime Minister: I think I might have notice of that question.
    Mr. Wigg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these articles reveal detailed methods of interrogation by security officers, and that therefore they must be prejudicial to the interests of the State? Will he take steps to see that any future articles that are published do not reveal such details?
    The Prime Minister: A great deal of material is published here and also abroad on these delicate matters, on disputable matters, and it was thought right by the late Administration—and we fully share their views—that a truthful and substantive account of what had taken place should be put out in the form and manner which has been described. I must say that in Alan Moorehead—who I understand was at one time publicity officer to the Ministry of Defence—one could hardly have had a more trustworthy author.

KOREA

  Minister of Defence (Speech at Canada Club)
  Mr. Shinwell(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that certain matters were excluded from the report by the Minister of Defence and the Minister of State to Parliament and what steps he will take to lay the full facts before Parliament.
  The Prime Minister: I will give the House the full facts at once. Last night Lord Alexander, speaking impromptu at what he took to be a private gathering of the Canada Club—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—hon. Members would like to hear the answer before interrupting, would they not?—according to the reports which I have received and with which Lord Alexander agrees, said that there were weaknesses in Korea one of which he did not like to mention in the House of Lords. When guests shouted out, "Why not?" he answered:
  "Because it is a thing I was asked not to mention as a matter of secrecy. I should be very much happier if General Van Fleet had a little more reserve in his own hands. I think that if the Chinese attempt a full-scale offensive they will penetrate the front to a depth of some miles in some places. But I believe owing to the efficiency of the Eighth Army and their fire-power they will be able to bring the offensive to a halt."
  The word "secrecy" which Lord Alexander used on the spur of the moment was no doubt unfortunately chosen. What he intended to imply was that his remarks might be liable to be misconstrued if said in a public speech and not that they affected military security, which in my opinion they did not.
  When preparing his statement for the House of Lords, Lord Alexander took the special precaution of referring the principal points in what he proposed to say to General Omar Bradley. The General replied that he would prefer that no public reference should be made as to the strength of the reserves but that he did not dissent from the statement as an expression of opinion. He thought that in its original form it might be misconstrued as implying a serious inadequacy of reserves. In making this point he said that naturally any commander would be happier to have larger reserves and to this extent the proposed statement was unexceptionable. In its original form
  430
  it might be interpreted as implying that there were virtually no reserves, which was too bleak a picture.
  In consequence of this interchange, Lord Alexander omitted from his public speech in the House of Lords any reference to the reserves. But speaking as he thought to a private gathering, off the record—[Interruption.)—I am saying what he thought, not what happened—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] All right. I will say what he said. Speaking, as he thought, to a private gathering, off the record, he made the reference in the form I have read out to the House, namely,
  "I should be very much happier if General Van Fleet had a little more reserve in his own hands."
  This statement seems to me perfectly harmless, and if it had been made in the House of Lords as part of Lord Alexander's official statement, it would not, I believe, have attracted undue attention. The circumstances of the occasion, the setting of the remark and the use of the word "secrecy," have invested the incident with an air of mystery and significance which can only be removed by a full statement such as I have made.
  I may add that the mobile reserves of the Eighth Army in Korea have been substantially increased by the availability of the considerable forces which were used on Koje Island for the restoration of order in the prisoners-of-war camps there and, as Lord Alexander said in the House of Lords and repeated in other words at the dinner, which I have read:
  "I believe that a full-scale offensive by the enemy under present conditions can be held and that he will suffer terrific casualties. He may outmatch us in numbers of men, as he does considerably, but we are superior in firepower and mobility."
  Finally, Sir, let me make my compliments to the Press of the United Kingdom which, on a mere request, on a simple request, that the matter should be considered off the record, without exception abstained from publication.
  Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, first, whether he is aware that the Press were present at this gathering and, therefore, it could not be regarded as a private function? Moreover, is he aware that before the Press were asked to regard the statement made by Lord Alexander as confidential, it had been cir-

  431
  culated even to the Tass Agency, as reported in the "Evening Standard" of this afternoon? Moreover, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Alexander, when asked "Why not?" by voices at the function, said:
  "Because it is a thing I was asked not to mention as a matter of secrecy."
  May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Lord Alexander was instructed by the Government not to mention this statement in his report to Parliament? [HON. MEMBERS: "How many more questions?"] All right; I will content myself with those two and will ask some more afterwards.
  The Prime Minister: What was the first question?
  Mr. Shinwell: That, no doubt, gives the right hon. Gentleman a little time to work out a reply. The first question I asked—I repeat it—was whether he was aware that the Press were present at this function—[An HON. MEMBER: "Including Tass."]—and that Lord Alexander must have known they were present, and that this was known to the chairman of the function, the High Commissioner for Canada. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that?
  The Prime Minister: Lord Alexander was not definitely aware that the Press were present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members want me to answer the question, I will do so. [Interruption.] Do not show so much bias when the object is to reach the truth. Lord Alexander was not aware that the Press were present, but in Canada, where he has made a great many of these speeches to clubs all over Canada, often the Press have been present and he has said, "This part is off the record" and that has always been respected, as it has been respected by the British Press on this occasion.
  Mr. Shinwell: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to reply to the question I put—whether he is aware that this was circulated, even to the Tass agency? Further, will he be good enough to say whether he regards it as satisfactory that a Minister can make a statement at what is, after all, a public function, with all sorts of people present, including the Press, which he has not made available to both Houses of Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: The Minister may easily make an impromptu statement which upon consideration he would have phrased differently. As to the facts of this matter having been circulated to the Tass Agency, that seems to have lost some of its significance, as I have already circulated it to the House of Commons.
  Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Lord Alexander, who did, apparently, quite honestly and conscientiously regard this matter as secret and confidential—as, indeed, he said—conveyed this information to the Prime Minister; and what did the Prime Minister instruct him to do?
  The Prime Minister: I was not consulted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Why should I be? I have never been consulted on details of every statement which is made—
  Mr. Shinwell: This was a secret statement.
  The Prime Minister: —but if he had asked me, I should have said, "Make it in the House of Lords. It can do no possible harm. It is true and thoroughly guarded by your other remarks." That is what I should have said.
  Mr. Shinwell: I repeat the question, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to give a straight answer.
  The Prime Minister: I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman on a perfectly fair and square level and giving full and clear answers. That he should suggest that I vary my answers between what is straight and what is not straight is worthy of his own mind and worthy only of his own mind.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we recognise that the reason he is losing his temper is that he is in a position of great difficulty from which he cannot extricate himself? Is he aware that he has accused hon. and right hon. Members on this side of lack of tact and that now, when he is asked about one of his Ministers "dropping a brick," he loses his temper? Whether the right hon. Gentleman regards it as impudent or not, he has got to give a straight and truthful answer to the House.
  The Prime Minister The Prime Minister rose—
  Mr. Shinwell: Wait a minute.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Speaker: I think the heat outside is affecting this discussion, and I will ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to keep any unnecessary heat out of their questions.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We really must conduct this matter in an orderly fashion. An answer has been given to a Private Notice Question. The business before the House is on that footing.
  Mr. Shinwell: All that I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman—apparently I have to repeat it—is whether, in view of the fact, and it is a fact, that Lord Alexander regarded this statement as being of a private and confidential character—
  The Prime Minister: Secret.
  Mr. Shinwell: —and, indeed, secret, it was not desirable that he should consult the Prime Minister before making it to a public function.
  The Prime Minister: I did not lose my temper at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was only trying to do justice to the needlessly offensive character of the right hon. Gentleman's remark. I think it is a rather serious thing to suggest that another Member is not making a straight and truthful answer, because the alternative conclusion would be that he was making a crooked and false answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Very well. I am delighted to find that that opinion is so readily accepted on the other side, because if I valued their opinion I might withdraw.
  I am making a very full and clear answer on the whole of this matter. Naturally, I was not consulted, nor should I have been, on what, in my opinion, was such a harmless matter as the statement:
  "I should be very much happier if General Van Fleet had a little more reserve in his own hands."
  If that statement had been made in any other context, it would not have attracted the slightest serious attention. That is the position. It is the context in which it was accidentally put that has caused an air of mystery and alarm. It is another
  434
  mare's nest which has been exploited by the other side. They are, of course, entitled to make what party capital they can out of it.
  Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not realise the seriousness of the position in which two Ministers are sent out, come back and make a report to Parliament, and then, on the same evening, one of those Ministers gets up at a meeting and says, "Here is something I would not tell Parliament but I will tell 500 individuals here"? Does not that show great inexperience as to what the proper relations of a Minister are to Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: I have already said that I think it would have been better if the statement had been made in another place. That would have been better, but there is no harm in the statement and no injury has been done to public security by the statement. I fully admit that the word "secrecy" was an unfortunate term to have applied in this particular instance and on this particular occasion.
  Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman does not quite realise the point. The point is not whether it was secret or whether it was a matter of very great importance; but here we have a Minister who, after he and his colleague have reported to Parliament, goes out and says, "There are things I have been told I had better not say and while I will not report them to Parliament—to whom I am bound to report—I am prepared to tell them to a private gathering."
  The Prime Minister: I think that is all dealt with in the full—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, hon. Members say "No" and they can say it again—I think that was all dealt with in the very full, frank and careful report I have given to the House. I have said that I thought it would have been much better if this particular statement had been included in the speech which Lord Alexander delivered in another place. It would have been better; but it would have been perfectly harmless whether it was delivered at the dinner under what were thought to be off-the-record conditions—[Interruption]—what he thought to be off-the-record conditions; I am not blaming other people—or in the House of Lords. I cannot see that, if the remark itself is not of any importance or

  435
  significance, the fact that it was, so to speak, framed by an impromptu introduction of the word "secrecy" in any way alters the merits of the case.
  Mr. Attlee: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Minister owes some apology to Parliament when he goes out of his way to tell a private gathering that there are things he is prepared to tell them but which he has been forbidden to tell to Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "forbidden to say to Parliament"?
  Mr. Attlee: That is what Lord Alexander said.
  The Prime Minister: He never used the word "forbidden."
  Mr. Attlee: I am only going on Press reports. Lord Alexander said there was
  "one weakness he did not like to mention in the House of Lords"—
  and presumably also he would not like it mentioned in the speech made by the Minister to the House of Commons. We have to remember that Lord Alexander was informing the House of Lords while the other Minister was informing this House as to what was the exact position of our troops in Korea. The Minister then said there was a matter he did not like to mention in the House of Lords. When asked why, he said:
  "Because it is a thing I was asked not to mention."
  The Prime Minister says it is not a matter of secrecy; he says it is quite harmless but the fact is that by someone or other—we do not know by whom—he was asked to withhold this information from Members of both Houses. That may or may not have been right and there may have been sound reasons for it. What is not right is that a Minister who is responsible to Parliament should get up and say, "I was asked not to mention it to Parliament, but I am prepared to mention it outside to other people."
  The Prime Minister: I do not at all deny that there is some substance in that statement, but what happened was that the view which was entertained by General Omar Bradley was not that the matter was secret in the sense of affect-
  436
  ing security, but that if it were stated in a very prominent public manner it might be misconstrued by the general public. [Interruption.] Hon. Members had better try to get the point. That is the point. Lord Alexander thought when he was speaking to the gathering—he was wrong in that matter—that he could say "This is off the record" and it would be off the record, as had often been his experience in Canada.
  The result of that, of course, was undoubtedly unfortunate and I have said it was unfortunate. I have no doubt that Lord Alexander regrets that on the spur of the moment he was led to put in these words, "I did not say this in the House of Lords"—I am not quoting exactly—"because it is of a secret character." But that does not alter the fact that what he said was perfectly harmless and could have been said in the House of Lords. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right—it could have been said in the House of Lords and would have done no harm of any kind to the security and safety of the troops which, after all, is the important matter.
  Mr. Attlee Mr. Attlee rose—
  Sir H. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether there is not a certain "raffle" fixed for 3.30 p.m.?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must really leave the matter to me. We have spent a long time over this and I should be glad if the House could come to a reasonable conclusion. Mr. Attlee.
  Commander Donaldson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All the questions in relation to this topic have been put from the Opposition. May I be allowed to catch your eye?
  Mr. Speaker: I have it firmly in mind that it is customary to call the Leader of the Opposition when he rises to ask a Question. Mr. Attlee.
  Mr. Attlee: Would it not have been better if the right hon. Gentleman, in explaining this matter to the House, had expressed some regret on behalf of the Ministers and the Government that they had, whether by inadvertence or not, treated both Houses of Parliament with disrespect in this matter?
  The Prime Minister: I do not admit for a moment that there was any intentional disrespect of any kind intended to either House. On that I can give every assurance. But I did express regret when I used the words, "unfortunately chosen." It was no doubt unfortunate. That certainly is an expression of regret—"unfortunately chosen." That clearly is an essential part of the full statement which I made to the House upon this subject.
  Commander Donaldson: I am grateful to be called, Sir, and I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the dinner held last night was indeed and in fact a private dinner to which some members of the Press had been invited, that my noble Friend was not aware that the Press had been invited and that he asked the High Commissioner for Canada to ask the Press to use normal restraint in a matter of this kind?
  I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is not aware that Lord Alexander has recently returned from his period as Governor-General of Canada, where such things are understood by the people and are understood by the Press? I ask him whether he is aware that these are the circumstances which supported my noble Friend in making the statement, and that he had no desire whatever to show disrespect to either House?
  Mr. Carmichael: On a point of order. Would it be in order for you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the hon. and gallant Member to desist from his question and not embarrass the Government any more?
  Mr. Speaker: It would not be in order for me to do that.
  The Prime Minister The Prime Minister rose—
  Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Commander Donaldson) had certainly not finished his question.
  Mr. Speaker: Both those points of order refer in contrary senses to the length of the question that was being asked by the hon. and gallant Member. There is no point of order in either of them.
  The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will permit me to answer so much of his question as I can remember. As I understand it, Lord Alexander was not aware that the Press were present—[Interruption.] Do try to
  438
  apply the ordinary processes of reasoning—but when he learned that they were present he expressed the hope that they would be governed by the usual restraint, and they certainly were. Lord Alexander was right in expressing this hope, and the Press were right in giving effect to it. The only people who are wrong are those who are seeking to make a party ramp out of it.
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
  "the withholding from Parliament by Ministers of information subsequently disclosed by the Minister of Defence at a public dinner, and said by him to be secret."
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the withholding from Parliament by Ministers of information subsequently disclosed by the Minister of Defence at a public dinner, and said by him to be secret.
  I am like the rest of the House in having heard the answer for the first time. I have allowed this discussion by way of supplementary questions to proceed in order to seek enlightenment, and as I understand the matter from the last question asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, it really seems to me to boil down to a question, as he put it, of an expression of regret for some discourtesy shown to the House. If that be so, I would point out first of all to this House that it is the other House to which the Minister of Defence belongs, and in which he made his speech. That is relevant from the point of view of any question of Privilege; it is for the other House to deal with.
  It seems to me that I should be wrong to allow the Adjournment of the House to be moved under the Standing Order on the ground of urgency. The words have been said and an explanation of them has been given, and there is nothing that the House could do, it seems to me, by interrupting the Orders of the Day today, to change the situation. It seems to me that the proper course for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who criticise in this matter is to put down a

  439
  Motion of censure if, on further reflection, they see fit to do so. It does not appear to me to be a case which comes within the Standing Order on the ground of urgency.
  Mr. Attlee: May I submit to you, Sir, that the statements made in the other place and in this House were to all intents and purposes identical, and therefore there was a withholding of information not only from another place but from this House? This House, therefore, was given an incomplete view of the situation in Korea, and that, I submit to you, is a matter of urgency that requires to be corrected.
  Mr. Bowles: May I also submit, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is urgent because the noble Lord may go to another dinner tonight and disclose more? Secondly, may I, with great respect, suggest to you that I doubt very much whether hon. and right hon. Members of this House have the Light to put down a Motion of censure on a Member of another place? I should have thought that that really would have been a breach of Privilege so far as the other House is concerned.
  Mr. Speaker: It would, of course, be a Motion of censure on the Government referring to the conduct of one of its Ministers.
  In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I would say that my difficulty is that, though a statement was made in this House by the Minister of State on his experiences in Korea, it was not the Minister of State who made the speech at the Canada Club. I have to prevent the rule from being wrongfully used, and I would ask the House to accept that this is not a sufficiently urgent matter. The rule is really intended for the interruption of the Orders of the Day and the business assigned for the day when a discussion on some emergency of this character can usefully be held.
  I ask the House to consider what has been said today, and if they think fit to pursue this matter further, remembering that apparently it is agreed that there is no question of security involved, or I might have taken a different view of the matter. [Interruption.] I think that is the general view—to put down a Motion of censure dealing with the matter.
  440
  I think that would be the regular way of dealing with it.
  Mr. Attlee: May I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the real matter of urgency is that, so far as we know, none of these Ministers seems to understand the proper relationship of the Government to the House? They may all be running round making speeches.
  The Prime Minister: On that point, might I suggest the appropriateness of a Motion of censure to cover these general charges?
  Mr. Speaker: It appears to me, and I hope the House will agree, that this really resolves itself more into a question of the propriety of the conduct of the Minister than of any real injury to the public service—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh] That is my view. I hope the House will follow, either on a Supply Day or by a Motion of censure, the course which I have suggested.
  Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you will consider giving your Ruling, if not today then tomorrow, on the constitutional propriety of the practice of Her Majesty's Ministers in submitting the text of their speeches for approval and censorship by senior military officers of a foreign Power, even a friendly foreign power, before delivering them to Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, and on a point of order with regard to the statement made. I submit that that statement of the hon. Gentleman is absolutely misleading and that there was no question of submitting the text of the statement to be made here for the approval of a foreign Power, but only of getting friendly advice as to what would be helpful to common operations by officers who bear the responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a separate point of order.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Reverting to your original Ruling Mr. Speaker, may I suggest, with respect, that the point about the urgency of such a debate as my right hon. Friend wants to have, and which might indeed change the situation, is this—that in view of the matter which my right hon. Friend has raised, neither of these Ministers is any longer fit to hold their offices, and particularly the Minister

  441
  of Defence, in view of his disclosure of information which he refused to the House. If that view is correct, it is obviously an urgent matter, and it is obviously a matter on which an immediate debate could, if the vote went a certain way, change the situation.
  Mr. Gower: Further to that point of order—
  Mr. Silverman: May I have an answer?
  Mr. Gower: —if a Minister who has not been reared in the contentious atmosphere of this honourable House—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making very slow progress. We must get on.
  Mr. Gower: If such a Minister should, in the atmosphere of a social meeting, a friendly meeting—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. In reply to the question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I think his point is that he thinks the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Adjournment, or sought to move it, considers that these Ministers are not fit for their posts and that that is an urgent matter. Well, I think every Opposition in the history of this House has held the view that Ministers, or some of them, on the Government Front Bench have not been fit for their posts; and I do not think that such a widely and constantly held opinion can be treated as a matter of urgency.
  Mr. Gower: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: I hope the House will listen.
  Mr. Gower: Very briefly, if such a Minister ventures an expression of opinion beyond what he may have said either in another place or in this House, and if right hon. and hon. Members are critical of that, are not they being unduly sensitive?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Shinwell: Surely there is some urgency in so far as a point has now been established, namely, that the Minister of Defence, after having made a
  442
  certain statement in another place on behalf of the Government, amended his statement at a public function on the same day—[Horn. MEMBERS: "A private function."]—amended his statement at a function on the same day, and that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister himself, what the Minister of Defence did was "unfortunate." Surely the urgency lies in this, that it is desirable that the House should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion—
  The Prime Minister: On a point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I understood I was listening to a point of order.
  Mr. Shinwell: I was coming to the point that surely the House should be afforded an opportunity at the very earliest moment of expressing an opinion which at any rate might have the effect of preventing other Ministers from conducting themselves—
  The Prime Minister: Like you.
  Mr. Shinwell: —in this unfortunate manner? I submit that that is a legitimate point of order and a legitimate ground of urgency.
  Mr. Speaker: In answer to that point of order, I must say that, if any Ministers have not been sufficiently impressed already with the difficulties that may arise from an unhappy choice of words, I do not think that any further discussion today would do that. But I do not in any way seek to say that, if the House thinks that this is a proper matter for discussion, as showing some lack of competence or courtesy, or what you will, on the part of the Minister, it should not put down a Motion for a debate. That could be done. I am only concerned, in the interests of the whole House, to try to administer Standing Order No. 9 fairly and correctly.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): As you have given—
  Mr. J. Hudson: On a point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think there are several points of order, and the one I am first disposed to listen to is that of the Lord Privy Seal.
  Mr. Crookshank: I was going to ask whether, as you, Sir, have given your

  443
  Ruling twice on this definitive question raised from the Front Bench opposite, it is not the ordinary practice of the House that your Ruling should at once be accepted, and that, you having given a decision and certain advice, it is up to hon. and right hon. Members opposite to consider the advice you have given with the best grace they can, and that we should get on with further business at once?
  Mr. Speaker: That is the usual practice; but I would point out that when an hon. Member gets up on a point of order I do not know what he is going to say until he has said it. That is the difficulty. I cannot check an hon. Member who rises before I know what he is going to say, and by that time he has said it.
  Mr. Crookshank: Is it not a long-established practice that when Motions are attempted to be moved under this Standing Order, no point of order can possibly arise after Mr. Speaker has given his Ruling?
  Mr. J. Hudson: As regards the question of urgency, I wish to put to you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order that the House has not considered at all. I shall submit it with great respect. It is time that it should be considered. The point is this, that all this difficulty has arisen at what has been called a public dinner. Is it not a matter of great urgency that Ministers should cease trying to make important and dangerous declarations, requiring keen judgment and care, on such occasions, and is it not necessary that these statements should be made in other places, particularly when there is an opportunity to make them in Parliament? A public dinner should never be allowed to be a place where such statements may be made. I put that point seriously.
  Mr. Speaker: That certainly is a novel point, but it is not a point of order.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: The Chancellor of the Exchequer.

GOLD AND DOLLAR RESERVES
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): With your permission. Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement on the gold and dollar position.
The gold and dollar deficit of the sterling area during the past quarter amounted to 14 million dollars. There was a net refund to the United States of America of one million dollars of E.R.P. money. The gold and dollar reserves, therefore, fell by 15 million dollars in the quarter. This compares with a deficit of 636 million dollars in the first quarter of the year, of which 299 million dollars was lost in January, 266 million dollars in February and 71 million dollars in March. At 30th June the reserves stood at 1,685 million dollars, compared with 1,700 million dollars on 31st March, 1952.
It is too early to give a detailed analysis of the reasons for this considerable improvement. But I should mention that we had receipts of 202 million dollars of defence aid from the United States of America as against ten million dollars in the first quarter of the year, and that our E.P.U. gold settlements amounted to 143 million dollars, compared with 219 million dollars in the first quarter. Again, we have started to see the effect upon our imports from the dollar area of the cuts which we in the United Kingdom have had to make; and also the effect of the action taken following the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting by other members of the sterling area. The fall in imports has not, however, involved a reduction in the total quantity of stocks of essential imported foods and raw materials.
There are also seasonal influences which have worked in our favour during the quarter just ended. For all these reasons I must repeat what I said to the House on 12th June. First, that we have gained a respite, but the task before us is long and hard; and, second, that we must put the balance of payments first in all our considerations and that we shall continue to take whatever further measures prove necessary to maintain confidence in sterling and to balance our payments.
In future, since the E.P.U. balance is announced monthly, the figures for the

445
gold and dollar reserves will also be published monthly. I will give explanations of them to the House from time to time, as may seem necessary.
Mr. Gaitskell: I should like to ask the Chancellor why, in calculating the deficit or, as it may be, the surplus of the sterling area, he now includes economic aid from the United States of America, whereas previously both Sir Stafford Cripps and I always counted it separately? Does he not think that, for the purpose of comparison, it would be better to continue with the old practice, in which event I think that it would be correct to say that the deficit in the third quarter was 216 million dollars—that is, without counting any economic aid? Would the Chancellor confirm whether or not that figure is correct?
Would he also tell us what the rate of deficit has been in the last three weeks since he made the last statement? He has given us monthly figures for the first quarter of this year. I am not asking for all the monthly figures for the second quarter, but could we know the latest position? Thirdly, what further measures does he contemplate to deal with the dangerous situation disclosed by the low reserves and the fact that we are barely—in fact, not—in balance, despite substantial economic aid?
Mr. Butler: The answer to the first point is that there is really no difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. I took the trouble in my statement to illustrate the exact amount of aid, so it really comes to the same thing. I will certainly look into what he has said, because it is the desire of the Government to place before the House and the country the exact position so that we all know where we are. That is why I included the amount of aid in the statement. If the right hon. Gentleman adds up the two figures, he will find that his mathematics are correct, except that I make allowance for one million dollars of E.R.P. money which he has not taken into his calculations.
On the second point about the differences in the various months, I have not got the exact figure between the exact dates, but I can say that there was a deficit of 38 million dollars in April, a plus of 16 million dollars in May and a plus of 8 million dollars in June.
Mr. Gaitskell: That includes economic aid?
Mr. Butler: Yes.
Mr. Gaitskell: Without economic aid?
Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman will have to subtract the amount given in my statement. That I think he can do. He has shown his great mathematical ability. On the last point about when we intend to announce our further measures, the right hon. Gentleman can take it that they will be announced at the right time and that they will be appropriate.
Mr. Gaitskell: I will try to get my arithmetic right. I can only answer my own question if I can have a little more information. What the Chancellor has not disclosed to the House is the amount of economic aid which we have obtained in the last month. I think that he said that we had a small deficit, but what was the total amount of the aid? The right hon. Gentleman would probably agree that what really matters is the position before counting any aid. I would submit to him that, in presenting these accounts, it is very much better to count aid independently. Could he tell us what were the figures for economic aid granted in the last month?
Mr. Butler: I have not got the figures divided up into these periods, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants them I will do my best to give them. Perhaps he will put down a Question.
Mr. Dalton: Is the Chancellor aware that the position regarding the European Payments Union has for a long time been giving considerable disquiet both to the members of this Administration and to those of the previous one? We are still losing gold to Europe. Would I be right in supposing that the countries which are gaining the gold that we are losing are still primarily Belgium and Germany?
Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman, as well as the whole House, must be well aware that at one time we had a surplus with the Union and that, unfortunately, we have a deficit which, owing to the tranche we are now in, has to be paid in gold. As a result of the recent discussions in Paris, in which I took part, we have, therefore, arranged to reduce our deficit by the sum of £8,929,000, as a result of the arrangements by which 50 million dollars of the Belgian credit to

447
the Union is to be transformed into bilateral credits to the United Kingdom and France to be repaid by deliveries of armaments over two years, and to that extent we shall relieve ourselves of gold payments. If I may say so, it will be the continual anxiety of the Government to try to relieve the United Kingdom of this great burden.
Mr. Dalton: That is not an answer to my question. The question I asked the Chancellor was who is getting the gold we are losing? Is it not still the case that the principal beneficiaries through this operation are Belgium and Germany?
Mr. Butler: I do not think it is a case of being a beneficiary, because, after all, a payments union is a reflection of the transactions of trade, and if we were to restore our balance, we should not have to pay so much. I do not think we must make it a reproach to any nation where they have a credit, but the facts, broadly, are as the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Chancellor whether he will not agree that the Union was set up—[Interruption.] I see the Prime Minister is leaving. It is all right, he has had a hard time this afternoon. Is it not a fact that when the European Payments Union was formed, there was a general understanding that each country should keep in balance with the Union, and that there is an obligation on creditor countries with surpluses also to take all possible steps to get themselves back into balance again? Does he consider that adequate action to that end is being taken by Belgium and Germany?
Mr. Butler: I must be careful in my remarks not to make any criticism in any way of the actions of foreign Governments, but the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied to note that the most intimate conversations took place in Paris between myself, representing the United Kingdom, and the Finance Ministers of the countries concerned. I am satisfied that they are well aware of the necessity of reducing their imports from America and so governing their trade that they are in a position to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman as well as myself.
The Prime Minister: May I go now?
Mr. Osborne: Is it not correct that, though our gold and dollar position is
448
still precarious, the position which the Chancellor has revealed this afternoon shows a great improvement compared with the same period last year? Can he also explain why it is that the Opposition look so glum when things are improving, and were so cheerful when we were meeting the difficulties that face us in Korea?
Mr. Butler: I can only say, in reply to that question, that certainly there is an improvement, and I should add that the scale of American aid is very much less than in the period to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring. Although I think that, in the circumstances, we should be united in agreeing that there has been an improvement, if we are to get a surplus we have still a great deal of difficulty in the final working out.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no Question before the House.

CIVIL LIST
Committee to consider the Acts relating to the Civil List upon Tuesday next.
Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message [19th May] respecting the Civil List referred to the Committee.
Report [26th June] from the Select Committee on the Civil List referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  CIVIL DEFENCE FORCES
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 18th July, I shall call attention to the need for additional recruits in the Civil Defence forces, and move a Resolution.
  EXPORT TRADE (SALESMANSHIP)
  Colonel J. H. Harrison: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 18th July, I shall call attention to the need for extending British salesmanship in foreign countries in order to increase our export trade, and move a Resolution.
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION
  Mr. James Johnson: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 18th July, I shall call attention to the need for the provision of adequate school accommodation, and move a Resolution.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MEMORIAL TO FIELD MARSHAL SMUTS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a monument be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Field Marshal Smuts, as an expression of the admiration of this House for his illustrious career and its gratitude for his devoted service to the Commonwealth, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.—[Mr. Crookshank.]
  4.37 p.m.
  Mrs. Eirene White: I am not quite clear whether, on this occasion, the same procedure is to be followed as that with regard to the memorial to President Roosevelt, in which case a Bill was later introduced. Possibly, on this occasion, there will be no need for legislation, as the circumstances are not quite analogous.
  If that is so, there is all the more reason why we should raise at this stage the question of a possible site for the proposed memorial, because, otherwise it will be decided and there will be no chance of bringing to the notice of those responsible the feelings of some of us at any rate, in this part of the Committee, upon this matter.
  I hope that, in choosing a site, a measure of tact and discretion will be shown. I say this because there have already been suggestions made in the public Press of a possible site, which I will mention in a moment, but about which there may be feelings among some of us. We in this country have every reason to be both grateful and appreciative of the work of the late Field Marshal in the Commonwealth and during two world wars. In these two respects, his work is very properly called illustrious, but I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that we have citizens in other countries of the Commonwealth who may, perhaps, have rather less reason for gratitude to the late Field Marshal.
  It is, unfortunately, true, that, admirable as was his work in many respects,
  450
  he did not always show in his domestic career the magnanimity which he displayed towards his former military opponents in this country. In dealing with Africans and with the coloured peoples and with those people in the Union of South Africa whose origins were in the Asian countries of the Commonwealth, his actions sometimes left something to be desired. I think it would be very unfortunate if, in choosing a site, we chose one which might be considered not quite appropriate by some of our fellow citizens in the Commonwealth. I say this because there have been suggestions in the Press that this monument might be placed in Parliament Square.
  I would draw the attention of those who may be responsible to the fact that there is at least one position in Parliament Square which might be considered not quite appropriate for the purpose. There may be some members of the Commonwealth who would find it extremely incongruous to have a statue of Field Marshal Smuts placed in immediate proximity to that of Abraham Lincoln.
  I hope, therefore, that while we express in a proper way our own appreciation of the work which the Field Marshal did in his relationship with this country, we shall bear in mind the possible feelings of other members of the Commonwealth in making our decision upon this matter.
  Mr. T. Driberg: I should like to support very strongly what the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has just said. I want actually to deal with an entirely different point, which I hope will also be in order, but I do feel—and many of us on this side feel—that it was necessary at some time in the course of these debates that what my hon. Friend has said, with such grace and discretion, should be said; otherwise, there might have been widespread misunderstanding in various parts of Africa, among millions of our fellow-citizens of the Commonwealth.
  The other point which I would like to make is this. I hope that when this proposal is agreed to by Parliament, and when it is being considered in practice, considerable care will be taken with regard to the actual form and design of the memorial. My hon. Friend has already referred, in another connection, to the case of the memorial to President Roosevelt, and I know that the present

  451
  Prime Minister himself took a great personal interest in the unfortunate controversy which arose about that memorial. I hope that it may be possible to avoid any such controversy in this case by having, if not a completely open competition, at any rate perhaps a limited competition for the design of the memorial—the statue or whatever it is to be—with well-accredited assessors to select the final form.
  I say that without any disrespect to the eminent sculptor who sometimes seems to be regarded as the only sculptor who can ever be commissioned to create an important memorial for public display in this country. Such a commission should not always and automatically be given to the same sculptor, however distinguished and eminent. Younger sculptors also should have their chance of putting in designs for consideration. Although the Prime Minister is not with us at the moment, I hope that this point may be brought to his personal attention, because it is a matter in which he might well be interested.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Doughty: I will say nothing about the last words spoken by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), because I know nothing about sculpture—I am sure that whatever design is produced by the Ministry of Works with the assistance of the hon. Member for Maldon will be of the best—but I rise to defend the name which has been slightly attacked today by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White).
  Field Marshal Smuts was one of the greatest members of the British Empire that has ever lived. Although he fought against us, he honourably helped us afterwards. He is also one of the greatest members that the Dominion of South Africa has ever had, and he has been of the greatest assistance to that Dominion. Whatever he did was for the best for that country—let us make no mistake about that—even if some of his actions may be criticised by those who are ill-informed.
  Let us never forget that he knew the facts better than anyone else, and that in the years that he lived the Dominion of South Africa was one of the stars of the British Commonwealth. I hope that his memorial will be erected in a place of
  452
  prominence in the County of London. Whether it be erected outside South Africa House—which, I think, would be an excellent place for it—or whether it be placed in some more prominent position, must be decided by those who have given more thought to the matter than I have.
  But, wherever it is, Field Marshal Smuts deserves the best that this Empire can give him; he deserves the best site available in London for his memorial, whatever form it may take, so that any member of the British Empire, of whatever race, colour or creed he may be, may look upon that memorial with pride and do honour to a very great man and a very great member of the British Empire. I rise to protect his name against any slight that may inadvertently have been directed against it.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I am not concerned with the merits or demerits of any statesman to whose memory it is desired to erect a memorial. The one point on which I should welcome some further elucidation is whether the monument to be erected at public expense must take the form of a sculptural representation of the individual in question. I ask that because London is already far too cluttered up with monuments of one kind and another.
  Mr. Driberg: Far too few good ones.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I should be prepared to accept for myself a kind of self-denying ordinance that before any new monument is erected one of the old ones should be removed. I think that would help to improve the appearance of London. After all, London is the heart of the Empire, the centre of a great Commonwealth, and we have the obligation to make quite sure, first of all, that if we want to erect a monument it should be of a suitable type, and, secondly, that an excessive number of monuments should not be allowed to deface the appearance of this Metropolis in which we are all interested.
  We are not deciding here and now that the monument shall take the form of a sculptural representation of Field Marshal Smuts, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter from the point of view of the number of monuments that already exist in London, some of which ought certainly to be removed. If the Minister

  453
  were to say that two or three monuments are to be removed to make room for a better one in memory of Field Marshal Smuts, then I should be more inclined to support the Motion now before the House.
  Captain M. Bullock: I wish to say a few words in support of what the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) has said. I think that London possesses some of the worst statues in the world, and as we grow older some of us regard many of them with horror. I hope that the Minister will seize this opportunity to give the work to some younger sculptor, that he may, perhaps, make it a matter of competition, and that we may have the opportunity of seeing the examples which are submitted.
  As to the site, I hope that somewhere near Parliament Square can be found. There are empty spaces and no more fitting place could be found for a memorial to Field Marshal Smuts. I think it will have to be in the form of an effigy. We have had some terrible examples when we have not had effigies. An example which most of us see daily is the memorial to Queen Alexandra. It is an appalling fountain which does not even work. It has only a trickle of water: it represents nothing in particular and is altogether a very bad lapse.
  I hope that a suitable young sculptor, somebody new, will be found. I will not mention names, because we all know the old hack sculptors who go round not only London but the provinces as well. I hope that it will be borne in mind that here is a great opportunity to give us something of which we shall all be proud and to the unveiling of which we can all look forward.
  Mr. Charles Pannell: I would not have risen had it not been for the remarks of the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty). He seemed to imagine that it was rather out of place for my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) to suggest that there were aspects about this memorial which ought to be considered in deference to the feelings of others. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) that the hon. Lady handled the matter with considerable tact.
  Anybody who has studied the subject knows that the opinion held in certain
  454
  parts of the world about Field Marshal Smuts is not the opinion held here. Those other people hold their opinions with very deep sincerity indeed, and the statue would be incongruous if it were erected in any one of certain places. I hope that we shall have some tolerance in this matter. This gives me the opportunity of telling the hon. Member for Surrey, East how intolerant he is. The other Friday morning he was accorded the good will of the House to second a Motion which could have been counted out at any time.
  The Chairman: I know what the hon. Member is referring to, but it cannot possibly arise at the present moment.
  Mr. Pannell: If you will only listen to two more sentences, Sir Charles, I respectfully suggest that you will agree with me that what I am about to say is relevant. In the afternoon of that Friday my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) brought forward a Motion which affected coloured people.
  The Chairman: I have ruled that reference out of order.
  Mr. Pannell: With very great deference, after all the hon. Member for Surrey, East—
  The Chairman: I have already ruled that out of order. It is not to be discussed.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On a point of order.
  The Chairman: On that particular point no further point of order can arise. I have given my Ruling and it cannot be discussed.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: With great respect, Sir Charles, I was about to say, in extenuation—
  The Chairman: No extenuation is required. I have given my Ruling and it is perfectly fair.
  Mr. Driberg: The hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) extenuated the colour bar.
  Mr. Pannell: I will not return to that, except to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East was referring to the colour bar.
  Mr. Doughty Mr. Doughty rose—
  Mr. Pannell: I am not referring to the hon. Member, but to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member is far too sensitive. He thinks that I shall not abide by your Ruling, Sir Charles. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East was referring to the colour bar, which to some of us and most civilised people—
  Mr. Doughty: On a point of order.
  The Chairman: I do not think that any point of order can possibly arise.
  Mr. Pannell: The colour bar, to most civilised people, is as indecent as anti-Semitism, and anyone who, in any public place, attempts to impede any Measure which attempts to put down the colour bar is not the sort of person or hon. Member who can afford to lecture my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East. Before the hon. Member for Surrey, East suggests that Field Marshal Smuts was the final judge upon all matters that affect the colour bar he ought to consider his own intolerance as an hon. Member of the House of Commons.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: We have heard today, and quite rightly, that in Britain it is possible to see some of the worst sculpture in the world. Some of us are inclined to believe that a good deal of it is in the House of Commons. There must be some reason why we have not been eminently successful in this country in the type of public memorial we have erected either in London or elsewhere. But that is no reason why the Minister should not listen most carefully to the suggestion made on both sides of the Committee that we should have at least a limited form of competition and give the younger men a chance. It may be that memorials tend to be ugly because our form of clothing is ugly and does not lend itself to sculpture.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: It is improving with the hot weather.
  Dr. Stross: It may be that sculpture will improve because the subject will look better. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nudists."] I cannot accept that the nude is eminently suitable for great men.
  The Minister has a reputation for having some feeling for the fine arts and I know that he is personally interested. I only ask that he should take note
  456
  specifically of what we are asking and not only take the normal, ordinary interest of a Minister in the subject but personal interest as a citizen. Can he give a guarantee that he will put this memorial up to a limited form of competition? If he will do that I think it will please all of us on both sides of the Committee. That is a modest request and I think that the whole Committee will be delighted if he says yes.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): According to precedent it is rather unusual for any discussion to take place on a Motion of this kind, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government in general will be pleased to take note of the various points made by hon. Members during this debate.
  It is not possible to say anything at this stage about the form or site of the monument which, after the Address is presented, we hope may be erected in due course. No one has any authority today. We are only asking for approval of this Motion in Committee because money is involved. The proposal was approved unanimously by the whole House the other day.
  I do not think I can promise the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton, (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) that for every new statue erected in London another is to be removed. I do not think we are going into a system of statuary pairs in this matter. That, perhaps, would be going a little far. And whether there are a number of good or bad statues in London is a matter of opinion. One can only assume that at the time and by the person by whom they were erected, they were thought to be good or they would not have been put up at all. Tastes change, but this is neither the time nor the place, owing to lack of authority, to make a statement. All the points raised today will be considered.
  Mr. Driberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the matter to the notice of the Prime Minister in view of his personal interest in the Roosevelt memorial controversy?
  Mr. Crookshank: Anything to do with a memorial to Field Marshal Smuts, who was one of the Prime Minister's best friends as well as one of the best friends this country has ever had, will, of course,

  457
  be a matter for his immediate and personal consideration.
  Question put, and agreed to nemine contradicente.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a monument be erected at the public charge to the memory of the late Field Marshal Smuts, as an expression of the admiration of this House for his illustrious career and its gratitude for his devoted service to the Commonwealth, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

POST OFFICE (AMENDMENT) BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

POST OFFICE (AMENDMENT) BILL

  Clause 1.—(INCREASE TO THREEPENCE OF MAXIMUM POUNDAGE ON CERTAIN POSTAL ORDERS.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: This Clause was really the main subject matter of the Second Reading debate. The purpose of the Bill is contained in this Clause, and in discussing it I hope that we shall be able to get from the Assistant Postmaster-General an answer to the questions that were asked in the previous debate. Since those questions related to this Clause, I assume that it will be in order to discuss them now on the Question that the Clause stand part.
  The Chairman: That is not quite the case. At this stage the Committee may only discuss what is in the Clause.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I agree, and I do not intend to discuss anything that is not in the Clause. What I am anxious about is that we should have some answers to the questions which were put about the Clause—the reasons for the Clause and the matters for which the Clause provides. We asked those question on the Second Reading and did not get an answer. When the Assistant Postmaster-General dealt with the matter in the first place he did so as the Assistant Postmaster-General, but when he replied with the permission
  458
  of the House he dealt with it as an irresponsible back bencher. I hope that today he will apply himself, as Assistant Postmaster-General, to the questions that have been put.
  The first thing we have to do is to try to convince him of the logic of our case so that he will not ride off on some Aunt Sallies that he puts up and then make extravagant charges about hon. Members on this side of the Committee. What he says in defence of this Clause is this: Without this Clause—which, after all, is the effective part of the Bill—he would have a Post Office deficit. That is his reason for it, and that is the argument that he has already put forward. The fact is that he does not need this Clause. Before getting the Clause he had already provided for a commercial surplus of £6,950,000 this year, and by the other provisions which he has obtained from the House he has got in a full year £11 million as a commercial surplus.
  Therefore, his arguments that he submitted in favour of this Clause on Second Reading were quite untrue. He must have known that they were untrue. He must know that without this Clause he has got the commercial surplus that he really wants. I repeat that point to him. He has got a commercial surplus of £6,950,000 for this year. He estimated that without the provisions that have been made he would have had a deficit of roughly £2 million, but that the provisions which have been passed have enabled him to get this surplus. Now he asks in this year, by the terms of this Clause, for an additional surplus of £1,050,000 and in a full year under this Clause £1,350,000. This is an additional surplus.
  I hope that when he comes to reply the hon. Gentleman will remember that he argued against my hon. Friends and myself on the basis that he had a deficit in the commercial account. That is the point that we want him to meet. The position is that he will have a surplus of £6,950,000 this year and £11 million in a full year without this Clause. He said that if he did not get his Clause he would not have the money with which to meet the wage increases. Really, that sort of argument cannot be classed as an honest argument. It is erroneous, and if the hon. Gentleman knows his brief it is a dishonest one.

  459
  Let me go one step further. The hon. Gentleman went further in this policy of misrepresentation, and I hope he is not going to repeat it today. He attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) who could not be here. He knew that my hon. Friend could not be here, yet he attacked him on the basis that he did not have a commercial surplus of £6,950,000 and that by refusing to support this Clause my hon. Friend was really voting against the wage increases. That sort of thing ought not to be done.
  I hope the hon. Gentleman will apply his mind to this argument. Nothing that has been said or done from this Box could, by any stretch of the imagination, be twisted to mean that we were against the commercial surplus. He knows that. The commercial surplus has already been provided. Let us assume, however, that this additional surplus provided for in this Clause, amounting to £1,350,000, is justifiable as an addition to the £6,950,000 that he has already got.
  I am not prepared to say that it is justifiable, but let us assume it. Let us give him that part of the case, and let us suppose that the Treasury ought to have £8 million this year out of the Post Office and about £12 million next year. Is this the way in which the additional surplus ought to be raised? That is the matter to which he must apply his mind. Is he really entitled to raise the amount of money that is provided for in this Clause?
  It has been said that the postal order service is the poor man's cheque service. I think that is so, and I do not think we ought to place on that service a burden which would price it out of the market, or cast an additional burden upon a particular section of the community. The hon. Gentleman well knows that there are other Post Office services which are making a loss, which are serving the rich organisations and are capable of bearing a burden greater than the one that he has imposed on the postal order service. He knows that, and if he had been frank with the House he would have told us so. What are the services on which a loss is made, and what are the sections of the community that they are serving? That is where this charge ought to have been imposed.
  460
  Had the hon. Gentleman said that by this Clause he was increasing the charge to make the service pay for itself and provide, say, a surplus of £100,000, there would have been some merit in that case. It is not one that would have aroused violent objection. But the hon. Gentleman does not do that. When he asks, not for £350,000 but for £1,350,000, he is discriminating against those people who use the postal order service—namely, the poorer people in the country. In effect he is putting a tax of £1 million on this section of the community. I say that the Post Office ought not to be the means of gathering taxes. There ought not to be any element of taxation in Post Office charges. I should like him to apply his mind to that consideration.
  He used two arguments against us in regard to this matter. When he was dealing with the first part of our case he said:
  "… I admit that we are raising by this taxation a larger sum than is necessary to wipe out that deficit."
  Under Clause 1 the hon. Gentleman admits to raising £1 million as a means of taxation. That is something which cannot be defended from any point of view. It is the sort of thing which the hon. Gentleman never defended when he sat on this side of the House. He dealt with the other part of our case when he was talking about the poundage on these postal orders. He said:
  "A very convincing case can be made by suggesting that in putting this poundage of ½d. … on the value of the average postal order we are hitting the poorer sections of the population."
  He admits that, but in order to justify what he is doing he went on to ask:
  "Have we reached the stage when the Revenue should subsidise people who invest in football pools?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 1911–2]
  If that is so, is the contrary the case?—that we must penalise people who invest in football pools in order to subsidise the Treasury?
  If we are going to tax football pools, let us tax them honestly and straightforwardly. The hon. Gentleman says that 56 per cent. of all postal orders are issued for football pools purposes. The remainder of the people do not use them for those purposes, so that in order to catch 56 per cent. of the people, under Clause 1 the hon. Gentleman is going to

  461
  penalise the 44 per cent. who never use a postal order for football pools. What sort of equity is that? What sort of a reasoned case is that? It might satisfy the groundlings on the benches behind him but it will not satisfy reasonably-minded men who have a sense of responsibility.
  Let me sum up, so that the hon. Gentleman will know to what he has to reply. He has not to reply to the question whether or not there should be a commercial surplus. It would be dishonest of him to argue that today. He has already got his commercial surplus; he knows he has got it; and he ought to have told his hon. Friends that he had got it when he made that Conservative Central Office attack on some of my hon. Friends. It is not playing fair with the House or with his job of Assistant Postmaster-General.
  What is the next point with which he has to deal? He has to justify his additional commercial surplus of £1,350,000 this year by this method. He has to justify the amount he is raising. He knows that under this Clause he ought to be raising only £330,000 in a full year, but he is raising £1 million more than is necessary.
  The next thing about which he ought to be able to satisfy us is that nowhere else in the Post Office is there a service which ought to bear the charge which is contained in this Clause. He ought to satisfy us that there is not a more equitable way of raising the money he requires to give £8 million to the Treasury this year.
  5.15 p.m.
  That, shortly, is the case against this Clause. When he replies the hon. Gentleman must not attempt to ride it off by talking about a general commercial surplus or about my hon. Friend being against wage increases which I conceded when I was Postmaster-General. In other words, what we ask of the hon. Gentleman is that he should treat the Committee fairly. The House has a tremendous amount of good will for the Post Office. He ought not to sacrifice or to place in jeopardy that good will by silly attacks such as he made when he wound up on Second Reading.
  We shall all co-operate with him to give the Post Office the best possible
  462
  chance; but I must say that in future what he gives, that will he get back, and he will not be doing any service to the Post Office unless he gives a faithful account of what he does, and deals with the arguments upon their merits. That is the case against this Clause and I hope that when the hon. Gentleman replies he will seek to justify what has been provided for in this case.
  Mr. C. R. Hobson: In order not to detain the Committee I want to make only one or two brief observations on this Clause. We were told during the Second Reading debate that this Clause will result in wiping out the deficit of £130,000 which arises in the operation of the postal order service. We were further told that this Clause will result in bringing in to the postal order section of the Post Office a revenue of £1,350,000 in excess of expenditure. Clause 1 states:
  "The limit specified … on the poundage payable in respect of postal orders for an amount not exceeding twenty-one shillings shall be increased by one penny; and accordingly in the said proviso for the word 'two-pence' there shall be substituted the word threepence.'"
  As I see it, the wording of that Clause deals specifically with one class of postal order, and yet there are to be increases to other denominations of postal orders.
  For instance, the 2d. and 3d. increase, which is an increase of 50 per cent., will be on the range of postal orders between 6s. and 21s. As we all know, there are postal orders of denominations between 6d. and 1s., and 1s. 6d. and 5s., and we were told, on Second Reading, that the poundage on these respective categories was to be increased from 1d. to 1½d. and from 1½d. to 2d. This Clause specifically relates to subsection (2) of the 1935 Post Office (Amendment) Act. I have taken the trouble to look up this Act and find that:
  "Proviso (a) to subsection (1) of the said section twenty-four shall cease to have effect and the amounts for which postal orders may be issued and the poundage to be payable in respect of them shall be such as may be prescribed by Post Office Regulations."
  I take it that arising from the passage of this Clause Regulations will have to be made governing the lower denominations of postal orders. That is the position as I see it. I should be glad if the Assistant Postmaster-General will say so when he replies.

  463
  That brings me to the next point. As my right hon. Friend has said, the alterations will bring an increased revenue of £1,300,000. Obviously this Clause in itself will not do that, because we shall not get such a profit on the postal order service merely by altering the denomination from 6s. to 21s. That is obvious from the numbers issued. What we want to know is this: will Regulations be made under this Clause in order to cover the lower denominations of postal orders?
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, and I should not have intervened but for the fact that, for some reason or another, hon. Members on both sides are getting very interested in the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams). My attention has been drawn to a reference made to the hon. Member for Droylsden by the Assistant Postmaster-General, and I am rather surprised that he made that reference in the form in which he did. In the first place, I thought he would have known, after having been specifically told about it, that I was attending another meeting. I thought my absence from the Chamber at that moment was well understood by the Assistant Postmaster-General. Yet he went out of his way to make what I regard as a rather unkind and unfriendly reference.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: And a very dishonest one.
  Mr. Williams: I would not go as far as to say it was dishonest, but I think it was unfriendly and unfair. The suggestion is that the whole amount of this money will be regarded as to the credit side for the wages of Post Office workers, but that is not so. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, made it quite clear that, while part of this would go towards increased requirements for the Post Office, he expected that some part of it would be regarded as indirect taxation going to the Treasury.
  Why, therefore, should the Assistant Postmaster-General suggest that if I had been here, I would inevitably have been bound not to vote against the Bill because such a vote would be tantamount to saying that I did not think the Post
  464
  Office workers should have had the increases which they have had in the last year or two? Incidentally, for the benefit of both Front Benches, in most cases they had to fight very hard for those increases and in some cases they had to go to arbitration in order to get them. They were not all voluntary concessions.
  I want to place it on record that, despite what the Assistant Postmaster-General has done, nobody on the Floor of the House knows better than I do how much more Post Office workers are entitled to by way of emoluments for the services they are rendering to the country. In my opinion, what they have had in recent years is nothing like what they should have had. But perhaps I can assume the converse of what the Assistant Postmaster-General said on the last occasion—that if we give him this Bill, it will be quite reasonable for him to expect a further claim from Post Office servants for additional wages. I know that in some grades they are very dissatisfied with their present wages, and I know that claims are pending for two or three grades, if not more. Can I assume that the Assistant Postmaster-General's anxiety about these wages will result in a concession—an urgent, early and full concession—to the claims which will be made to him?
  I think the hon. Gentleman unfortunately had a brief prepared for him on the assumption that I would take part in the debate. As I did not take part in it, the brief was not much good in the form in which it had been prepared and he had to make himself look rather silly in the House in trying to apply an out-of-date brief to the situation.
  As far as I am concerned, all I want him to remember is this. I shall never oppose the Post Office getting sufficient into their commercial account to carry out their responsibilities to the people of this country and to the workers of their own industry, but I repeat what I have said on many occasions in the House—in my opinion it is not the basic fundamental purpose of the Post Office to be a sort of tax collector for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In my opinion the Chancellor and the Post Office must face the fact that it is not the purpose of the Post Office to collect indirect taxes. Its purpose is to render service to this nation, the best service, the most efficient service,

  465
  the most speedy service, and at the same time to pay the people who do this service a reasonable standard of wages.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): May I first deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams)? I have too great a regard for him to expect him to think that when I referred to his absence on Second Reading I meant anything derogatory. If I may refer to my own words, I said that I had no doubt that there was a very good reason why he had not taken part in the debate.
  What I was seeking to imply, and perhaps he would take it as such, was a compliment to him, because his knowledge of the Post Office working and its functions is so great that I think he, above all others, would have recognised the very intimate connection between Post Office charges to the public and Post Office costs, including wages; and I think he would have seen very quickly that in condemning these additional charges, one was running the risk, to put it mildly, of condemning the increases in wages which have made those charges inevitable. I had such regard for him that I thought he very wisely would not take part in the debate, even were he able physically to do so.
  Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is making the position infinitely worse. I do not mind him apologising; I accept his apology unreservedly. But he knew why I was not here, and all he need have said was this, "I regret that the hon. Member for Droylsden is not in his place; I know that he is at another meeting; I feel quite sure he would have liked to have been here." Instead of that he said, simply, that no doubt there was some other reason for my absence; and now, at the end of his statement, he seems to imply that he does not blame me for not being present.
  Mr. Gammans: It is a small point, and I do not wish in any way to make any imputations against the hon. Gentleman.
  Most of the points which have been raised by the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) were raised by them, quite rightly, on Second Reading, and I am sorry that the explanation which I then gave did not entirely satisfy them. Strictly speaking,
  466
  they are not Committee points, but as this Clause is, in fact, the Bill, I am grateful to you, Sir Charles, for having permitted them to be raised. I should not like the right hon. Gentleman, above all, to be under any misapprehension.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked me some questions. First of all, what is the reason for the Post Office deficit this year on the commercial account, or to put it another way, why would there have been a commercial deficit had it not been for the increased charges, of which this poundage charge on postal orders is one?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I must say I could not have made myself plain. I thought I summed up the points for the hon. Gentleman. First of all, will he admit that we have never been opposed to a commercial surplus and that we have never argued against a commercial surplus? What I asked him to deal with particularly was this. Would he admit that it is true that there is a commercial surplus of over £6 million. I then asked him to explain why it was necessary to raise this additional surplus on this service, and to explain if he could why he raised a surplus of £1 million more than was necessary to get the ordinary surplus.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman does not want to know what is the reason for the Post Office deficit? Then I shall not bore the Committee by telling him.
  The right hon. Gentleman raises a point about the commercial surplus. It is not questioned that there must be a commercial surplus, and I am very glad that it is not, because we have had some very peculiar expressions used at various stages of the debate on this matter about the commercial surplus. The word "filched" was used. It was suggested that money was being filched by me on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Let us realise what this surplus is, because some hon. Members have been talking as though this surplus were reparations which we were to pay to a foreign power. Whatever surplus there is in the Post Office goes into the Treasury, and, to that extent, it is for the benefit of the taxpayers and the community as a whole. That, I think, is generally agreed.

  467
  Therefore, all that we are arguing about is, what is the size of the surplus? I need not tell—certainly not the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite—the history of this. Some years ago the Post Office protested—I think, quite rightly—about the surplus that is made always being paid into the Treasury automatically. It was no inducement for the Post Office to be economical, and it was no inducement to the Post Office to plough back any surplus it might make for the benefit of the taxpayer. So this notional sum of about £10 million was accepted as what should be normal. There was no particular reason, but I think successive Governments have accepted that as being reasonable. I do think that that, to a large extent, answers the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was a fact that this additional poundage on postal orders would produce an estimated surplus of about £8 million. The answer is yes, it would—or, perhaps, I should say, I wish it would, because, as I told the House on Second Reading, the estimated surplus of £8 million on the current year is already out of date because of various increased charges of different sorts that have arisen since then. So let us—and I am sorry to have to say it—no longer talk about a surplus of £8 million on the current year. We shall not reach it. How much we shall have I cannot say.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Do not be too pessimistic.
  Mr. Gammans: I am not being pessimistic. I am being realistic. Let us take the figure of £6.9 million. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks this is not enough or too much.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: A question has been asked, and the hon. Gentleman shall have an answer. I do not think it is, but the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to argue that, if we vote against this additional surplus on the poundage, we are against the wage increases, as he did so argue against my hon. Friend. That is the answer.
  Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman wants to go back to the wage increases. He is going back to what he
  468
  denied having asked, and that is, the reason for the deficit—or the reason for the increased charges. The reason for the increased charges is that costs in the Post Office have gone up—costs which are overwhelmingly due to wages. I do not want to argue about those increased wages. One increase took place under the right hon. Gentleman's Administration and one took place under the present Administration.
  I think this Committee is being slightly dishonest with itself if it objects to rising prices to the community when those charges come from increased wages. If we object to the inevitable consequences of an act we are by implication objecting to the act itself. We have had to make these increased charges in the Post Office—not only the poundage on postal orders, but telephone charges, which it would be quite out of order for me to discuss now, overwhelmingly because of the increased wages. What I was suggesting to the Committee was, that we should be honest with ourselves, and say that, if we approved of those wage increases, equally we must approve of the inevitable increase in charges that follows from them.
  Let us come to the surplus of £6.9 million. I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was arguing that that is not enough, or that it is too much, or that it is just the right sum. If he says that it is just the right sum, then what happens to the £10 million, which is regarded, and for many years past has been regarded, as a reasonable amount for the surplus that the Post Office should have? As I reminded the right hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, if £6.9 million is to be the surplus the Post Office should have, why did he sanction a surplus of £12 million, and then one of £16 million, and finally one of £20 million? [Interruption.] At any rate, it was during his administration.
  There was a surplus of £12 million. The right hon. Gentleman sanctioned it. I think he would be on much stronger grounds today if at that time he had gone for his Chancellor of the Exchequer with the same vigour as he has exhorted me to go for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if he had got some of that money back again. But I think he is on very weak grounds when he represents £6.9 million as too much.

  469
  The next point he made was that the extra poundage would price postal orders out of the market. Well, even from this distance I could see his tongue firmly planted in his cheek when he was trying to put that one across. For he realised, as he reminded the House on Second Reading, that 56 per cent. of the postal orders go on football pools—and we are asked to believe that another ½d. on the poundage will price the whole business out of the market. Really, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have put up a better case than that.
  He also argued about the poor man's cheque. He said that the postal order is the poor man's cheque—that men sent remittances to their wives if they were working at some other place. That is true, but I would suggest that if a man sends money to his wife he is much more likely to use a money order than he is likely to use a postal order. And it was the right hon. Gentleman who put up the poundage on money orders last year. So I would leave that argument alone, too.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman must be fair.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: He is doing well. He is rubbing it in.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman assumes people have said things and rubs in assumptions. He did not say from what he was quoting me—where I said that a man sends his wife money by means of postal orders. What is he talking about? That is the trouble. He cannot forget he was an irresponsible Conservative back bencher and remember that he is now the Assistant Postmaster-General. He ought now to treat the matter seriously.
  Mr. Gammans: We heard the right hon. Gentleman's sob-stuff story, which almost brought tears to my eyes, about men sending money to their wives. It was a perfectly lovely story. It is true, but it is done not with postal orders; it is done with money orders. We have had a bit more of it today—about this hitting the poor man in time of emergency. As I had to remind the House on Second Reading, if anyone has hit the poor man at a time of emergency it is the right hon. Gentleman, who put up the charges for call boxes from 2d. to 3d.—for the call box is the poor man's telephone. It
  470
  was the right hon. Gentleman who raised telegrams from 1s. to 1s. 6d.—and it is a telegram that the poor man uses at a time of great stress and emergency in his family. I am quite prepared to be judged as the man who put ½d. on postal orders, which the right hon. Gentleman agrees are mostly used for football pools, if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept the odium for having put up call box charges from 2d. to 3d. and the poor man's telegram from 1s. to 1s. 6d.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is making this point, so let us treat it quite seriously. I put up the charges on the call box telephones, for the first time in 25 years, and even on that service I did not seek to get £1 million in taxation, which was hidden for the Treasury, as the hon. Gentleman has done with the postal order poundage. With regard to the telegrams, the hon. Gentleman knows the answer. The telegram service is still losing £4 million; it is still subsidised; it is still the poor man's means of communication, and he knows that what I did was commercially sound and morally right. What he is doing is commercially unsound and immoral.
  Mr. Gammans: I think we had better leave the poor man out of it when it comes to that. The right hon. Gentleman says it was the first time the telephone charges had been raised for 25 years. I think that this is the first time that the poundage has been raised since 1796.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: That is quite wrong.
  Mr. Gammans: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) mentioned the machinery for putting these increases into operation. I hope I made it clear to him on Second Reading that the authority, as I think he knows, is Section 24 of the Post Office Act, 1908, which was amended as he correctly pointed out, by the Post Office Act, 1935. This gives the Postmaster-General authority to issue postal orders without any limit as to their amount and poundage. The 2d. to which this Bill refers deals only with postal orders under 21s. in value. The next stage is that, under Section 1 (2) of the Post Office Act, 1935, Post Office Regulations have to be presented. The actual figures were given by the Chancellor at the time in page 23 of the Financial Statement.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: Will that affect postal orders up to £2? Will they be increased? Are we to assume that the increase will be from 4d. to 6d.?
  Mr. Gammans: That is quite right. Perhaps I had better read it again. From 6d. to 1s. it is ½d. increase, that is to 11d.; from 1s. 6d. to 5s., which covers the bulk of the football pool clientele, it is from 1½d. to 2d.; from 6s. to 21s. it is from 2d. to 3d., and at 40s. it is from 4d. to 6d. I trust that I have dealt with the points raised by the Committee, and that I have given sufficient explanation.
  Mr. Hobson: Will the Regulations which have to be laid before the House be subjected to the negative Resolution procedure, or will they merely be laid? If my memory serves me aright, I believe that they have merely to be laid.
  Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. They merely have to be laid.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Butcher.]
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: On a point of order. As I understand it, the Third Reading is not provided for on the Order Paper. I understood that we were merely taking the Committee stage today. Perhaps we could have the assistance of the Whip who moved the Third Reading as to whether or not he gave notice that the Third Reading was to be taken. I should like to ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the Third Reading can be taken without due notice having been given.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): It has been moved and it is in order.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: But notice has not been given. It is not on the Order Paper, and if it is not down in the Government Orders of the Day, how can it be moved?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That, I understand, is a matter of courtesy. I really know nothing about it. I only know that happens on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: If I may say so, with all due deference, you are here to protect the interests of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the fact is that neither side of the House has had notice that the Third Reading is to be taken. Hon. Members on neither side knew about it until the Whip apparently made a mistake and moved the Third Reading. The Orders of the Day are what matter, not the Whip. If it is not on the Order Paper for today, how can it be taken?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly the Order Paper does not mention the subsequent stages, but I do not know what happens outside all I am concerned about is what happens on the Floor of the House. This Third Reading has been moved quite regularly, and I therefore put the Question.
  Mr. Herbert Butcher (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I wonder whether can help the right hon. Gentleman. May I first say that if we have been guilty of any discourtesy, I at once apologise. I understood that we were conforming entirely to the normal practice of the House and that it was agreed, after consultation through the usual channels, that the Third Reading should be taken today. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that is correct. If not, I tender him my most sincere apologies.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I quite accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation; I am sure there was no intention to deceive the House or to mislead us in any way. As for the usual channels, our private notice was to the effect that the Third Reading was not to be taken.
  Mr. Nabarro: Then the Opposition Whip was wrong.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: Whether the Whip was wrong or not, what governs us is what is on the Order Paper, and on the Order Paper there is no provision to take this business now. If we are to be chivied about, we must insist upon our rights, and I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to protect the rights of hon. Members.
  Mr. Butcher: With the leave of the House, may I again say to the right hon.

  473
  Gentleman that we had no intention of being discourteous. On the other hand, he will appreciate that if we were to anticipate the conclusion of the Committee stage and the reporting of the Bill to the House, we should be trespassing upon the prerogative of the House. Therefore, it is not possible for the Motion for the Third Reading to appear on the Order Paper until after the Committee and Report stages have been concluded.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The Government Whip may be a good Whip, but I should not regard him with the same confidence as an authority upon constitutional matters as I should regard yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I should like to have your guidance upon this point.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I know nothing about discussions through the usual channels. That is not within my province. The Third Reading was moved on the Floor of the House, but that Motion does not appear on the Order Paper because that stage has not been reached and it would have been impossible to put the Motion for the Third Reading upon the Order Paper. Nevertheless, it is quite regular, and I have now put the Question. The Third Reading having been moved, it is perfectly in order.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought that the official notice would at least have said, "and remaining stages." I should have thought that could have been done on the Order Paper. However, I accept your Ruling; I do not challenge it, and we are prepared to take the Third Reading now.
  Mr. Kenneth Thompson: The Opposition were told last Thursday.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: We have accepted the Whip's statement in a good spirit, and I do not see any reason why we should now have this hostility.
  The Third Reading of this Bill gives us an opportunity of saying again one or two things about the Bill. What the Assistant Postmaster-General has failed to do is to answer this charge: Why it is that under this Bill he is raising £1 million more than is necessary to provide the ordinary commercial surplus on this particular service? That is a matter which the hon. Gentleman has evaded all through these discussions. He evaded it
  474
  on the Second Reading, he evaded it in Committee, and now that he has another opportunity, I hope that he will address his mind to that point.
  The Bill provides for an increase in the commercial surplus of £1,350,000 in a full year. All that the hon. Gentleman ought to ask for on this service to maintain the customary commercial surpluns is £300,000. What he is really doing is to get out of this service £1 million, which he admits is taxation. On the Second Reading he admitted that it was taxation. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) frowns in his usual way and says, "Nonsense." The hon. Gentleman should look at the facts. I am sure that the Assistant Postmaster-General will agree that these are the facts. I am quite prepared to give way for him to deny that.
  Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman must not accuse me of saying, "Nonsense."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that much of this is in order.
  Mr. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have said that this is not in order, and I cannot have a discussion continuing something which is clearly out of order.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I will put the point very shortly to the Assistant Postmaster-General. Will he explain what are his reasons and what is the justification for raising under this Bill £1 million more than is customarily necessary to provide for a commercial surplus on this service? It is a very simple point, and I hope that when he replies he will deal with it. We shall naturally not divide on the Third Reading.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has asked me why it is that, on the assumption that the House accepts these additional charges, we shall be raising about £1 million more than the deficit which now exists on this particular service. He has pointed out quite rightly that that is a surplus on the Post Office revenue as a whole and a surplus on this particular item as well.

  475
  What he is suggesting is that each service provided by the Post Office should really balance itself. He would like to see that, and so would I. It is a desirable thing, but some services make a loss. The worst, of course, is the telegraph service, which makes a loss all over the world and which, I am afraid, is a loss which will steadily increase. As the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, there is a limit beyond which one cannot raise postal or telegraph charges because the law of diminishing returns then starts to operate.
  So we start off with one particular service having a deficit which has to be made up by a surplus on another, unless the Post Office generally is to be run at a loss. We make a surplus on telephones and on the postal side, and we are hoping to do so on the postal orders as well. I quite appreciate that it does seem, at first sight, as if the increased charges which are being made produce a surplus for this particular service which is out of all proportion to the deficit, but the answer is that we have to regard the Post Office as a whole, and not only make it pay but also produce a reasonable commercial surplus, which every Postmaster-General wants to make and every Chancellor of the Exchequer insists on having.
  It is for that reason that this particular service has been chosen. By an increase of a halfpenny we raise in the aggregate a pretty large sum of money. I do not think that anyone will argue that this is a service which cannot stand another halfpenny poundage, and that we are not justified in selecting this particular service for this additional charge. I hope that I have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman and the House that not only was this increase in poundage inevitable, but that it has been levied in a way which cannot by the greatest stretch of imagination be regarded as a hardship to anyone.
  Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to bring this into operation and how he proposes to collect the extra poundage?
  Mr. Gammans: We had hoped to bring it in by 1st July, but 1st July has come and gone, and I cannot say when the Bill will receive the Royal Assent. I can make a promise that the increased
  476
  poundage will be imposed in time for the football season, which is 1st September.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: The end of August.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The Assistant Postmaster-General is a week behind time.
  Mr. Gammans: As to how it will be actually imposed, the most effective way would be by new postal orders, but we have to use up existing postal orders first, and I must confess to the House that we have allowed the stocks of existing postal orders to run down. We have quite enough to carry on with, but we have not now the normal stocks of existing postal orders which we generally have, and so in anticipation of this Bill we shall be able to come on to the postal orders of higher poundage rather more quickly than we normally should have done.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (CHARGES)
5.58 p.m.
Mr. Hector McNeil: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Dental Treatment) Regulations, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 1020), dated 23rd May, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be annulled.
I think that the House will not disapprove if I say to the Minister of Health that we are all sorry about the illness at his home and hope that there will be a complete and speedy recovery.
If it is agreeable to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the House, we on this side hope that we may proceed on these Prayers as we have done before. There are eight Prayers on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friend and myself. There are, for Scotland and England, Prayers dealing with dental charges, charges relating to drugs and appliances, charges relating to hospital accommodation and outpatient departments, and to what we call amenity beds. I hope that by moving the first Prayer we may then have a general debate covering the range of the subject mater embodied in the other Prayers.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): If that meets the convenience of the House, I think that would be a very good thing to do.
Mr. McNeil: Perhaps it will also be for the convenience of the Whips if I say that it is not our intention to divide on the two Motions dealing with amenity beds. We anticipate that we shall get satisfactory information from the Minister upon those two sets of regulations. On this side, as on the Government side, we are anxious to see the best use made of amenity beds. However, unless the right hon. Gentleman is able to offer some evidence that Her Majesty's Government will shortly alter its lamentable policy as reflected in the other Regulations, we shall be obliged at the end of the debate to divide upon them.
It might be convenient if I dealt with the subject matter of the prescription charges as reflected in the Regulations covering England and Scotland.
Miss Margaret Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Since four of the eight Prayers with which we are dealing refer to Scotland, ought we not to have a Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. McNeil: Be that as it may, would it not be within the normal usage of the House if, when this huge Department with a great Vote has four sets of Regulations before the House for which its Minister is exclusively responsible, the Government Front Bench were adorned by one of the seven Ministers who represent the Scottish Office?
The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): On a point of order. The representative of the Scottish Office is on his way and does not have to be sent for. Anyone who could prophesy to within a minute or so the end of the debate which we have just had—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be an explanation and a comment, but it is not a point of order.
Mr. McNeil: I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman, but from time to time we meet this difficulty. If the right hon.
478
Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary, who have huge difficulties, do not find it too much troublie to wait for a debate, let us hope that eventually one of the seven Ministers from the Scottish Office will do the House the courtesy of attending to its business.
I propose to deal mainly with the charges on prescriptions, although if my hon. Friends are fortunate in catching the eye of the Chair they will bring their specialist knowledge to bear—notably my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird)—on the other Regulations.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Where is the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East?
Mr. McNeil: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East will be here. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite had better contain their laughter. A Minister has an obligation to the House. Hon. Members are in a different position. My hon. Friend will be here in time and will be competent to deal with any interest that hon. Gentlemen opposite display in the subject.
I want first to deal with some aspects of the two sets of Regulations reflecting the 1s. prescription charge. I hope I am not being unreasonable in wanting the Minister to tell us—he was, understandably, a trifle coy at an earlier stage—what he hopes to save by the deterrent effect of these Regulations and what he hopes to gain in respect of the charges for prescriptions by doctors and hospital out-patient departments. The right hon. Gentleman must now have some kind of exact calculation, for he has now had a full month in which to scrutinise the workings of the scheme and, no doubt prodded by the Treasury, he has carefully watched the working of the parsimonious, niggardly and ill-conceived scheme by which he still intends to filch shillings from the purses of the sick and distressed.
I have here some figures which I confess I cannot pretend are typical. They come from a small sector of the population of a town of some 90,000 people, and the calculations are from pharmacists and are necessarily approximate. I do not want to argue that from a statistical point of view they are necessarily significant, but I want the House to agree that

479
even at this stage they must give us cause for concern about the operation of the Regulations.
From this sample I find that in June. 1952, the number of prescriptions is down by just under 5 per cent. compared with June, 1951. The House will note that I am talking about the number of prescriptions and not the value of the prescriptions. Later on I shall quote some figures relating to this point. Many of us must suspect—I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will fail to suspect it—that the general practitioner, who is, by and large, a warm and humane creature, will be concerned to save his patients charges whenever he can, and I have little doubt that in an appreciable number of cases the figures will eventually show that more than one item is put on the prescription form and that quantities prescribed are larger than has been the case previously.
Thus, we may find at the end of the day that there will be no appreciable net saving under these Regulations. At any rate, I am only able at this point to allude to the calculation of the number of prescriptions in June this year compared with June last year in this sector of the population, and I repeat that the figure is down by approximately 5 per cent.
Further—this is even more disturbing—I find that about 2 per cent. of the people in this sector who learn when presenting their prescriptions that there is a charge from which they have no hope or anticipation of escaping, do not return for their drugs. I also find that about 10 per cent. of them are asking for receipts. I do not know what proportion of them go to the National Assistance Board, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Lady wil be able to give the House some figures on that point later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has been good enough to supply me with some further figures obtained independently. To a surprisingly high degree they corroborate the figures I have taken from the samples available to me. I do not know that I am at liberty to quote the name of the firm. However, my hon. Friend's analysis shows that the number of prescriptions in June, 1952, showed a drop of 10 per cent. compared with June, 1951, and 20 per cent. compared with June, 1950. He says that the requests for
480
receipts are exceeding 5 per cent. He also discusses in some detail the type of patient who is being most affected by these Regulations. He says there is a definite hardship discernible in the case of old age pensioners, those suffering from acute chest complaints, including tuberculosis, diabetics and people suffering from ulcer conditions. These people have to pay 1s. or more practically every week, which is a drain on their already small income.
He goes on to state one case of a man suffering from a duodenal ulcer who required a weekly prescription, and who in one week had both of his children ill. I quite agree that that is not a general condition, but in such a case there would be a great hardship. This pharmacist gives some further figures about appliances, with which my hon. Friend will no doubt deal; but there is corroboration here that the sample I have given may be approximately typical.
It will not only be the concern of the House to try to find out from the Minister whether the figures are showing a general pattern of that type—I must agree that one cannot come to any conclusion with only the experience of one month, but they may indicate a tendency—but it will also be our concern to know whether the Minister has any kind of information on the type of patient—I mean not a reference to his condition but to his disease—who is falling inside these three categories. I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman will yet have that information, but that is really the worry of every Member who has an interest in, and experience of, this subject.
It will be no economy and it will be a great injustice if people who are really ill are part of the 2 per cent. who are not going back for their prescriptions, or part of the 5 per cent. who, compared with June of last year, are no longer going to the pharmacist for their prescriptions. We all want to see the use of unnecessary drugs eliminated, but no one has offered hard, good evidence to the House showing that the abuses exist which some suspect. Lacking such evidence, this drop of 5 and 2 per cent. must be a worry to every hon. Member.
I hope the Minister will give us the figures for which I have asked so far as they are available. I hope that, in

481
making this calculation as to the saving, he will tell us frankly what the additional costs for printing and for personnel are likely to work out at. The cost of printing must be very substantial. I have here a collection of forms and circulars issued by the Government which was to set the people free. I do not pretend that my collection is necessarily complete, but there are 21 circulars and forms which doctors, nurses, dentists and patients are expected to comply with and to employ in consequence of these Regulations. Perhaps the Minister has a final figure, and he might like to tell the House how many circulars and forms he has been obliged to issue so as to secure compliance with these Regulations, which were to be a great saving.
Moreover, apart from the financial cost, the exasperation to sick people and highly trained technicians must be quite substantial. Experienced as we all are in Government jargon, there are some fairly good examples in these circulars. There is one in E.C.N. 97 which refers to the charges for drugs, and if I am not boring the House perhaps I might read this piece of English which relates to what the Leader of the House told us at one time was a simple Regulation:
"Under the regulations, drugs and appliances will be deemed to be supplied on one occasion, notwithstanding that they are supplied at different times, if they are supplied at or following a visit or attendance and before a succeeding visit or attendance takes place."
The best is yet to come:
"A repeat supply is not deemed to take place on the same occasion as the original supply, notwithstanding there has been no intervening visit or attendance."
It must be a great consolation to an over-worked doctor to have his conduct laid down for him so clearly and so completely. The chemists and the patients must be equally grateful.
Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to read the next paragraph in E.C.N. 97. That is very clear and simple.
Mr. McNeil: It is very clear and simple, but it does not refer to the operation of this new Regulation which we were told was to be simple. The hon. Member asked me to read the next paragraph and in fairness to him I quote it:
482
"Doctors are asked not to increase the quantities normally supplied on any one occasion."
Had these Regulations not been operated by this Government, there would have been no need to give this warning. This proves what I have already indicated I suspect will happen and what I suspect every hon. Member opposite knows will happen—that a doctor who is concerned for someone who is ill and who is decently and warmly disposed towards that person will, despite this Regulation, try to make it easier for the patient, which professionally he should try to do because he hopes to make him or her well.
But this is by no means the only sample of involved and exasperating English. There is another from one of these circulars which I should like to put to the Minister. Earlier I asked him to tell us how many additional personnel he calculates will be necessary to see that these Regulations are obeyed. Here is a circular issued to hospital authorities, R.H.B. 52/56, which deals with charges for prescriptions to hospital outpatients, and this is an instruction from it:
"Hospitals should arrange that an officer is available when outpatient clinics are being held to inform the patients claiming exemption whether, in fact, they are exempt or not."
It then goes on to say that records should be kept of all exemptions and the patient given a ticket or token at the dispensary to show that he is exempt. Then it goes on to talk about the collection of the charges and says:
"It is important that, whatever arrangements are adopted in each hospital, they should be as simple and as inexpensive as possible, and should, in particular, be so devised as not to involve any substantial increases of staff or of administrative costs."
Is that just the natural caution of the right hon. Gentleman, which we should applaud? Or does it indicate that he expects that, on a busy afternoon at an outpatient department, it will not be possible to advise the patients and, much more difficult, to collect from the patients, unless there is a fairly substantial staff employed?
From time to time hon. Gentlemen opposite have worked themselves into paroxysms of righteous indignation about snoopers, but here is a new line of snoopers. Here is the snooper who has to sit down with the sick and suffering.

483
and perhaps dying, people in an outpatient department to see that the hospital authorities do not escape from the miserable obligation which the Minister places upon them of charging a shilling. The snooper has to see that no poor person in the outpatient department gets treatment and drugs without paying the charge enforced by these Regulations.
As the House was reminded at an earlier stage in the debate, there may not be a great deal of enthusiasm in outpatient departments for this scheme. I believe that the professional staff will say that their job is to cure and not collect. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham has more information on this subject. Perhaps he will be fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair, when he can inform the House about it. I have no evidence, except a speech, but I am told that some outpatient departments are not very zealous already about the collection of the shilling. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how he proposes—I cannot discover it from the circulars—otherwise than by snoopers, to check up on these outpatient departments. No documentary evidence is provided.
My hope is not that they will encourage it but that they will shame the right hon. Gentleman into giving what I know to be his well-disposed reaction to such a situation. It is another proof of how ill-conceived these Regulations are. If an outpatient department is concerned solely with its legitimate task of diagnosing, prescribing, advising and dispensing, there will not be any time for this nonsense, and there will be no enthusiasm for it. There is no means by which the Department of Health will be able to check up, other than by snoopers. Perhaps we might be told how many snoopers against the sick the right hon. Gentleman expects that the authorities will have to employ under the Regulations which he has now been operating for a month.
I have indicated that we shall feel ourselves obliged, unless there is some change of policy or change of heart in the Government, to vote against these Regulations. I hope I have shown that two of them are unjust, administratively clumsy and probably will not yield the revenue which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues at one time expected. If the printing costs are taken into
484
account, and if a calculation is made for the time employed of busy professional people like dentists and pharmacists, we suspect that the saving will be very small indeed. Therefore, on administrative grounds as well as on moral and social grounds, we shall divide against these iniquitous and ridiculous Regulations.
6.26 p.m.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I beg to second the Motion.
We are opposed on principle on this side of the House to the charges brought forward in these Regulations. We have expressed our opposition to the principle many times in this House. It is becoming more and more clear each day that the results of these charges are what we expected they would be. They are not without danger, and they are proving to be a barrier between patients and the professional people concerned.
Today we are emphasising rather more the administrative arrangements which are set out in detail in these Regulations, and I want to turn to certain matters arising from the detailed administrative proposals as well as to some of the consequences that flow from them. There has been a very real amount of administrative muddle and discontent throughout the service, following the introduction of these charges. Nowhere is that more clear than in the hospitals, where there is a general lack of understanding how on earth the Regulations are to be operated without, in very many cases, avoiding collecting the charge altogether. I am glad indeed that that should be the case. The tragedy is that today—
Mr. Richard Fort: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to encourage hospitals not to collect the charge and to go against the will of this House? Is that what he is arguing?
Mr. Blenkinsop: Certainly. If hospitals are confronted with the problem, as many of them are, of patients coming into the hospitals and of the hospitals being officially required to secure the collecting of the charge before treatment is given, I certainly would not blame a hospital for saying that they must avoid—
Hon Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Joseph T. Price: Perhaps I can take this issue out of the

485
realm of theory by a personal experience which I had on Monday of this week. I had occasion, on account of a slight disability, to go to one of the great London hospitals. I was received with all the kindness and efficiency by the technical staff that one expects at these institutions. Eventually, after a painful quarter of an hour, the surgeon suggested to me that I might do with a sedative, and that he would prescribe one for me which I would get at the dispensary.
I went to the dispensary, feeling rather shaky—the dentist's chair is not a pleasant experience—and I had not a shilling. They said, "Get a shilling stamp out of the machine," but nobody could change my £1 note. They said, "Go to the office. You will get it there." I went to the office, where the bewildered official in charge said, "I am very sorry. People are coming here all day for shillings. What can I do? You can go to a shop in Horseferry Road." Nobody could change my £1 note. I can imagine people, after a distressing experience, being compelled to travel round the streets—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the right of the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for a most moving example of what we all know is happening in many hospitals. Many constituents of mine are not in the happy position of my hon. Friend of having a £1 note to change, and there have been many calls on Labour Party rooms in my constituency asking for the loan of is, to enable them to get the prescription. I am glad to say that in many cases now hospitals are not insisting on payment.
It is a tragedy, however, that so many professional men today, dentists as well as doctors, particularly dispensing doctors, are having to spend so much more of their time upon the administrative side when they ought to be devoting the whole of their time to the job for which they are qualified. It is an amazing thing that the party opposite, who have always claimed that they have so much objection to red tape and form filling, have through the charges added an appreciable number of forms to be filled in. Much of this would have been quite unnecessary if the advice given on this side of the House
486
had been followed and the proposals rejected at the proper time.
Through these Regulations we are making the professional men into tax gatherers, and there is no section of the community which is less popular in the minds of the general public than the tax gatherers. It is a great pity that this attitude of mind should have been developed in relation to the professional services which we have always regarded as being of great consequence, and we would have hoped for a higher moral standard than is being forced upon them by these Regulations.
Now I want to turn to two aspects of these Regulations that are of special significance. The first point I want to consider is what action the Minister is taking to judge the effects of these Regulations. I think he said himself at one time, perhaps before he took over his present office, that he was most anxious to find out to just what extent the charges imposed were having a deterrent effect upon the general public, and also to just what extent the sums envisaged were being raised by these Regulations. He said he was keeping a careful eye on the matter because he was most anxious to keep closely in touch with the position.
I want to ask him, particularly in relation to the 1s. prescription charge, what method he is proposing to adopt to ensure that he has effective and reliable information about the resulting effects of the charges upon the general public. I know that he can say that we have the information about the number of prescriptions dispensed. I hope that he will be able to give that to the House periodically so that we may judge the effect in that regard, but I think he will be the first to agree that that in itself is not sufficient.
We know that there may be calls upon the doctor which do not need prescriptions. At the moment there are no returns showing how many people are visiting doctors. We want to know, too, what effect these Regulations are having in turning people to more self-medication, which is a matter of great importance and of natural concern to us all.
Mr. Powell: Would the hon. Gentleman elaborate his point that these Regulations might result in an increase of self-medication? I take it that

487
self-medication means the purchase of self-prescribed medicines. In most cases, if not in all cases, the medicines so purchased would cost more than the prescriptions.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Not necessarily. It might well mean, however, that they were not getting the proper prescriptions. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would have been the first to agree that we should be anxious to avoid any barrier between the patient and the doctor in regard to proper medical advice and proper prescriptions.
Colonel Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: Answer the question.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I was arguing that surely it is the desire of hon. Members opposite, as well as those of us on this side, that we should have more information about the result of this scheme upon patients all over the country and, in particular, its effect upon the frequency of visits to the doctor by different categories of persons. For instance, we have a particular interest in the position with regard to children at one end of the scale and older people at the other end. What is the effect of these prescription charges upon the frequency of visits to the doctor?
Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Answer the question.
Mr. Blenkinsop: If the hon. and gallant Member will show a certain amount of courtesy, I hope the Minister will say that he is as anxious to have this information as anybody. Some of this information used to be available. The Social Survey Department used to provide what is called the "Sickness Survey." I have a copy of the quarterly reports that are made available through the Report of the Registrar-General, which is a comprehensive document. It gives a lot of valuable information about the extent of sickness in the general population, both sickness which is so serious as to warrant calling a doctor and sickness dealt with at home without any call upon the doctor. This is split up into different categories of younger and older people.
It is extraordinary that at this time when we most need this information I understand that it has been stopped. I do not blame the Minister, because I
488
believe that the order for stopping the collection of this information was given by his immediate predecessor, the Leader of the House. Could we have a worse time for stopping the collection of what is vital information if we are to know the facts, and not merely hearsay? We all have the information from our own areas. We have had much discussion with chemists, and others; we all have our own opinions about what is happening; but we need a real attempt to get a scientific answer, as far as that is possible, as to the amount and extent of calls upon doctors in these different categories.
The Minister responsible has allowed this most valuable information to be stopped for the sake of saving £28,000 a year, which was the total cost of running the "Sickness Survey" under the Social Service Department. Hon. Members on all sides have paid tribute to the value of those statistics. The "Economist" and other newspapers have used the information on many occasions and it has been of the utmost value. I want the right hon. Gentleman to say that he proposes to put right this appalling error of judgment on the part of his predecessor by reinstating this service without any delay, by reviewing it, and by seeing whether it should not be extended because of the special need today to have the most accurate and detailed information.
It is a shocking thing that at this time all this information should have dried up. In fact, I do not know whether, even if the right hon. Gentleman gave the order today, it would be possible to collect together the staff quickly enough to reinstate this service. One might, indeed, properly feel that there is some much less satisfactory motive behind the action of his predecessor. Was it that he did not want us to know the effect of these charges or was it just complete incapacity to understand the needs of the service as a whole? I suppose that it would be more charitable to assume that it was due to the general ignorance he displayed so frequently in the passage of the Bill through the House. I ask the right hon. Gentleman's successor, to whom I give credit for having much more serious interest in this matter, to repair the damage that has already been done and to give an order without delay that the whole of this work should be re-started and, if possible, extended.

489
My right hon. Friend has mentioned to some extent the question of the cost of all this. He rightly mentioned that extra costs have been incurred in the printing of the great mass of circulars and forms that now have to be filled in, in addition to all that we had before. There are all the forms that the dispensing doctor now has to complete, the stamps that have to be cancelled, and all that kind of work. I take a rather more serious view, however, of the effect of these charges upon the demands of the different professional bodies for extra remuneration.
There are Members on the other side who can speak with some responsibility for some of the other professions. In particular, I hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to express the feelings of the pharmacists. Their views have been put in writing in their journals with very great vigour, but we have not heard the hon. Member putting their point of view with quite the same vigour and accuracy as we might have expected. No doubt he has been waiting for the occasion of today to do so.
Mr. McNeil: And to vote against the Government.
Mr. Blenkinsop: We shall listen to his views with great interest and we shall welcome his support in the Division Lobby later in the day. We have the clear understanding that the National Pharmaceutical Union have agreed to put in a fresh demand for increased remuneration because of the effect of these charges, they expect, in reducing their total turnover and because of the extra staff they will require to do the work that is necessitated by these Regulations. We must take account of the extra remuneration that is likely to flow from that demand and from the demands of other professional bodies, for which I have no qualification to speak, who will, no doubt, be putting in their demands for the same reason. We must take account of all this in considering what the charges will be on the service.
Also, we ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us to what extent he estimates that the National Assistance Board will be required to make extra payments in reimbursement of these charges, which must clearly be set off
490
against any saving on the health side. It would be quite ridiculous if we were to look only at one side of the picture. I emphasise once more that we on this side feel, as we have felt right through, that these charges are having a serious effect on the whole status of the professions involved. The whole hope that we had of developing a better standard of health treatment is being endangered by these charges.
We would even at this moment ask the right hon. Gentleman, now that he has come into this unhappy estate, to take this his first opportunity to say how unwelcome this whole estate is to him. I hope he will repudiate even some of his earlier speeches. I hope he will say that, so far from liking the whole concept of charges, as he said before, he regards them as of a purely temporary character and he is prepared to review them. I hope that, if he is not able to say today, as I fear he will not be able to do, that he is going to withdraw them altogether, he will tell us that he is prepared to review them in the light of the information that we all have about their effect, and that he will take the very earliest opportunity of bringing in revised Regulations which will at least exempt many of the categories of persons—old people, children and others—who are most severely hit by these charges.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Linstead: I must, first, declare an indirect interest that I have in the subject of the debate, because, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) has indicated, I happen to be the secretary of the Pharmaceutical Society, although that society is not engaged in any way in the negotiations in connection with the remuneration of chemists.
Having listened to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and his hon. Friend, I am bound to say that there is a note of very considerable exaggeration in the case that they have put to the House. One cannot help getting the impression from what they have said, and the way in which they have said it, that there is in the background an attempt to encourage those responsible not to make these Regulations work. It is unfortunate that in the House of Commons, which has already by legislation decided that charges of this

491
kind shall be the law of the land, responsible Members, both of them ex-Ministers, should publicly have indicated, for example, that hospital officers were not loyally trying to carry out the law of the land—
Mr. A. C. Manuel: They could not carry it out.
Mr. Linstead:—and by the manner of their speeches, if anything, encouraged those people not to carry it out.
Mr. McNeil: I hope the hon. Member agrees that I tried to show why I thought the Regulations were unworkable, and I gave some experience to show why I thought they were unworkable. My argument was that the Government had no right to embarrass the authorities with unworkable Regulations.
Mr. Linstead: All I can say—it is well within the recollection of the House—is that the general impression which would have been gathered by anyone listening to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend was that if there was anything that could be done to make it difficult for these new Regulations to be brought into operation, they would be very glad to see it done and would, indeed, encourage it.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Would not the hon. Member agree that if a hospital is placed in such a position as in the sort of cases I have described, it would be the essential duty of the hospital, concerned with the health of its patients, to ensure that they did not have to pay the 1s. charge?
Mr. Iain Macleod: This is a most important matter. May I put this to the right hon. Gentleman? A law being on the Statute Book, does he accept that, whether the hospitals and the healing professions like that law or not, they should do everything in their power to make it work?
Mr. McNeil: That is very fair, and I should certainly think it improper if anything I said could be taken as abetting them; but the right hon. Gentleman would be very quick to admit that there might be a conflict in both their duties, and they have professional duties which they cannot escape.
Mr. Linstead: It is obvious to all of us that in a matter of this kind doctors, pharmacists and hospital officers from
492
time to time will be faced with individual cases where they will, naturally, as professional men and as human beings, allow their sense of charity to over-ride statutory obligations; but these cases are rather exceptions, and it ought not to be accepted that it is to be the general rule.
Mr. Manuel: Does the hon. Member really mean what he has said, that the practitioner would allow his sense of charity to override his statutory obligations? Is that the sense he conveyed, that it would be charity?
Mr. Linstead: I will move on to another subject, but the hon. Member must remember that charity has a narrow and a wide connotation, and I was using the word "charity" in the widest possible connotation.
Mr. Frederick Messer: I do not want to interrupt, but a misleading effect is being created. The doctor has his job to do; the collection of prescriptions is not his job, it is that of someone else.
Mr. Linstead: I may pass on from that by saying that the occasional hard case will be met in the way in which any of us here would meet the occasional hard case. I do not think the occasional hard case should be made the occasion for suggesting that these Regulations are unworkable.
The first point I want to make is that I believe it is a matter of surprise to all of us in this House, and a matter of congratulation to the Minister and to the Ministry, that this quite substantial administrative provision has been brought in with so little friction and so much smoothness. I can speak from experience, first of all as a Member of this House. I may be an exception, but my post-bag has contained one letter only concerning the introduction of this new scheme.
I can speak also as one who has had daily contact with pharmacists in this country. I have been amazed at the smooth way in which they have been able to do their part, not merely in collecting the shilling, but in acting as public relations officers for the Minister in explaining to the public how the scheme works and why it has to work. I hope I may carry the House with me in saying that a word of thanks is due to them for having shouldered that burden.

493
So far as the hospitals are concerned, it may very well be that there are teething troubles of one kind and another and we must all have been moved by the picture of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) walking about Westminster with £1 in his pocket and having no opportunity of changing it. But that is a minor example of a creaking of the machine which experience will surely cure.
The right hon. Member for Greenock produced some figures, which he was fair enough to say were representative of a small sample and might not be generally representative, to show that there was only a 5 per cent. saving to be effected by the new charges.
Mr. McNeil: A 5 per cent. drop in the number of prescriptions.
Mr. Linstead: A 5 per cent. drop in the number of prescriptions only; and he was suggesting that the saving might be even less because of more generous prescribing on each form. For what it is worth—I do not pretend at this moment to be able to draw any worth-while inference from the figures—my information in respect of Scotland is that the average drop at the moment is about 15 per cent. But I believe that after three weeks or a month it is quite impossible to draw any really serious conclusion from statistics of this kind. We are all familiar with the good resolutions which are made when the Tobacco Duty is increased about the smoking of tobacco. There may be a temporary fall, but it is followed by a re-establishment of the old habits.
Dr. Barnett Stross: Can the hon. Member say whether the comparison he made was between this June and June last year?
Mr. Linstead: The comparison of 15 per cent. is not between June of this year and June of last year; it is between June of this year and the average for the whole of last year. From that point of view, it may be challenged on the ground that June is one of the healthiest months of the year. That is another reason for saying that it is far too early yet to start drawing any substantial lessons from statistical returns.
Mr. McNeil: Lest I did not make it plain, my comparison was between June, 1952 and June, 1951.
Mr. Linstead: That can now be on the record. The two substantial facts which have come to my notice are these. Contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's experience, the demand for receipts has been extremely small—very few indeed. It is interesting to notice that the number of medicines made up but not called for is. I would agree, at present round about 2 per cent., but that is not substantially more—
Mr. William Keenan Mr. William Keenan (Liverpool, Kirkdale) rose—
Mr. Linstead: I am taking up the time of the House and other Members wish to speak; I had better continue.
That figure of 2 per cent. must be compared with the general tendency under the National Health Insurance Act for about 0·5 to 1 per cent. of medicine not to be called for because the patient, after a day or two, found he was getting better, or there may have been other reasons. Always there were a certain number of uncollected medicines. It is significant that in the terms of remuneration of chemists the Minister has provided for a 1 per cent. non-collection, a 1 per cent. wastage. So I do not think we can draw any significant conclusion from the fact that in some areas 2 per cent. of the medicines are not being collected.
The other fact which I think can be noted is that on the whole there has been a larger fall in the consumption of medicine in the North than in the South. I do not pretend to know why, but, generally speaking there have been fewer prescriptions presented in the North.
I wish to put four questions to the Minister relating to the content of the Regulations which I think might help the Service if they are answered. The first question relates to the position of resident nurses in hospitals. My information is that the practice of hospitals at present varies. If a resident nurse is seriously ill and is put to bed in the staff sick bay, obviously she is treated as an in-patient and makes no payment. Suppose that she has some quite minor ailment for which some prescription may be necessary, but an ailment which does not prevent her from continuing her duty so that she actually corresponds to an outpatient. I should like to know from the Minister whether or not the hospital

495
should make a charge in those cases where the nurse is in effect an outpatient. The practice varies, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be the first to agree that it is desirable that there should be a general practice followed throughout the country.
Secondly, can my right hon. Friend explain the reasons for a divergence between the hospital Regulations and what I may call the shop Regulations? If hon. Members have Statutory Instruments Nos. 1021 and 1023 in their hands, they will notice, near the bottom of the first page of No. 1021, which relates to shops, the words:
"the sum of one shilling respect of the drugs and appliances. …"
whereas near the bottom of the first page of No. 1023 the words are:
"the sum of one shilling in respect of the drugs. …"
but not appliances. That relates to hospitals.
The effect is that the out-patient at a hospital pays 1s. for his drugs but if he requires only a bandage, or cotton wool or lint, he gets it free whereas the patient who goes to the chemist's shop, has, if he requires a bandage, cotton wool or lint, to pay 1s. for it. I have not been able to understand precisely why there should be that difference in the case of the outpatient as compared with that of the domiciliary patient.
A point which has been brought to my notice has some substance but it may relate to so small a number of cases as not to call for administrative action. It is the case—and this is my third question—which requires prescriptions that run on to more than one form. I had a case from Wales brought to my notice the other day in which the prescription ran on to three forms.
I do not think that such cases are frequent. I have had only one brought to my notice. But when three pieces of paper are presented three separate shillings have to be paid. That was never the intention, I think, of the Minister or the Regulations. I wonder whether it might not be possible to provide for some form of continuation sheet or something of that kind which does not count as a separate form so that what was clearly intended will
496
apply and the patient will have to pay only 1s. in such circumstances.
My fourth question is perhaps a more specialised one. It relates to quite a little group of hospitals, some of them rather important ones. They are the disclaimed hospitals, hospitals which for one reason or another were not taken over by the Minister. Some were hospitals run by religious orders; at least one was connected with the trade union movement; and there are others. In some of those hospitals it has until now been possible for patients to be notionally the patients of the hospital doctor. He has written a prescription for them on a National Health Service form, and it has been dispensed in the hospital dispensary under contract with the executive council, and that executive council has paid the hospital for those medicines.
It has been brought to my attention that one hospital receives about £1,000 a year from the National Health Service in respect of medicines dispensed in that way. If 1s. for each of those prescriptions has to be paid either by the patients or the hospital, it will cost them about £30 a month. Those patients are in-patients. If they were in a State hospital they would not have to pay, there would be no question of a charge. They are being cared for free of charge to the State. They have hitherto, by an arrangement with the State, been able to get their medicines free of charge. I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that the Minister might inquire into the possibility of that arrangement continuing in those cases.
Those are the four questions to which I hope my right hon. Friend may give some reply later. I conclude by saying that I do not believe that we can at the moment assess how these Regulations will affect the future of the Health Service. It is quite clear that the charges are unpopular, and the present Leader of the Opposition, when he first made the announcement in this House that these things would have to be done in the national interest, quite clearly recognised that they would be unpopular. When the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) resigned from the Ministry of Health, he quite clearly recognised that they would be unpopular. It has fallen upon the party to which I belong to see that these essential but unpopular things are done.

497
Nevertheless, my own impression is that the start has been so good, the administrative difficulties have been so small, that we shall find the new arrangements settling down as part of the normal functioning of the Health Service, and that, at any rate so far as the charge on prescriptions is concerned, it may be that even in a few months' time—
Mr. Blenkinsop: I hope the hon. Member will say something about the claim which I understand the profession is to make for payment to cover the extra charges of administering this scheme.
Mr. Linstead: In that case, I shall have to add a postcript to my peroration, if that is permissible. I was about to conclude by saying that in a very short time this will be accepted as a normal part of the functioning of the Health Service.
With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, I understand that a claim has been put in by the National Pharmaceutical Union for a possible increase in remuneration if it is found, as a result of experience, that the chemists' overheads are being substantially increased in relation to their remuneration because of these charges. All I can say is that I once heard the secretary of a trade union say, "When you are negotiating with any employers the great thing is always to have a claim in." Some Members opposite may be more experienced in that matter than I am. The chemists at the moment are most loyally accepting and carrying out this obligation.
7.7 p.m.
Mr. William Keenan: It is so long since I had an opportunity of addressing the House that I feel almost like asking for the indulgence which is requested for a maiden speech. I wish to follow what the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) said, because he made some very useful observations with which many of us would agree. I take exception, however, to what he said about the chemists. He told us that an allowance of 1 per cent. was being made to cover costs which may occur in the making up of a prescription.
The hon. Member said that the position, so far as he knew it professionally, was that 2 per cent. of prescriptions were
498
wasted. Does the hon. Member know that there is no wastage? So far as I can gather from inquiries I made last week, the chemists do not make up the prescription now until the public have paid the charge.
Mr. Linstead: The hon. Member must not quarrel with me. The figure of 2 per cent. was produced by the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil). He stated that his inquiries showed that a possible 2 per cent. of the medicines were not collected. It is with his right hon. Friend that the hon. Member must quarrel, not with me.
Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman agreed that he had a similar figure.
Mr. Keenan: What I have been told by those who have the information is that as a result of early experience the chemists do not now make up the prescription until the charge is paid because some patients do not come back for it. That is an indication to me, though perhaps not to the Minister, who does not take the same point of view, that such patients cannot afford the charge. The Minister would say that they are not in need of the prescription.
I will give the Minister an example. A chemist told me that two days before our conversation a woman who was entitled to insulin had come to his shop. The insulin was there, the chemist showed it to me, but the woman had not 1s. to pay for it. I do not know what happened; it was there waiting for her to collect. There must obviously have been poverty or inability to pay at the time. I do not think that under any circumstances a patient should be put to any delay in receiving insulin required for treatment.
I suppose that the average individual who has means, or who is in employment, will not be distressed by this charge. But I am concerned about the 3½ million older people receiving contributory pensions who are not entitled to supplementary assistance or who do not receive it. There are many who could get such assistance if they made a claim, but they do not claim; and I gather from the number of chemists whom I have visited that there is a large reduction in the number of elderly people who formerly collected medicines.

499
I continued my inquiries last weekend at the Assistance Board office and saw the area officer. So far as he was concerned, he told me, there had not been a great disturbance. But he admitted that there had not been a great many people who had called to collect 1s. I think that is due, not only to the lack of knowledge on their part, but the lack of assistance and advice from the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of National Insurance.
I cannot worry the Minister about the National Assistance aspect of the matter, because that is not his concern. But I saw no posters or other information displayed in the Assistance Board office which could have been a help to anyone. In the post offices I visited I have seen a small card which I suppose might be considered to be a poster, but I had to look for it to find it.
It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Putney that there has not been the call for receipts which the chemists had anticipated. That may be true. But is the Minister aware that it is difficult to say off-hand, and without making expensive inquiries, what percentage of elderly people there are among the patients of an average medical practitioner? I think it true to say that generally speaking, many elderly people visit their doctor regularly and I think they will not do so if they cannot pay the 1s. for the prescription. If they are dependent on their pensions, and are not entitled to any supplementary assistance, that 1s. would have to come out of their pension; and nearly 80 per cent. of the pensioners in this country are not entitled to National Assistance, or at any rate, they do not claim it.
As one who has been concerned with these matters for the last 30 years, I would say to the Minister that a number of these people, because of their lack of means and the other difficulties which I have already mentioned, will become indifferent and will not bother. The consequence will be that some complaints suffered by elderly people, which might have been dealt with in the early stages, will not be treated. That may lead to serious consequences and even to accellerating their death. When the National Health Service Bill was going through its various stages, the tragic
500
thing to me was how often hon. Members opposite seemed to fail to understand how the average worker lived and died.
It was obvious that the Parliamentary Secretary did not know very much about that. She has not had sufficient experience to prepare her for the important position she occupies today. I do not know the background of the Minister and I am under some misapprehension about his capacity in this field. He has the theoretical knowledge, but does he understand the problem from the point of view of the working class?
One of the greatest boons to parents under the free Health Service was that they had no longer to worry about whether they could afford to take a child to the doctor. Now, a parent with three, or four, or five children will have to face the difficulties created by the increasing cost of food, as well as this additional charge which they will have to pay when they take their children to the doctor. We are in danger of returning to the state when parents will not take their children to a doctor, because they will have to pay, even though the amount demanded is comparatively small.
If that happens it will be a serious matter for the health of the community. It may mean that children will develop complaints which will affect them all their lives, and which, had they received proper attention, could have been prevented. It must be remembered that in a large family the payment of is, for each child becomes a difficult matter even with the assistance provided by the the family allowance. That is something which must be faced.
It is regrettable that we have to debate these Regulations at so early a stage when we are not in possession of the information and experience that we shall have later, when the Regulations have been in operation for a period. But so far as I can gather, there has been a reduction in the number of people who visit the doctor. I will give the Minister the benefit of the information I obtained from doctors whom I interviewed. One doctor told me that he had experience a 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. reduction in the number of his patients; although, of course, it may be argued that this is

501
the time of the year when a reduction may be expected.
Another doctor told me that the reduction in the number of his patients was about 15 per cent. Yet another doctor told me that he was afraid of the consequences which would follow the imposition of this charge. He thought that poor people would stay away from his surgery. But he said that it did give him more time to look after the patients who did come, because he might have only 20 people to treat instead of 30.
The Minister should pay close attention to this problem. The health of the people is his responsibility. I fear that as a result of these charges some children may be seriously neglected. I do not suggest that parents will deliberately neglect their children, but we know that many of them are hard pressed and will hesitate before paying a few shillings. We shall have to make up for that later.
Other hon. Members who wish to speak have more knowledge of the hospital services than I have. I have mentioned the difficulties of the parents and the plight of the elderly. Another consideration is this charge to the outpatient. I do not think that the Minister, his predecessor in office, or the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate the position. Many out-patients at hospitals have been injured or have suffered illness for a lengthy period. As a consequence many of them have ceased to be breadwinners. They have to depend on our social services. During this period of illness many are forced to go on to the National Assistance. They are not in a position to pay the 1s. charge.
I should like to remind the Minister, because he was not the Minister at the time, that we objected to the refusal to exempt T.B. cases. I am convinced that great hardship will result and that many people will be caused serious difficulty. I am afraid that there will be difficulties at the hospitals. I cannot imagine anything worse than that people should be compelled to be outpatients at hospitals because there is no accommodation and that—because they are out-patients—they should be charged when, otherwise, they would not have been.
For these reasons, the Minister should think again about this matter. I hope that he will give serious consideration to
502
what is said during this debate. The reason why these proposed charges were not put into effect by the Socialist Government was that we were convinced that serious difficulties and wrongs would result. For all these reasons I hope that the Minister will realise the gravity of the problems involved and that he will give further consideration to the matter.
7.24 p.m.
Mr. Richard Fort: The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), who speaks with great feeling and knowledge of the difficulties of our old folks, must always be listened to with attention. But, as one who has some knowledge of an industrial constituency, I suggest that he exaggerates the old folks' ignorance and lack of understanding of how they can be helped by the National Assistance Board. I certainly have not found that among my constituents.
It has been my experience that the dentists, doctors and pharmacists have done admirable work in making known to those who might be entitled to help from the National Assistance Board the fact that they have that right. It has also been my experience that the National Assistance Board has found that the Regulations are working fairly easily, though, like the hon. Gentleman, I have had the experience of being told that they have not been called upon very often.
It is a strange comment on this debate that the two principal speakers who opened it could not find much to do but talk about such matters as the English of some of the circulars. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), who, I am sorry to see, is not here now, talked about doctors having to spend more time on administration than on healing. We have heard that complaint from doctors under the régime of Socialist Ministers of Health. It is a fair comment on the adequacy of these Regulations that none of the principal speakers opposite has been able to find much to criticise in detail in the Regulations themselves or in the explanatory notes sent out with them.
There are one or two points which I wish to ask the Minister to explain. I wish to draw attention to the pamphlet entitled, "General Dental Services" E.C.N. 99. On the last page, in

503
Appendix III, there is a heading, "Application by Patients for National Assistance." I should like to ask why, in paragraph 2, the instruction is:
"The patient should not be invited to sign Part 12 of Form E.C.17 (revised) or Part 1 of Form E.C.60 at this stage."?
I hope that that is in no way an effort to discourage the dentists from making known to those who may have to take advantage of National Assistance their rights in this connection.
There is another point in the same Appendix, in paragraph 3, which says:
"The National Assistance Board has agreed that, where a patient is entitled to a grant of National Assistance, payment will be made on the dentist's notification that he now requires payment, whether that is before he undertakes the work or after he completes it."
Again, I hope that the arrangements between my right hon. Friend's Department and the National Assistance Board are such that there will be no question of work being held up on someone who is having to receive help from the National Assistance Board and that this Regulation, which, on the face of it, is humane and sensible, will allow prompt payment to be made to the dentist and, therefore, prompt work to be done on the patient.
Although we have to make these economies and carry through the intention of the Act, I am sure that we all wish to see that it is run in as humane a way as the Regulations set out to achieve. When hon. Gentlemen opposite attacked the Act, as they did for days on end—and they are now going through the argument again—they were always asking for us to forget, and perhaps they themselves genuinely forgot, that they were the originators of this scheme. It was they who said in the first place that charges had to be imposed in order to put a ceiling on the National Health Act.
With a few honourable exceptions—and we have seen them in the House this afternoon—hon. Members opposite adopted a very different tone in the debate last year, when their party were introducing charges, from that which we have heard from them day after day this year. The hon. Lady the Member for the Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) is an honourable exception. I know that last year she opposed her own Government with almost the same vigour that
504
she shows now, though she did not carry it to the extent of voting against them.
Mr. Speaker: I do not like interrupting the debate or constraining it within unduly restricted limits, but perhaps I ought to say that we must not fight the battle of the Bill again. That has been passed by the House, and it is not in order for the House to impugn one of its own decisions, except on a Motion for a repeal. I wish it to be a useful debate, but I would ask hon. Members if they would, on this occasion, confine themselves as much as possible to the administration of the scheme as set out in these Regulations, which would be of more value than fighting the old battle again, besides being in order.
Mr. Fort: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding us all of what is in order, and particularly for placing emphasis on the fact that this is the law, and that it is our duty now to do what we can to make sure that these Regulations carry out what is the present wish of the House.
7.31 p.m.
Miss Margaret Herbison: I want, first of all, to draw attention to the Ministers on the Front Bench opposite. We have here four Regulations for England and Wales, and four for Scotland. Since the beginning of the debate, we have had the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary listening to the points put forward both from this side of the House and their own, and, as the debate went on, one of the three Joint Under-Secretaries from the Scottish Office took his place on the Front Bench.
We have always understood that, since there was such a great addition of strength to the Scottish Office, we would get more of the time of the Secretary of State. The matters we are now discussing are of first importance to the Scottish people, and I am sure that my hon. Friends on this side would like me, in case they are not called, to enter a protest that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not think it worth while to take his place along with the Joint Under-Secretary and the Minister of Health during our discussion of these Regulations.
My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend who preceded me have dealt

505
mainly with administration under these Regulations, but I should like to point out that the administration of these Regulations has an effect on thousands of people. If we wish to pray against these Regulations, indeed, if we wish—even if we do not win in the Division Lobbies tonight—to make a case that will cause the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to think again, then we have to deal, not merely with administration, but with the effect of that administration on certain categories of patients. I therefore hope that what I intend to say will be in order.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) was speaking, he suggested that there was a danger of people reverting to self- medication, and there were sneers about that on the other side of the House. An hon. Member opposite, who, I understand, is also a doctor, wanted my hon. Friend to be forthright and tell him what he meant by self-medication. This is just another instance of how divorced hon. Members opposite are from the way in which the ordinary people of this country live. Before we had the National Health Service, many mothers would use an old cough mixture bottle which somebody else had got when a child developed a cough, which might be the very worst thing to do. That is self-medication.
A mother might provide a gargle which, if a doctor were called, might be proved to be a very good thing, but there might be all sorts of cases in which an ordinary salt gargle would not be the right thing. That is self-medication, and it has very dangerous results indeed. I should have thought that no one would have questioned my hon. Friend about what was meant about self- medication. If I had more time, I could give the hon. Member many more examples of what working-class mothers did before the National Health Service Bill was passed.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) said that he understood that, in the north, the number of prescriptions had decreased to a much greater extent than in the south, and he was not able to obtain any reason for this. I think that we on this side can give him a reason. In the north, we have over 100,000 unem- ployed at the present time, and the 1s.
506
for the prescription for such people will be difficult indeed to find. In the north, we have far more lower wage earners than in the south, and, again, they will think a few times before they ask for a prescription for which they have to pay 1s.
There are a number of other points on administration with which I should have liked to deal, but, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman opposite said, I feel that, concerning the difficulties of administration, even including the extra clerical work placed on professional men who ought to be giving their energies to the prevention and curing of disease, my right hon. and hon. Friends have made that point clear without further elaboration from me.
I wish to devote most of my time to the position of the industrially disabled under these Regulations. The industrially disabled are being treated differently from, the war disabled. To get their appliances, they first have to fill in a number of forms, and the form filling which has to be done—and I have here a wallet with copies of all the forms—under a Government which derided form filling for six and a half years, is incredible. These forms ought to be posted all over the country. The war disabled, after filling in their forms, may get their drugs or appliances free of charge, provided that the drug or appliance is needed because of the war disability. If their illness is due to any other cause, even the war disabled have to pay their 1s. under these Regulations.
Since 1948, we have tried to treat the war disabled and the industrially disabled in the same way. Wherever there has been a change in the money that was paid to the war disabled as a pension, or to the industrially disabled under the industrial injuries scheme, everything possible has been done to ensure that they go side by side and that the money received each week would be exactly the same.
We have a change under these Regulations. Under them, the war disabled have been treated meanly, and the industrially disabled have been treated in a far worse way. I know quite a lot about the industrially disabled, and these men are being asked to pay for all their drugs by the 1s. prescription, and they are also being asked to pay for their appliances.

507
I have a letter here that came from one of my industrially disabled constituents, who says he is sending me a copy of a letter which he has sent to the Ministry of National Insurance after he had found out what was happening to him under these Regulations. I wish to deal with this specific case because it is typical of what is happening to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of industrially disabled people all over Britain.
I do not think that the man who sent me the letter is quite 40 years of age. In 1949, he had a serious accident in the pit and, among other injuries, he had his back broken. He is going to spend most of the rest of his life in bed, or on fine days, when he feels a little bit better, he will be able to go out in his motor propelled invalid chair.
Under a Labour administration that man, and hundreds like him, were given some hope and some comfort. They had the feeling that the Ministers in the Labour Administration really cared for them. They have already lost that feeling, and I will give one instance to demonstrate how they have lost it. I will try to bring home to hon. Members opposite what their administration lacks. It lacks all the finer feelings of humanity which are so important.
I have many mining villages in my constituency. There was one miner who, when he heard that the man of whom I am talking had an invalid chair, went in his chair to have a look at it. He admired it, and said, "If I had that chair, my first stop would be Blackpool." My miner replied, "And if I were fit enough, my first stop would be London to say 'Thank you' to Clem Attlee and Jim Griffiths." The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Colonel Stoddart-Scott), who is a doctor, may laugh but that is the feeling of such men who have suffered so badly from accidents in the pits, in the steelworks, and in the heavy industries of this country.
But what has happened to this man? Here is his letter in which he says:
"You will understand that I receive prescriptions every week, sometimes on three occasions, for the undermentioned articles: methylated spirit, cotton wool, medicated lint, cod liver oil, Dettol, Elastoplast bandages, dressings, codeine tablets, laxatives and sulphur tablets."
508
These are all the things which that one man needs to make life at all liveable.
I went to see him at the week-end, and he told me that when he was first given these prescriptions, for which he had to pay 1s., his wife went to see the area officer of the National Assistance Board. This man gets no National Assistance, All the usual inquiries were made—the inquiries which hon. Members opposite used to call "snooping "—and his wife was told that he would have to pay for all the prescriptions because he was above the scale. But all that man is receiving is his industrial injuries benefit, his sickness benefit and the family allowances. He has no other source of income at all.
He has to have his wounds dressed every day, and these Regulations will add to the unavoidable suffering which he and hundreds like him have to bear every day of their lives. They will add shocking, avoidable suffering, because he and the others like him will not be able to pay for these prescriptions. It may be that many of the things that he needs could be put on one prescription and that he could be saved a certain amount of expense if his doctor were allowed to give him more tablets, or whatever it may be, on one prescription than he originally received. But when my hon. and right hon. Friends suggested that, hon. Members opposite were shocked and said that we on this side were asking the doctors and other people not to carry out the legislation passed by the House.
I have here form E.C.N. 97. One hon. Member said that there was at least one sentence in it which was clear and simple. How clear and simple that one sentence is. It reads:
"Doctors are asked not to increase the quantities normally supplied on any one occasion."
If my doctor, who is also this man's doctor and a very good fellow, decides to increase what he usually gives, will he be hauled up for it? Will he be told by hon. Members opposite that he is breaking the law? That is one of the questions which I would like whoever is to reply to the debate to answer. But the difficulty does not end with this man personally. He has a wife and three children of school age. How he is to find the money for the prescriptions which he needs and, at the same time, if necessary, for prescriptions for medi-

509
cine for his wife or any of his children should they be ill, I just do not know.
I know another miner who needs five appliances before he can even go out in his invalid chair. What is to happen to him? I have spoken mostly about miners who have been disabled in the industry, but there are other workers in steel works and in all the heavy industries of this country who have also been disabled.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The hon. Lady raised the point of a miner with five appliances before. Would she tell us what five appliances would incur a charge?
Miss Herbison: Certainly, I will send the hon. Lady the letter I received from that miner.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: Will the hon. Lady tell us what five appliances could possibly involve a charge under these Regulations?
Miss Herbison: I will send the hon. Lady the letter and she can find out from that what these appliances are.
Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Lady made this point with great emotion before. She complained about the plight of this miner, with whom I had great sympathy, and said that it was necessary for him to use spinal and other appliances. She must know that there is no charge on such appliances, so I think we are entitled to know what charge she thinks applies to them.
Miss Herbison: I accept the challenge of the hon. Lady. It may be that some of these appliances do not bear a charge, but I am drawing the attention of the House to this miner—and he is only one of many—who needs these five appliances. Added to that, he will have to pay all these other charges. It may be that I do speak with emotion. If the hon. Lady represented the same type of people that I do and saw broken bodies every week in her constituency, perhaps, she might speak with similar emotion, because these people are very near and dear to me.
But it is not only miners who have broken bodies through accidents about whom I want to speak. I also want to mention the miners and the steel workers who are suffering from pneumoconiosis. These men also need prescriptions for cod
510
liver oil and other things, and because they are industrially disabled they have to pay for the prescriptions they receive.
I want to plead with the Minister that he will at least treat the industrially disabled in the same way as he is treating the war disabled. That is the only plea I make to him on this point, because if he does give them the same treatment then much suffering will be avoided by these people.
Mr. L. M. Lever: Much better treatment than for the war disabled.
Miss Herbison: I have dealt with that point already, and I have said that even they were treated meanly. There is another point which I should like to make, though I may be accused by the Parliamentary Secretary of having made it before. I wish I could find words to bring home to the hon. Lady and hon. Members opposite what it must be like to live on the old-age pension and the supplementary pension. When I read the instructions sent out by the Ministry I begin to despair of ever finding words to bring this home to hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene for one moment? I have great respect for her, because of her very fine record. We are all listening to her with great attention and what she is saying is rousing the deepest emotions in me. But I want to make it known that what she has been saying applied always and that it should be a lesson to every one of us.
Miss Herbison: Form E.C.N. 96 issued by the Ministry states:
"A person who wishes to make such a claim"—
that is, to have the 1s. refunded—
"should be given a receipt on Form E.C. 57, which explains how a refund can very simply be obtained at the same office (usually the post office) and at the same time as the regular weekly payment from the National Assistance Board."
The word that sticks in my throat, and makes me despair of hon. Members opposite ever realising how these people live is that word "simply," because in another part of the form we are told that they will receive their 1s. at the same office and on the same day as they collect their pensions.

511
I want to say again that when the old-age pensioner has paid her rent and has paid for her light, her coal, the little food that she can afford to buy and anything extra for clothing, and that is very little, a few days after she has received the pension and supplementary pension she does not have 1s. left for a prescription. Will the chemist be allowed to give her medicine and to give her a form to come back with the 1s. when she receives it at the post office, or will that be frowned upon by hon. Members opposite? If it is frowned upon, then, if they have any feeling at all for these old people, they will change these Regulations so as to exempt these old people from paying anything at all.
Finally, it is not only the old-age pensioners who will suffer. The lowest wage earners, and particularly those who have families, will suffer very much indeed. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) said that we on this side of the House first introduced these charges. It is true that we had on the Statute Book an Act which would have made it possible to charge 1s. on prescriptions, but it was on the Statute Book long before we came into office. We did not put it into effect because of the existence of the very people of whom I have spoken today, and because of the administrative difficulty of carrying it out fairly and justly.
Mr. Fort: How does the hon. Lady square what she has said, with great sincerity, with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who said he needed to manoeuvre in order to avoid these charges?
Miss Herbison: That is not a question which the hon. Member ought to put to me.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Neither do I believe that discussion of that is in order in a debate on these Regulations.
7.56 p.m.
Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: Before the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) rose, it was remarkable how few had been the fireworks in this debate compared with what one might have expected from the impassioned speeches on Second Reading of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman
512
the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) and those who succeeded him were very restrained and seemed, on the whole, to have singularly little to criticise; and what criticism they made was very thin.
Then the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North entered the debate and made a speech which was charged with emotion. No one objects to emotion and no one wishes to minimise in any way suffering in any quarter. Everyone wishes to alleviate that suffering wherever it is possible. But when an hon. Member is making an emotional speech he or she ought to be particularly careful to get the facts right. When the hon. Lady was challenged she could not answer, and I think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will have no difficulty in dealing with all the points she raised.
Miss Herbison: Most of my speech dealt with the charge for drugs. On that there is no contention whatever. The other point I made was to show the added misery which these same men have to suffer without having further misery imposed upon them.
Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I do not think that that alters in any way what I said. We are all speaking from our experience of these Regulations, which have been in being for a very short time. We shall have to wait very much longer before we know how they are actually working and we can only give our experience of the Regulations as we have found them so far.
In company with my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) and other hon. Members, I am surprised at how few complaints and criticisms we have received so far. I think that some hon. Members opposite will agree when I say that we have had some rather wild statements about administrative chaos, with very little evidence; though we had an account of one harrowing incident from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), who interrupted the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) at considerable length.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock waxed very humorous, just as the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North waxed very emotional, on the subject of the bad English and the jargon used in some of the circulars

513
issued by the Ministry of Health. In some ways I agree with them about the bad English. I wish that my right hon. Friend, like every other Minister, could for a time get Sir Ernest Gowers on to his staff to try to simplify the phraseology which seems necessary to convey even the simplest meaning. But that did not begin with my right hon. Friend. It seems to be a vice that goes through every Government Department.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock did what is the easiest trick in the world. He took one phrase out of the form and asked what it meant. I pointed out that it should be read in conjunction not only with the sentence following, which was perfectly clear, but with everything else in the form. The right hon. Gentleman failed to draw the obvious conclusion from his remarks, namely, that the very fact that there have been so many, perhaps too many, of these forms was the real reason why there has been no administrative chaos in the launching of this system. I think that we ought to give credit to the Ministry of Health, instead of just laughing at them, for having been able to launch this difficult scheme without causing more upset throughout the country than they have done.
I want to raise one or two small points of administration, to which I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. A. Woodburn: I gather from what the hon. Member has said that he gives complete absolution to the Government, and says that nobody seems to have had any trouble under this scheme. Does he consider that old-age pensioners, whose ages range from, say, 65 to 85, in having to go to chemists, getting a form, and having to draw the 1s. later, do not have all sorts of trouble? They may lose the form, they may not be clear about what they ought to do, and many of them may not be able to recover the 1s. because of their own mistakes. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the scheme could possibly work simply when old people are supposed to read instructions of the type that have just been read out?
Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I was referring to the speech of the right hon. Member for Greenock who spoke of administra-
514
tive chaos, and I was referring in particular to the circulars of the Ministry. I shall have a few remarks to make on the subject later. This is a very difficult scheme to put into practice. Hon. Members opposite have said that it would break down completely, yet, at the same time, they are complaining that it has not broken down completely.
There are one or two further points to which I wish to refer. The first is the question of the chronic sick. I want to ask my right hon. Friend—I think it was the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) who referred to it—whether he will keep a very close watch on what is happening to certain categories of the chronic sick, and whether under the Regulations as they stand he will be in a position completely to exempt certain drugs if necessary. I have in mind medinal for epileptics and insulin for diabetics. It may be that he will find in due course that he can easily exempt those particular drugs which can only be used for a limited purpose, as I understand it. I believe that he can, and I should like him to bear that point in mind.
The other point to which I wish to draw attention relates to what I might call the borderline National Assistance Board cases. I hope that I have the sympathy of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), because I know that she is concerned with this matter. There are certain classes of people in this country who are not N.A.B. cases; they are not receiving assistance. It may well be that they ought to.
It may be—I think I would be out of order if I enlarged on this too much—that they ought to have been brought into touch with the N.A.B. a long time ago, and this could be one way of doing it. When such a person goes to the chemist he is told on the receipt form what to do if he is receiving assistance, but he is not told anywhere what to do if he wants assistance. I think that ought to be made clear on the receipt form.
I know that my right hon. Friend has taken a great deal of trouble to see that the information where to go for assistance has been widely distributed. I want him to go further. I want him to do two things. I have a Question down to him on this subject. First, I want him to send the necessary posters and information to the town halls and citizens'

515
advice bureaux throughout the country, and it should be their task to send the posters and information out to all the voluntary bodies, including the old peoples' clubs, and so on, where the information may be necessary.
I want my right hon. Friend to consider one other suggestion. The prepaid form for claiming assistance is at present obtained at the post office. I suggest that it might be possible for those forms to be made available in the chemist shops as well, so that when someone is in a chemist shop and makes a complaint about the charge, and possibly about the iniquity of my right hon. Friend, the chemist will be in a position to show him or her there and then the card which he or she can fill up to get assistance. That might help in a good many cases to provide assistance for such people sooner than might otherwise be the case if they had to go to the post office to get the form. I should like my right hon. Friend to consider those two points that I have mentioned.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be extra publicity to enable old people who have not been in touch with the National Assistance Board to get assistance. Is it not obvious that many of these people will discover for the first time that they have a right to draw 1s., and many will discover, for the first time, that they are entitled to National Assistance? Would it not be easier and cheaper to leave these old people on pension out of the scheme altogether?
Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: If the hon. Gentleman would listen to my speech he would realise that he has been repeating the point that I have made. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Dr. Broughton) is in his place; I am very glad because I was looking forward to making a quotation from one of his speeches. It reminds us of the background against which these Regulations are being discussed. The hon. Member for Batley and Morley made a very able speech on 24th April, 1951. He said:
"The National Health Service is to cost more this year than it has cost before."
That is still true.
"So we cannot say that re-armament is causing less expenditure than formally. A
516
figure of approximately £400 million has been decided upon as the limit of expenditure for this year and I think this huge amount should be regarded as reasonable in present circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 294.]
There is not a fact in that quotation which has changed in the year. That is why we are discussing these Regulations, and it is no good hon. Members coming forward with their remarks about administrative chaos and iniquities. What we have to bear in mind is that that sum of money is limited. We want it to be spent not on cough mixtures which are not necessary, but on the things which are really necessary for creating health.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. Tom Brown: In the first place, I ought to reply to the statement made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead). In view of his reputation in this House for being a fair-minded man, I was amazed when he made a mild accusation against this side of the House and said that we were doing all that we could to make it impossible for these Regulations to be carried out. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that such is not the case, and I hope that whatever may be our views on legislative matters or Regulations, we shall never advise our people not to work the Regulations or disobey legislation.
I am one of those who believe that all of us, on whatever side of the House we sit, are citizens of this country before we are politicians, and we want to honour the legislation that is passed in this House. But at the same time it is our job to try to improve the Regulations, whether they come from this side or the opposite side of the House. If we see anything that is not helping our people it is our job to speak out and tell the Minister or the Government Department concerned where they are wrong. That is what we are trying to do tonight.
On the Committee stage of the National Health Service Bill the hon. Member for Putney said:
"…we are in danger, in the Health Service in particular, of forgetting one very fundamental thing. That is, that no State can take away from an individual the responsibility of his own health."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 1979.]
But what we can do and what we should do is to make it possible for the individual to enjoy good health by assisting

517
him in every way possible. That should be our objective.
I want to deal with the Regulations as they affect appliances. I hope that I shall not be accused of speaking emotionally about the miners because I happen to come from the mining fraternity. I speak emotionally, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) because these cases are with us every day of our lives. It is because of what we see in the mining villages that we speak with emotion and profound feelings.
I want clarification from the Minister on three points—abdominal supports, knee caps and surgical boots. On the third page of the Schedule there appear the words "surgical abdominal supports each," and then the information is conveyed that applicants will have to pay £1 whatever the cost of the surgical appliance. I would remind the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that the men in the pits have to buy three supports. Will they have to pay £1 for each support individually or £1 for the three together?
I will give an illustration. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary not understanding our point of view because they do not know the industry, but I hope they will take some notice of those who speak from experience. A miner who sustains a rupture or a hernia cannot always get into hospital immediately, because of the shortage of beds, unless he has a strangulated hernia, in which case he is admitted at once. If the man continues at work he has to have an abdominal support. He has to buy one belt in which to work, one to wear at home, and one has to be available to meet the need for repairs. Hon. Members with practical knowledge of mining know full well that a miner cannot wear at home the abdominal belt he wears in the pits. I want to know from the Minister whether these men will have to pay £3 or £1 for their appliances.
Dr. Stross: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Regulations state that the payment for a truss is 1s. on a form and that these abdominal belts are actually trusses for hernia of the abdomen or the umbilicus?
Mr. T. Brown: Far be it from me to pit my brains against those of my hon. Friend. I am trying to argue on the basis of what the Regulations say and that is
518
that £1 will have to be paid for an abdominal support.
Men in the mining industry suffer from what medical people call subcutaneous cellulitis of the patella of the knee. That is beat-knee or, in plain language, housemaid's knee. A man suffering from that complaint has to wear a knee-cap immediately while he waits for an operation for the removal of the fluid and he has also to wear a knee-cap after the operation. Will such a man pay three times or only once? It is an important point these days because we have a tremendous number of these cases owing to the lowness of our mines. Practically all the tall mines, particularly in the North, have been worked and our men now frequently work the seams 2 feet 6 inches or 3 feet high, and they are on their knees seven and a half to eight hours out of the 24 hours.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Would it not be helpful to the House if the Minister would indicate the actual position, in reply to the two points which my hon. Friend has raised? The schedule specifically says "surgical abdominal supports each £1."
Mr. Brown: That is what I have said.
Mr. Thomas: The schedule says "each" in regard to elastic hosiery and other things.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is in possession of the House.
Mr. Brown: I can understand my hon. Friend's enthusiasm but I am prepared to wait until the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary replies. I am trying to put my points very humbly as an ex-miner and in a way which will help the mining fraternity and the Minister.
I also want some clarification of the position concerning surgical boots. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to trip up my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North on the question of the five appliances. It may surprise the Parliamentary Secretary to know that we have men in the mining industry who have to have three trusses, and also knee-caps and surgical boots, and that makes five appliances that they have to buy. Some men are in an even worse position than that.
Mr. Manuel: Does the Parliamentary Secretary give in?
Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) mentioned five spinal supports in her speech but did not name them and I challenged her. No. Sir, I do not give in.
Mr. Brown: I do not want to get at cross purposes with the hon. Lady.
Mr. Manuel: Why not? That is what we are here for.
Mr. Brown: What I am seeking to do in my very humble way is to educate them in the direction in which they ought to go. They do not understand. I am not blaming them because they do not understand; what I am trying to point out is that we who have had experience in the minefields know what we are talking about, and I hope the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary will take some notice of the suggestions which we are making and the questions which we are putting to them.
Take the question of surgical boots. The same thing applies here. A man has to have a pair of boots for work at the pit and a pair to wear at home. No man, by any stretch of imagination, would wear the same boots at home as he wears in the pits. Will they have to pay the extra for the additional pair of boots? There are three direct questions which I am pleading that the Minister or his Department should answer. First, there is abdominal supports; secondly, kneecaps; and thirdly, surgical boots.
I have gone on rather longer than I intended, but I want to put a final plea to the Minister. If he cannot help us in the many directions which we desire, can he help us to erase the 1s. charge for prescriptions for old age pensioners? If he could do that—and I know he will find it difficult; I know there has been behind-the-scenes working—
Mr. Ellis Smith: What does that mean?
Mr. Brown: I will tell my hon. Friend what it means. Behind all this—and I say it with all the emphasis that I can command—there is the parsimonious, niggardly policy of the Treasury; they are the people behind this, and we have to suffer and our people have to suffer
520
because of it. If he does nothing else, will the Minister endeavour to erase the Regulation which makes it compulsory for our old folk to pay the 1s. prescription charge? I could draw some very weird pictures of what I see in my village because of this charge. If any man can show me, whether he be right hon. or hon. Gentleman, or whether he be an expert or not, that the old age pensioner who is in receipt of the miserable pittance of basic pension, can pay 1s. for a prescription, I will hand out a laurel leaf to him.
Be it understood that the economic conditions of our old folk, who have to have perhaps two or three or four prescriptions a week, because of the complaints from which they are suffering, are such that they cannot afford to pay the 1s. prescription charge for the medicine which they must take to help them along the pathway of life. I plead with the Minister, if he cannot concede what we ask in so many other directions, will he please, above all, concede the elimination of the charge for the 1s. prescription to old age pensioners?
8.25 p.m.
Mr. Spencer Summers: I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue, but when the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) drew attention to the position of the old age pensioners, and in the plea which he made on their behalf, he gave the case of the old age pensioner who was drawing National Assistance, suggesting that in those circumstances it would be impossible for such a person to afford to pay the 1s. required under these Regulations. Of course, the hon. Gentleman must know that such a person would not have to pay. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course he will."] It is completely misleading to illustrate a plea for old age pensioners by a case in which the pensioner is so lacking in resources that he has a right to draw National Assistance.
Mr. Percy Shumer: Certainly he would have to pay.
Mr. Summers: If the instance is a recurring one, I agree that there may be one case in the series; there has to be one to start the chain.
Mr. Shurmer Mr. Shurmer rose—
Mr. Summers: I would prefer to deal with the hon. Member for Ince.
Mr. M. Turner-Samuels Mr. M. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester) rose—
Mr. Summers: I cannot give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman, although I will give way to the hon. Member for Ince.
Mr. T. Brown: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I know his interest in the welfare of old folk and I have heard him speak on the subject from time to time. I am fully aware that the old age pensioner in receipt of supplementary assistance is exempt from paying the 1s. prescription charge. My reference was to the large number of old age pensioners who are not in receipt of supplementary assistance and who will have to pay this shilling when they go to the doctor or chemist.
Mr. Summers: I will deal with that section. I will deal with the largest section of the old age pensioners in the later references I want to make.
I want to register my protest at some of the completely extravagant language of the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), who moved the Motion. It is a shocking thing so to distort the position we have reached as to say that where a charge is to be made of one-quarter of the value of the goods, that is tantamount to filching money out of the pockets of the poor and sick. It is not rendering a service to the House or to the understanding of this system to distort matters to that extent.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of this "nonsense" when he referred to the collection of charges in out-patient departments. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion strayed from the facts so far as to describe the effect of the Regulations as setting up a source of fresh tax gatherers. I want later to make the broad point about the principle of charging. But it is quite misleading to suggest that to charge a quarter of the value—which is the effect of these Regulations—is setting up a tax gathering service.
In my view, it is regrettable that hon. Members should bring forward a series of very hard cases, admittedly hard, and should claim that, because of the effect
522
of these Regulations on a very small proportion of the population, therefore the Regulations ought not to be approved by the House. It may well be that there are individuals who are denied the right of recovery under the administration as it is now arranged, and I for my part would be only too ready to study individual ways of bringing within the scope of relief those genuine cases, small in number, which bring with them substantial hardship. To be willing to see that individual cases of hardship are helped by administrative methods, while permitting a broad system of charging to go on, is quite a different matter from saying that the whole scheme should be abandoned because of its effect upon a small number of people.
There is great merit in these Regulations. It is right and proper that the system which prevails in this country should work so that the individual should look to his own resources for the running repairs that he needs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If there is any doubt about what I mean by "running repairs," let me explain that I mean the smaller charges which arise from time to time. I want to make quite sure that funds are available to deal with those who are sick, whether chronically or through accident, first in hospitals, and secondly for severe cases where, if the victims had to rely upon their own resources, they would be denied the benefits of science.
Because of the increased ability to have the severe charges upon an individual covered by the general scheme, I welcome the principle of the smaller charges being left to the individual to find out of his own resources. With that thought in mind, as a background, of enabling more money to be available to hospitals by keeping a ceiling on this section of the Health Service, I welcome this system which has been introduced, and I hope that—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The principle of the general charge is not in order in this discussion. Whether it is justified or not, it has already been authorised. We are now considering special charge.
Mr. Summers: I am coming to the end of my remarks, Sir. I hope, for the reasons that I have given, that this prayer will not be upheld.
8.32 p.m.
Mrs. E. M. Braddock: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) commenced his speech by saying that he was surprised at the extravagant language used by the mover of the Prayer. I might inform him and the Minister of Health that if I used some of the language that my constituents have used to me about their feelings, it would be completely unparliamentary and that I should probably find myself outside, as I did on a previous occasion. The comments that have been made by people who have found themselves compelled to pay a shilling when they went to an out-patient department or the chemist's shop were in the sort of language that working-class folk use about people they do not like.
I want, first of all, to dispel the idea which seems to be prevalent that a state of chaos exists in relation to these regulations. I have always found that, however difficult, however mixed up and hard to work a Regulation may be that comes from a Government Department, the poor officials who are paid to do the job make it their business to see that it is as easy as possible and to make it work as easily as possible. Mixed up, bad and difficult though these Regulations are, I have found that the officials who have to work them are doing so to the best of their ability.
On a public platform not long ago I made a statement, and I want to make it again here. It was to the effect that I hoped that everybody in the country living on low wages or unemployment pay who felt entitled to the return of the 1s. they had had to pay would make it their business to go to the Assistance Board, or to send for a visitor from the Assistance Board, to get their claim examined for a return of the 1s. I believe that by that process this scheme would be completely broken up, because the administration would not be able to stand the claims and the additional stamps and forms that would be necessary.
I wanted to say that here because I had an idea that the Minister was going to make reference to the speech I made and to suggest that I was not prepared to advocate the carrying out of the legislation. I am advocating the complete carrying out of the legislation. If people who are so entitled take advantage of
524
the legislation, the scheme will completely fall to pieces, because the administration will be incapable of doing the work. Many people will be entitled to the 1s. refund and they should apply for it, and find out whether the Assistance Board will make the necessary inquiries to discover whether they are so entitled.
The second thing I want to refer to is this. Reference has also been made to the fact that certain medical or administrative staffs in the hospitals will not charge the 1s. I do not think they will do so because they are in a difficult position. If the doctor in an out-patient department of a hospital issues a prescription which he considers to be necessary, and the patient has not 1s. with which to pay for the prescription, it would be outside the ethics of the medical profession if the hospital service refused to give that necessary medicine to the person in question. I know that the hospital service will not under any circumstances refuse to hand out the medicine that is prescribed by a specialist or a medical man in a hospital to a person who has not got the 1s. to pay for it. What arrangements are made about that?
Whether hon. Gentlemen opposite know it or not, there are thousands of people who cannot take 1s. out of their pockets without wondering what they will have to do without if they give that 1s. for a prescription. What will happen about the person who goes into the chemist's shop? Already two sets of requests have been issued. The first one asked the chemists to get the 1s. when they make up the prescription. However, so many prescriptions have not been claimed because the person concerned has not got 1s., and the medicine has gone down the drain since it could not be given to anyone else, that an instruction has now been issued that the chemists must not make up the medicine until the 1s. has been produced.
What a position to put a patient in? I say definitely and bluntly, so that it is on record, that if anything happens to one of my constituents because he or she has not got 1s. to pay for a bottle of medicine prescribed by the doctor, I shall make it my business to take legal action against whatever Department is responsible and bring it as far into the high courts as possible, because, if the person dies, it will be murder or manslaughter on the part of some-

525
body. I am warning the Minister that that is the stand I shall take if any of my constituents suffer because they have not got the 1s.
Dr. Stross: Is it quite correct to say that a new Regulation has gone out stating that the medicine must not be handed over without the 1s. being produced? Is it not rather that they cannot be legally compelled to give it without the 1s. and that, as a result, chemists have a variation in conduct? Those with the best social consciences risk the loss of the money, and those who have not got such a social conscience can please themselves.
Mrs. Braddock: It is a question of interpretation. That is the difficulty with all these Regulations. Everyone interprets them in any way they wish.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will the hon. Lady allow me—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. A large number of hon. Members wish to take part in this debate, and it is much better if hon. Members will reserve their remarks until they have an opportunity of making their own speeches.
Mrs. Braddock: I am not concerned with what the chemist does, provided he gives the medicine to the person who has not got 1s. Someone may go to a doctor, take up a quarter of an hour of his time, the doctor issues a prescription for the medicine he considers necessary, and then the patient may not have 1s. when he goes to the chemist. That is a waste of the time of the medical service. Working people do not go to a doctor and ask for a prescription for fun. They go because they need it, and they see the doctor because they need to do so. I can imagine what the doctors would say if a stream of people went to their surgeries simply to get notes for prescriptions that they did not need.
These Regulations, the charges, and the way in which the matter has been dealt with, are causing, and will cause, in spite of the fact that there is very little evidence of it at the moment, great upset and difficulty later in the year, from October to March, when practically every aged person suffers from bronchitis and has to have medicine perhaps once or twice a week. They just will not have the money, and all the work that
526
has been done in getting people to live longer will be undone by the fact that they cannot get the services that the previous Government gave them in relation to medicine.
Let me say a word about the various methods of collecting the shillings. I have discovered some queer methods. In one of the hospitals in my constituency, a machine has been installed for the purpose of issuing receipts. That machine takes only shillings—no other coins can be used. I found an old lady running around outside the hospital looking for a shilling. I asked what was the matter. She said, "I have to get some medicine. I had two sixpences and put them in the machine, but nothing happened." I investigated and found that what had happened was that the next person to go to the machine had had a shilling and had inserted it, with the result that she had got her receipt and the sixpences had come back to her. Unless someone is standing by these machines to explain how they are to be used, all sorts of difficulties can be created.
In addition, there is a shortage of shillings generally. Almost every slot machine in my area, for gas, electricity, and so on, is a shilling meter. There are not enough shillings in circulation for people to carry them permanently in their pockets in order to be able to present one at every chemist's shop or wherever it is necessary to obtain a prescription.
I notice that in the Regulations a slight alteration has been made. According to Statutory Instrument No. 1023, relating to outpatient departments of hospitals, anybody who is in receipt of National Assistance has only to show his or her book at the dispensing department of the hospital and does not have to pay the 1s. But people who go to a chemist's shop to get their prescriptions must show their book or give their names and state whether they are in receipt of National Assistance.
There has begun a whispering campaign in chemists' shops. People wait until somebody else whom they do not wish to know that they are receiving National Assistance has left the shop. People go up to the chemist and whisper, "I am in receipt of National Assistance. May I have a receipt to get my shilling back?" All the personal, open contact with the people who are connected with the Service has gone completely. People

527
do not want everybody to know that they are in receipt of supplementation.
Even when people get the necessary form, it is divided into two. On one side, the chemist has to put the name of the person and his own staff. Then he hands the form to the person, who has to go home, fill in his or her name or state whoever is to draw the 1s., and state his C.P. number—I do not know whether that stands for "Communist Party" or "Conservative Party."
Like other hon. Members who represent industrial areas, I have many old people who do not understand form-filling and who get into all sorts of difficulties, who put the queerest things on ballot papers, never mind forms to fill in to get their shillings back. Think of the difficulty, the worry, the upset and the unnecessary administration that is being caused, not only to old people and to those who need to make a claim, but to the Departments concerned. Could it not be arranged that where a person is in receipt of National Assistance, the same procedure applies in the chemist's shop as is now being arranged for out-patient departments; whereby people who show their National Assistance books can get their medicine free?
Then there will be all the extra administration for the chemists, who have to say how many prescriptions they have given free and how many have been paid for. Looking through the various forms, I do not know what the chemists and doctors are going to become. There are so many forms that I could lay them on the Floor of the House and they would extend from one end to the other. One person must fill in one form, while another person has to fill another form. I believe the whole thing is unnecessary. I believe it is a piece of administration which we could easily do without. People have plenty of other things to do, particularly paid officials, without filling in forms, giving advice and helping people who ought to be assisted by the State and not put to the difficulty of filling forms and meeting all these charges.
I hope sincerely that the advice I am giving at every meeting I address that everyone who is able to do so and believes he is entitled to claim the shilling should make it his business to see that the officials are there in order to see that
528
they get it. I believe that by that method the scheme can be put out of operation completely and we can go back to the method we employed previously.
8.46 p.m.
Mr. Baker White: A large number of hon. Members opposite wish to speak and I shall be very brief. For fairly obvious reasons, I shall not follow the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) in her arguments—[An HON. MEMBER: "You could not."] Perhaps not.
I wish to correct a point which I thought was put wholly unpleasantly by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and wholly pleasantly put by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), that no hon. Members on this side of the House had any experience of human relations in industry, particularly in the mining industry. I have lived for many years in close proximity with the mining industry and the second boring for coal in Kent was on my father's land. I have several thousand constituents who are miners and my relations with them are wholly cordial. So I think I know a little about their problems and difficulties.
The point I wish to raise with my right hon. Friend concerns those persons who have to go to the National Assistance Board office to get the 1s. back. I want to know, because they are not clear about it, whether, if they have to travel an appreciable distance to do that, they get their bus fares paid or not? I was proved wrong over this the other day. I read a letter in the "Manchester Guardian" in which the writer made the point that in East London it might require a 4d. bus fare or more, to get 1s. back.
I looked up the National Insurance offices in the telephone directory and thought this was wrong, but the writer was perfectly right. No one has raised this question with me as a complaint, but merely as a question. I made inquiries in my constituency and found that it may cost up to 1s. or 1s. 6d. in bus fares to go to the National Assistance Board. I should like to see that point cleared up and I should like to see it arranged that if people have to spend bus fares they shall be reimbursed.
So far as old-age pensioners are concerned, from the little experience we have had I say, quite frankly, that I would like them to be excluded from the charge. I

529
believe that I have been consistent about this. When the decision was first announced I put down a Question asking whether they could be exempt. Again, I have had no complaints at all from old-age pensioners, but I think it would be worth while the little additional expense to relieve them from the anxiety and worry, even if they are to get their 1s. back from one channel or another.
I want to put only one general point. I think it is accepted that the post-bag of a Member of Parliament is a mirror of public opinion, and certainly a mirror of public indignation. If there were the alleged public indignation, maladministration and chaos that some hon. Members opposite have depicted in the working of this scheme, surely we should have had very many letters about it. I have here more than 200 letters which I have had from constituents about the question of passenger fares. I have a large batch of letters about the Pensions (Increase) Bill, but from 62,000 constituents I have had but one complaint about the working of these Regulations.
Mr. John Baird: This is a rather important point, which has been made by a number of Members opposite. It is quite true that not many complaints have come to Members of Parliament but if the hon. Member would ask any professional man, dentists or pharmacists, in his division, he will find that the public are now complaining and that bad feeling is being created which has not yet percolated to Members of Parliament.
Mr. Baker White: I can only say that the rate of percolation must be unusually slow compared with other matters which cause letters to be written, because there was no such delay about the rate of percolation of representations about the new Pensions (Increase) Bill. The rate of percolation there has been exactly 24 hours.
I wanted to know whether my constituency was unique in this respect, so I asked 20 of my hon. Friends last night, and I chose constituencies with some care—industrial ones, including one in which there is acute unemployment, dormitory ones, and rural ones like my own. Those 20 constituencies have a total electorate of 1,138,000. The total number of verbal or written complaints which those Members have received so far about
530
the working of these Regulations is 10—from 1,138,000 people.
8.52 p.m.
Mr. Somerville Hastings: In the short time I wish to detain the House I want to deal solely with the impact of these charges on the hospital services. I took the trouble to make inquiries at several hospitals with which I am associated and what I want to say tonight is concerned with what I have found as a result of those inquiries.
There has certainly been some reduction in out-patient attendances, but I should not like to say very much about that because people's general health may have been better and certainly more people are on holiday in June than in May. To my surprise, to some extent, I learned that the people who raised most objections to these charges in the hospitals were the doctors and nurses. A little thought on my part made it clear why this was the case. Doctors belong to the most socialistic of all professions. It is our tradition to treat our colleagues and nurses without any payment. Those of us who are working in hospitals also treat in the same way all other hospital workers.
When a doctor has seen a colleague or nurse or perhaps another hospital worker, and, that person takes the prescription to the dispensary and is asked to pay 1s., there is a very strong feeling of resentment. All those who have worked in hospitals must realise what is the traditional attitude of the hospitals—that we work together as a team and that we thoroughly agree with that Scriptural injunction which says that it is, wrong "to muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn."
We who work in hospitals were delighted when in 1948 the almoners of the hospitals, instead of being mainly collectors of money, became what they really ought always to have been, almoners in the true sense; people who made known the possibilities of the social services available to the patients. And we have tried, as has been suggested, to withdraw from the almoners the need for collecting funds, by the use of stamp machines, with more or less success. But in any case, the organisation of this collection has to be carried out by the almoners. When the patient has not 1s. the almoner lends 1s. to the patient and hopes that it may

531
be returned. Sometimes the almoner gets it, and sometimes he or she does not. I know perfectly well that in these Regulations there is a paragraph which says:
"Any sum payable under these regulations to a hospital authority or any other person shall be recoverable summarily as a civil debt."
But I would ask the Minister whether he thinks that will be carried out, and whether the habit of people borrowing a 1s. and failing to return it may not grow?
There is another point in these Regulations to which I would like to refer. It is in Statutory Instrument No. 1023, which deals with charges for hospital services, and I read in Schedule 7 (1, b), that
"a person who receives the drug or appliance for the treatment of a disability which has been accepted for an award by the Minister of Pensions, being a disability for the treatment of which that Minister may defray any necessary medical or surgical expenses"
shall not be charged any fee. That is in the Regulation.
But there are one or two points I should like to raise about this. First of all, we do not treat a disability, we treat a patient. We do not treat a wooden leg, but the individual who carries it. I would point out how difficult it is to say whether symptoms for which treatment is required, are the result of a disability which has been accepted for an award by the Minister of Pensions or not. A man may perhaps have lost his leg, and he cannot sleep at night. Is that due to the loss of his leg, or to something else? Or a man may be receiving a pension for a head injury, and he gets a headache. How can a doctor possibly say whether the headache is due to the injury, or to one of the many hundreds of other causes of a headache?
But my chief objection to these Regulations is that they affect most severely the poorest and most defenceless of our people. I know that provision is made for those in receipt of National Assistance. But I want to refer to the class who are not in receipt of National Assistance; decent, honest people who have been successful in paying their way all their life, and yet when sickness comes upon them, must ask for help.
Take a man who needs a surgical boot. What is he to do? I will read from Circular R.H.B.52/57, which has been issued
532
by the Ministry. This deals with people not in receipt of National Assistance. It will take me some time to read it. Perhaps the Minister will explain it when I have read it. It reads:
"If, however, when the patient is asked to sign the undertaking to pay the charge …"
This is for, say, a surgical boot—
"… the claim is made that he requires assistance before he can meet it, the person concerned should be advised to apply to the Board's office nearest to his home."
That is the National Assistance Board's office nearest to his home—
"The hospital should complete Form A.P.4 and arrange for the hospital's stamp and the date to be entered on the form. (The person should not be asked to sign the form at this stage.) The form should be given to the person to send with his application to the National Assistance Board and he should be asked to return it as soon as a decision has been given. If the Board decide they can help him, they will provide him with a note (Form F.3) indicating the amount of the assistance they are prepared to give, assuming there is no change in the person's circumstances by the time payment is due. This amount may or may not be the full amount of the charge.
The person should give Form F.3 to the hospital when he returns Form A.P.4, which he should then be invited to sign. The hospital can then proceed, if necessary, to order the appliance. If the appliance is to hand, or, if ordered, when it is ready to be fitted, the person should be notified in writing and at the same time told that he should send the notification to the same National Assistance Board office who will, if still satisfied that the person could not meet the charge without hardship, make out a crossed cheque in favour of the hospital authority and hand or send it to the person. The person will present this cheque to the hospital authority when collecting the appliance."
Mr. Iain Macleod: I am distressed that the hon. Gentleman finds that incomprehensible, because, with the exception of about three words, it is identical with the provisions made by the Socialist Government for charges for dentures.
Mr. Hastings: I have been through this rather carefully more than once. I think that I have at last managed to comprehend it. As I understand, it will take about a month to carry out all the different operations. Meanwhile, my poor friend who needs a surgical boot, or needs his surgical boot repairing, will be in real difficulty.
What about people with less education than the Minister? Will they not find

533
this provision most difficult to understand? Some of us hoped that in 1948 we had made the deterrent Poor Law a thing of the past, and that we should hear no more about it; but are not Regulations such as this just as much a deterrent? Will they not keep poor people who need these services from applying for them? What uneducated person is likely to understand such Regulations as these? Cannot the Government try to put out something more simple if they must make these charges?
When the Minister comes to this House and tells us how much these charges have saved the nation, will he also explain that the reason for this saving is not that there is less need but that people have been "choked off" when they need these services. Indeed, those who have been "choked off" may be in the greatest need.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. C. J. M. Alport: I have no doubt that my memory is at fault, but I do not recollect either having read of or heard the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), who has just spoken, making the same remarks on the occasion when the debate took place on the Regulations introduced by the Government of which he was a supporter and relating to dental charges, in which precisely the same terminology was used.
However, it is not with the hon. Member's speech that I wish to deal, but with a point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). The hon. Lady has offered, as far as I can make out, to her constituents—or, indeed I imagine, to anybody—that, in certain events, she will take action on their behalf in the High Court. We realise that the hon. Lady has experience of the High Court, and, therefore, presumably, she is as good as her word, although I still recollect that, on a previous occasion, when she made a somewhat similar threat in the days of the last Parliament about the way in which she would oppose by every means in her power the provisions of the National Health Service Bill, within a few hours she was in the Division Lobby in its support. That, perhaps, may be a warning to those who take her too seriously.
534
The point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is that it is quite clear that these Regulations, and the explanation of them which has been issued by the Ministry, have been drawn up as simply as possible and with as great an understanding of the difficulties with which people may find themselves faced in meeting them.
I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Lady to a particular paragraph in a circular, to which I think she referred, which is known as E.C.L. 41/52, dated 23rd May. In this circular, it is perfectly true that it is laid down that chemist contractors shall be under no obligation to supply drugs and appliances except upon payment of the appropriate charge, but the hon. Lady will also note that in paragraph 10 of that circular it is stated that, when the return of the 1s. which has been taken in respect of the prescription is made, only 11¾d. will, in fact, be required from the chemist.
The other ¼d. per form will be allowed to be retained by the chemist to cover cases in which the contractor may be unable to collect the 1s. charge, because the patient does not return for the item ordered, or because the item seems to be urgently needed, but the person collecting it appears to be genuinely without money.
It seems to me quite clear that, not only does that apply in the case of a chemist, but that it must also apply to the dispensing departments in the hospitals. The Minister, and indeed, everyone who regards these Regulations from a practical point of view, will realise that there will be occasions in which the person tendering the prescription is unable to provide the 1s.
In the case of the chemist—who, after all, is almost a family institution, just as much as the doctor or the grocer or any of those others who serve the family, and who knows very well, perhaps better than most, the circumstances of each family, and whether the claim to be unable to pay the 1s. is likely to be genuine or not—he is given a very proper discretion in the matter. Therefore, I am quite clear that those fears which the hon. Lady tried to raise on this matter are quite unfounded.
In very large schemes of this description there are bound to be considerable

535
difficulties, but as far as possible the approach made by the Minister in framing these Regulations and in inviting interpretation of them is as humane, and, as applied to the practical every day problems of those concerned with carrying them out, as simple as possible.
Therefore, I believe that this last effort by the party opposite to gain political advantage from a misrepresentation of the purpose of this policy will fail. Indeed, it has quite clearly failed from the fact that hon. Members opposite as well as hon. Members on this side of the House know quite well that the initial stages of this scheme are working with a smoothness which was, perhaps, a matter of some surprise to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
9.11 p.m.
Mr. John Baird: First of all, I want to refer to the rather impertinent interjection by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in the first few minutes of the speech of one of my hon. Friends, when he drew the attention of the House to the fact that I was not present. I was here within five minutes, and I would say to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that if he is as vocal in his division concerning his attitude towards these charges as he is in this House, I am quite certain he will lose the next Election.
Many hon. Members opposite have made the point that these charges have not caused the amount of ill feeling among the ordinary people of the country that we expected, and that therefore we can assume that they are being received quite well. As I said earlier in an interjection, it is quite true that we Members have not heard a terrible lot about the suffering of these people, but the reason for that is that it is the professional man who is receiving the complaints just now.
We in the professions know that there is a large amount of ill-feeling being caused between the patient and the practitioner because of the imposition of these charges. Another reason we have not heard a lot of complaints about them is that the civil servants are very vocal people and know how to compose a letter whereas a large number of people suffering from these charges do not know how to express themselves in a letter.
Mr. Powell Mr. Powell rose—
Mr. Baird: No, I do not propose to give way to the hon. Gentleman. In the last speech that he made in the House on this subject, he refused to give way to me, and I have no intention of giving way to him tonight.
I want to deal with the question of the dental charges as imposed under the dental Regulations. The debate so far tonight has been confined to prescription charges. It is quite true that, according to the Minister's estimates, the prescription charges are going to bring in £13 million while the dental charges may bring in only £7 million. But I make the forecast tonight that at the end of the financial year the right hon. Gentleman will find that the money received from the prescription charges will be less than the estimate, whereas the money received from the dental charges will be much higher than the estimate. The reason for that is that the dental charges are causing great hardship and because of them people are not receiving treatment.
I am glad this debate has taken place and I particularly welcome it because it gives us an opportunity to take stock of the position. While it is true, as some hon. Members have said, that we have as yet not much proof of what is happening, we have a certain amount of proof. I think I can say without exaggeration that, as far as dental charges are concerned—and here I declare my interest as a practising dental surgeon—they are already causing great hardship in the country. The dental health of the general public is suffering already as a result of these charges.
Mr. Powell: On a point of order. Could you give the House guidance on this point, Mr. Speaker? The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) is now referring to Regulation No. 1020 (Charges for Dental Treatment). Those Regulations deal only with certain administrative matters and neither with the fact of the imposition of charges nor with the amount of the charges. I ask whether it is in order in this debate to refer to the effects of the imposition of the charges or indeed to any matter not included in the Regulations?
Mr. Speaker: I have given a Ruling to the effect that the House must not in discussion of these Regulations seek to impugn the decision arrived at by the House when it passed the Bill and that speeches should be confined to matters of administration covered by the Regulations. That is the strict rule of order with regard to this debate.
Mr. Baird: I have been directly referring to the effect of this Statutory Instrument. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is completely muzzled in his own division and is trying to muzzle me as well. I want to submit to the Minister facts which I believe will prove that these charges are already imposing great hardship. The Secretary of the British Dental Association sent me today some figures which he tells me come from one of the most responsible dental practitioners for whom he is willing to vouch.
Mr. Fort: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will it be possible to reply to the rather wide way in which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East is speaking?
Mr. Speaker: One breach of order does not excuse another, but I will ask the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East to have regard to what I said and to confine himself to what is in this Statutory Instrument. The general question of charges for dental treatment was settled in the Act.
Mr. Manuel: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) went very much wider when he was speaking than has my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East without in any way being pulled up. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think my hon. Friend was out of order in replying to assertions made from the benches opposite. I hope he will be allowed to reply.
Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe was referring to the charges for prescriptions which are in fact actually imposed by the Statutory Instrument. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East is referring to dental charges not imposed by the Regulations.
Mr. Speaker: The relative Regulation in the Statutory Instrument is Regulation 3, which says:
"Any charge authorised by section 2 of the Act to be made in respect of services provided as part of the general dental services under Part IV of the National Health Service Act, 1946, may be made and recovered by the dental practitioner providing those services as a simple contract debt."
The hon. Member is entitled to refer in passing to the general effect, but he must confine himself on this dental business to what is in the Statutory Instrument.
Mr. Powell: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the Regulation in the Statutory Instrument which you have cited states that the charge may be made and recovered as a simple contract debt. I therefore submit that what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East is entitled to discuss in relation to the Regulations is whether or not these charges should be so recovered, namely, as a contract debt, or not.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me look after these points, but I ask the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East to confine himself to what is in the Regulations and not to stray too wide. This is not an occasion, I would point out again, on which we can re-fight the battle on the National Health Service Act; but the hon. Member should keep himself in order by attending to what I said.
Mr. Baird: I was trying to keep to the narrow point of the debate. I am trying to prove that these Regulations are creating so much trouble that there is a great deterioration in the dental health of the people of this country already. The facts that I was going to give are facts which have been presented to me by the British Dental Association. They relate to a responsible leading dentist in an industrial area who, working with a partner, interviewed and examined this year up to 1st June an average of 250 to 300 new patients per month. Last month he interviewed 35 new patients as a result of this Regulation.
It is quite true that it could be argued that the charges imposed by the Labour Government stopped abuses, but no one can argue that the charges imposed by the present Minister will stop abuses. Therefore, I say that it is causing considerable hardship to a large element of

539
the population. I know that hon. Members opposite do not like hard facts, and these are hard facts.
Mr. Alport: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You gave a very clear Ruling, which I think all hon. Members in this House understood, that the line of argument which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East was following was not in order. May we have a Ruling whether the arguments which are now being put forward by the hon. Member are in order?
Mr. Speaker: I was listening to the hon. Member and I was of the opinion that he was about to pass on from that to the Regulations themselves. I hope he will pass.
Mr. Baird: Mr. Speaker, I have sat through almost the whole of the debate, and I have listened to hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House. The debate has gone fairly wide the whole evening, and I feel that I have the right to put my case in my own way as long as I do not go out of order.
Mr. Speaker: It is true the debate has gone fairly wide, but the hon. Member will see if he refers to the Statutory Instrument, that there is a difference between the dental charges and the other ones. The charges for prescriptions and so on are set out in the Instruments themselves which we are discussing. All the Instrument says about dental treatment is to refer us to the Act. The Act is passed and cannot now be discussed.
Mr. Turner-Samuels: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, do not these Regulations deal with charges and with services, and with the administration in each respect? All that my hon. Friend is doing is to refer to those matters. He is referring to the effect that the administrative result from these Regulations is having. Surely, with great respect, that must be in order, quite apart from the fact that the debate has been proceeding on those lines all the time.
Mr. Speaker: The debate has been a general debate, and perhaps that is where the confusion has arisen. Many of these Statutory Instruments do include the charges which are now to be imposed, but in the case of the dental Regulations, which are in No. 1020, the charges to
540
be imposed are laid down in the Act and not in the Regulations. The Regulations prescribe the machinery by which the charges shall be collected. The hon. Member is entitled to refer to that machinery, but he is not entitled to go back and impugn the decision of the House in passing Section 2 of the Act.
Mr. Baird: Perhaps I may refer to the very complicated forms which have been issued as a result of these Regulations. I know quite well that hon. Members opposite are trying to muzzle me altogether. Might I, in a very narrow way, refer to the question of the forms which are necessary as a result of these Regulations?
Mr. Speaker: It is in order to refer to the forms.
Mr. Baird: I remember when Prayers were moved in this House during the last seven years, before many of the vocal hon. Members opposite were ever in the House—and I may be here long after they are out. When the Labour Government were in power, hon. Members opposite were saying that the Labour Party meant bureaucracy and that we were imposing all kinds of forms and Regulations on the poor doctors and dentists. On many occasions in this House I have attacked the dentists, but tonight, if Mr. Speaker had allowed me, I should have liked to say something in their favour.
As a result of the charges and the forms, dentists in industrial areas are suffering very severe hardship. I am sure the Minister understands that, and I hope he will investigate their financial position. The income of many dentists in industrial areas is lower now than it was before the war as a result of the charges. As a result of our Act and the intervention of myself and some of my hon. Friends, we were able, when the National Health Service Act was introduced—
Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we now dealing with these Regulations or with Acts?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is quicker than I am. I had not come to the end of the sentence being uttered by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East and had been unable to gather what it was he was speaking about.
Mr. Baird: The form introduced by the Labour Government was a very simple one and contained 12 entries altogether. We have now had introduced a complicated form which means that, for a simple operation, the dentist has to make about 46 entries. There is no justification for this complicated, unworkable machinery, and I hope the Minister will simplify it.
I hope I am in order in saying that, as a result of the Regulations, the amount of new estimates being submitted to the Dental Estimates Board has been considerably reduced. The new patients of one dentist have fallen from an average of 250 per month to 45, and that is happening all over the country as a result not only of the charges but also of the complicated machinery. The work of the Dental Estimates Board must have been considerably diminished, and I wonder if anything has been done to cut down the staff of that bureaucratic institution. As a working dentist, I have found that they have not as much form filling to do and the result is that dentists are getting many more needless and pin-pricking letters from them on all sorts of trivial and silly matters. The Minister could save money by cutting out waste in connection with the Dental Estimates Board.
I shall be out of order if I say much more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hope hon. Members will listen for a minute. I have been trying to make a serious and fairly constructive speech. Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not know very much about it, but I am sure the Minister does. I am very glad to see the Minister in that office. I entirely disagree with many of his views, but I think that, unlike his predecessor, he knows something about the job. While I shall do my best to get him out as soon as possible, at least I know he is a competent Minister in health questions.
There are many patients today who cannot afford to receive dental treatment because of these charges. Every dentist in the country must know of patients telephoning and cancelling appointments because they now have to pay. It is happening all over the country. The consequences of the charges are more serious than we ever thought would be the case. The Minister, therefore, will save much more money than he thought he would.
542
Finally, I want to say a word on behalf of the dental profession itself. There is considerable hardship in industrial areas among dentists, who are working part-time. It may be that what the Minister said earlier, about these charges forcing dentists into the school dental service, will come true, because many dentists will be bankrupt as a result of the charges. But I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it still will not solve the school dental problem. The dental profession in these areas is very hard hit indeed, and I should like the Minister to look into the matter. If he does not, the dental health of the great mass of the people of this country, and especially that of the poorer people in industrial areas, will suffer considerably.
Mr. Ross: Before my hon. Friend sits down, would he, as a working dentist, give me information on the effect of this form in which the person who is receiving dental treatment must sign to this effect:
"I understand that the dentist may require me to pay the whole or part of this sum before proceeding with treatment."
What effect is that having?
Mr. Baird: Of course, this is one of the points with which I did not deal earlier because I might have been ruled out of order. The reason for this form is as follows. If the dentist does not get the money beforehand, very many patients are too poor to pay him afterwards. Again, I am not speaking for myself, but dentists all over the country carry out treatment and, after the treatment has been finished, they find that the patient did not realise that he would have to pay. As a consequence the dentist suffers. The Regulation has been introduced for that purpose; it gives the dentist the sanction to charge before the treatment, and it is necessary because of the poverty of a large number of the patients attending dentists.
9.33 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I thought that tonight we were dealing on this Prayer with an issue which would be a cause neither of great controversy nor of the hilarity such as we heard during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird). The section of

543
the community with which these Regulations deal consists of people who, because of the very nature of their illness, are the poorest and the least likely to be able to afford not merely the 1s. prescription but the multiple of the 1s. prescription. The more prescriptions they require, the more likely it is that they are unable to work in gainful occupation and the more difficulties they have to meet.
I should have thought that, in dealing with such Regulations, everyone would have been anxious to do something to improve them. I am not surprised to find the difference in the experiences which have been related by hon. Members on this side and hon. Members opposite. It has been said on many occasions by hon. Members opposite that they have not had many complaints about the charges made under the Regulations. That may be true; these are early days in which to receive complaints. When people are sick and require repeated prescriptions, two or three or more, sometimes in the same week, even the 2½d. stamp which is necessary to put a complaint to a Member of Parliament is a matter for vital consideration.
I want to call the attention of the Minister to the way in which the Regulations affect people. I have had experience in the administration of health matters on a town council and since I have been in this House. Probably my greatest experience is from a patient's-eye view, because I must myself have repetitive prescriptions. I know what it means, although I do not complain about it. A few weeks ago I asked a Question about the number of patients who were awaiting admission to a hospital in my constituency. I got the information that the number was only two short of 1,600 for a hospital that had 75 beds.
What does that mean in terms of prescriptions? It means that those people require remedial treatment in a hospital, but meanwhile they have to take medicines to hold the complaint in check, or to give them relief from pain, and in many cases to enable them to continue at their ordinary employment. The longer those people have to wait for hospitalisation the longer they have to go on paying 1s. for prescriptions.
544
It may well mean that because they have not been able to get hospitalisation they require appliances to keep their illness in check. Some require to work and some are anxious to work, but they must have appliances. Nobody who understands these things imagines that appliances have to be used every day and all day. Many of the people who are awaiting hospitalisation, requiring repeated prescriptions and appliances, work in industries where appliances cannot be used at all times of the day. They may have to change their clothing completely, especially in heavy industries or in the mines. Such people may have to have more than one appliance.
One trouble very often leads to another. Again, I speak with some little knowledge of that matter. In trying by means of appliances to save one part of their bodies these people may strain another part. It is like a snowball that keeps on growing. A miner may require a particular appliance while he is at work and another appliance while he is at home, if he wishes to go out. The same can be said of an engineer and of any worker who sweats profusely while at work.
These are all added difficulties for the sick section of our community. Many people can go for a whole year without requiring a prescription, and to those who are in that happy position 1s. for a prescription does not appear to be very much or anything to raise emotional speeches about. The only people affected by Regulations are those who require prescriptions so many times, and are in difficult circumstances, that the charge becomes a new burden upon them.
I do not want to go into the question of old-age pensioners, but I happen to be the President of the Scottish Old Age Pensioners' Association. Because of that I receive many complaints. They are complaints not merely on behalf of individuals. In Scotland alone there is an organisation with 80,000 members, the Old-Age Pensioners' Association. At their weekly and monthly conferences they complain bitterly of the hardships they are experiencing as a result of these charges. It is true that if they go to a hospital there is not so much lack of dignity about it, but if they go to a chemist's shop there is still a lack of dignity.

545
It is wrong that those people should be put in a different category simply because they are the poorest section of our community and, because of their age and infirmity, are more likely to need prescriptions frequently. While it would be wrong to go back to the original Act, it would be very wrong if we did not remind the Minister that what is happening now is what we saw so clearly would happen the moment charges were imposed which rested only on a section of the community instead of on the community as a whole.
This is the sort of legislation from which the Minister and the Government should take a lesson. I hope that they will realise that no matter what money a Government may wish to save, it is wrong to impose charges on one section of the community, particularly that which is the worst off, that do not apply to the larger and better-off section. I am satisfied that the Minister, the Chancellor and the Government will not get any satisfaction out of a saving of £30 million more or less. It must worry them that a section of our people must hesitate before getting medicine in order to keep themselves fit.
It must be realised that when we speak in terms of 1s. for a prescription we are not dealing with a sole charge on an individual. It affects people with a number of children who normally go through the processes of children's troubles such as measles, fevers, stomach complaints from taking too much ice cream, and other little upsets.
Mr. Manuel: Too much red meat.
Mr. Hubbard: I do not think that anyone is suffering from that complaint today.
I suggest seriously to the Minister and to the Government that if they really have an interest in the health of the people of the country, not only now but in the generation to come, the ability to keep healthy must not be tied to the ability to pay. If we are to overcome our economic difficulties we can only do so if we have a healthy nation. It is a lesson that we shall learn dearly.
We have read the reports from year to year of the general improvement in the standard of health of our people, of the reduction in infant mortality figures, of the wiping out of many diseases. We
546
read daily of the results of medical research, of the different remedies that are becoming available. Surely these things must be given in equal measure to everyone. Therefore, these Regulations ought to be annulled. They serve no purpose, they are impractical and they attack the poorest section of the community. They give satisfaction to no one and the quicker they are removed the better for all.
9.45 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): In the course of the discussion on these Regulations I have been asked a great number of varied questions, and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I indicated the order in which I should like to try to deal with the problems that are in front of us.
I should like to say a word—only a sentence or two, but it should be recorded—about amenity beds; to take, second, the dental Regulations, on which it is extremely difficult to keep in order; then to discuss the charges, both at hospitals and at the chemists; then, to take together some of the matters like emergency treatment and the rural areas, which have hardly been mentioned; and finally, and much more important, to give the House all the information I can about the working of the charges in the last month. That seems to me to be infinitely the most important part of the discussion as to whether the charges are or are not a suitable vehicle for carrying out the intention of the Government.
The amenity bed Regulation—Statutory Instrument No. 1022—is perfectly simple in that it doubles the charges from 6s. to 12s. for single rooms and from 3s. to 6s. for small wards. The only two things that should be said are, first, that we retain, as the previous Regulation, which we are amending, retained, the proviso that if the normal cost of treatment and maintenance is less than 24s. a day, the proposed charges will be proportionately reduced.
The only other matter that perhaps should be recorded is something about the scope of these beds. There are just under 6,000 of them, 2,700 in mental, including mental deficiency, institutions and 3,200 in the remainder. If all those were occupied on the present charges, there would be an income of about

547
£400,000 a year; but because, first, a great number of them are required for patients who have urgent medical reasons for the added privacy, and second, because, wherever the fault may lie, there has been inadequate publicity given to these amenity beds, the charges at present are bringing in rather less than half that amount.
In the same sort of way with the double charges, in theory £800,000 should come in. In practice, and owing to the two factors I have mentioned, although we are trying to increase the knowledge about these beds, because it is our experience, certainly in England and Wales, that where their existence is known there is a considerable demand for them, it may be that the amount that will be brought in will be not much more than half of the £800,000.
Let me come to Statutory Instrument No. 1020, relating to charges for dental treatment. It is true that it is essentially a machinery Regulation and that it does not raise directly or indirectly the merits either of the £1 or the full cost charge for dental treatment. Perhaps the only points that I need take up at the moment from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) are his observations about the forms. Later, when I give the results of the last month, perhaps I might comment on one or two of the figures and comments that he made as to the effect of a dental charge during June.
The hon. Member was rather scathing about the dental form—I confess, not being a dentist, that I find it formidable—that dentists have to complete. He said that my predecessor introduced the new form—E.C.17 revised—but the reason that it had to be introduced and the form had to be revised was to cope with the additional work put upon dentists by the dental charges made a year ago.
Mr. Baird Mr. Baird indicated dissent.
Mr. Macleod: Certainly. The position is that a year ago dentists had to use two forms, E.C.55 and E.C.17 and that the two were later amalgamated. For exactly the same reasons they must again use two forms at the moment—E.C.60 and E.C.17 revised. As soon as we possibly can do it—we could not beat the gun on this matter before the House passed the
548
Act—we will have available a new, and I concede at this point, an even more complicated form, which will be E.C.17 re-revised.
Mr. Baird: I am sure that the Minister would like to help the profession if he can. The reason why the much more complicated form was introduced was, first, to amalgamate the other two forms, but chiefly to meet the needs of the Dental Estimates Board who wanted to alter the filing system in which they had patients names duplicated. It derives from the bureaucracy at Eastbourne and has nothing to do with the dentists at all.
Mr. Macleod: It is common ground that just as we must amalgamate two forms now, under the legislation of a year ago two forms had to be amalgamated. I welcome suggestions as to the way in which these forms can be simplified.
I come to the great number of questions that were raised about the prescription charge, first in its application to the hospitals. I shall, of course, be dealing later, as I said at the beginning, with the results which my Ministry have gathered from hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland. We shall also give the House the results and estimates as best we can in regard to all the matters raised on prescribing at the chemist's shop. Those figures will show how ludicrously exaggerated were the stories of difficulty which we have heard this afternoon. I am sure that the House will agree that what matters is not flam-buoyant prophecies about what ought to be happening, but the factual reports from the chemists' shops and hospitals on what is happening as a result of these charges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) invited my attention to a question which arises on Regulation 3 of Statutory Instrument No. 1023 about drugs and appliances. He is perfectly right when he points out that it is possible, owing to the difference in wording between the two Regulations—which was quite deliberate—for the anomaly he indicated to arise. The reason that decision was taken by my predecessor was purely one of administrative convenience and I have no doubt that he is overwhelmingly justified because, otherwise, we would have to ask hospitals to distinguish between those appliances for

549
which 1s. would be payable under the general practitioner service and all the other infinitely wider range of articles which are likely to be supplied from a hospital outpatients' department. Although my hon. Friend was right in the point he raised, I am certain—I have looked at the matter—that the administrative complications make the method we have adopted very much preferable.
My hon. Friend also raised a matter which, I must confess, was new to me until today and certainly new in the very elaborate debates we have had. He asked me to look into it. This was the question of the disclaimed hospitals and the procedure at present used at such places as the Putney Home for Incurables. I will certainly give the undertaking that I shall go into the matters raised; but in regard to the arrangement which he indicated, which I am sure it is clear to the House is entirely an unofficial one—if a patient is being treated in the way he indicated and is thus using the benefits of the National Health Service, I must say that at first sight I can see no reason why, when the terms of the Health Service are changed, the conditions applicable to all other patients of general practitioners should not equally apply to him. But my hon. Friend asked me to look carefully into the point, and I will certainly do so.
Dr. Stross: Do not patients of this kind fall into a category concerned in a problem which I brought before the Parliamentary Secretary by letter? I refer to bulk prescribing; that is to say, permission is given by local executives to the doctors who attend to prescribe in bulk and, therefore, there is only 1s. for a bulk prescription for the whole home.
Mr. Linstead: May I suggest that the principle applicable in these cases is that which was enunciated at the very beginning of the scheme, namely, that every patient had a right to choose to come into a section of the scheme and remain out of another section of it? It is rather on that principle that the point which I ask my right hon. Friend to consider is founded?
Mr. Macleod: There are a good many exceptions to the principle which my hon. Friend has now enunciated. In so far as it is valid the bulk prescription arrangement normally does not apply to this sort of patient. No alteration has
550
been made in the arrangements normally carried out for bulk prescribing.
Again, on the question of the appliances and drugs that are dispensed at hospitals, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney also asked me about the position of resident staff. It is quite clear that if they are not being treated in the ward they are in these matters regarded in the same way as the rest of the citizens of this country—I quite agree that there may be exceptions because hospitals have their own methods of dealing with these matters—and would normally be expected to pay the charge.
The next point which comes conveniently here was that raised by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown). He always puts his points very persuasively, and I should like to help him. As one of his hon. Friends indicated, however, I think he knows what the answer is and that the Regulation in these cases means what it says. In the example he quoted the charge would be made for each appliance, as the Schedule has stated, and indeed as we have understood since the Act was presented.
I should like to add that the picture which the hon. Member was painting seemed in large measure to indicate a much wider range of appliances than are, in fact, being charged for. It is not the case that there is a charge for spinal supports or for ileostomy or colostomy belts. From the way he was speaking I gathered that he might have thought that there was.
Mr. T. Brown: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point of view which I expressed about the abdominal belts of men suffering from hernia who have to buy three due to the fact that they work in very high temperatures and consequently perspire very freely. The Minister ought to appreciate that some of our men in the minefields are working in temperatures of 120 degrees—and we have been grumbling about 90 degrees. That excessive perspiration tends to rot the belts that they wear. Consequently, they are called upon to buy belts much more frequently than ordinary persons who suffer from hernia.
Mr. Macleod: I appreciate this point, although as the hon. Member very fairly said, I have not the personal knowledge

551
which he has. But I am afraid that does not, and cannot, alter the answer which I gave, and which I think he expected.
Still on hospital matters, there was one point which I was invited to answer by the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings), who talked about Regulation 7 and about the accepted disabilities. The answer there is that the definition of the accepted disabilities is not a matter for my Department, but for the Minister of Pensions.
I want to come to the biggest single problem that confronts us, the question of the ordinary drugs, the 1s. on the prescription given at the chemist's shop. I want to say a word about two matters raised from both sides of the House. They refer, not to the patient who is receiving his National Assistance grant, for whom, by and large, I think everyone would agree that the provision is adequate, but to those borderline cases as they have been described, who are either on the border of extreme poverty, even as judged on National Assistance standards, or who, for one reason or another, are too proud—if that be the right word—to make use of a service which, to some people, still retains the old taint of Poor Law.
I feel that there may be some validity in the point that arrangements for such a person are not so clearly laid out as they should be. It may be that by added publicity we can help to meet some of the points which have been made. The poster available to everybody makes it quite clear that these people, not only the people taking grants, but all people, can—subject, of course, to a means test—obtain such remission. The words are:
"The National Assistance Board is authorised to assist anyone who can show that his resources are insufficient to meet these charges."
That, of course, does not apply, from the wording, only to those who are receiving National Assistance grants.
Miss Irene Ward: That raises a very important point, because people who, in normal circumstances, have not had recourse to the National Assistance Board would not connect their case with that poster in the chemist's shop. That is the problem which we are most anxious that my right hon. Friend should overcome.
Mr. Macleod: I think I am seized of the point. Of course, we must remember that when the National Assistance Act came in it was provided that health requirements—because an Act was in contemplation—were not to rank for National Assistance grants. The breaches in that were made a year ago by the 1951 Act, and the position, apart from those having grants, is exactly the same in all fields, on the 1s., 5s. and 10s. charges; although for obvious reasons it is unlikely that the 1s. would tip a person over this knife-edge about which we are talking.
The requirements of such a person are now on all fours with the requirements of everybody who for any reason feels his resources are inadequate to meet this or any other charge. Therefore, as an answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance two days ago to the House indicated, the arrangements available for the ordinary cases apply equally to the borderline cases we are discussing.
Miss Ward: May I remind my right hon. Friend that when I asked the Minister of National Insurance—
Mrs. Braddock: When I asked him.
Miss Ward: I do not think the hon. Lady asked this question. When I asked my right hon. Friend whether he could indicate the number of cases that had been dealt with by the Assistance Board under that procedure, he said that the information was not available. That indicated to me that there could not have been a very large number of people, otherwise the information must have been available.
Mr. C. W. Gibson: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has said that in suitable cases the charge can be paid by the National Assistance Board, whether the person concerned is already receiving National Assistance or not. Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that his staff and the National Assistance staff know that? Only this week I had a complaint from a man who badly needs assistance who was told that he could not claim from the Assistance Board for health charges because he was not already in receipt of National Assistance. This is a most important point.
Mr. Macleod: I had not heard that there was any difficulty. If necessary, I

553
will get in touch with my right hon. Friend. On the question of information being available, later I shall be giving some figures which have come in in the last day or two.
Mr. Manuel: On this question of assistance for authorised medicines or appliances, is the decision made on the weekly budget for one week, taking into account clothing, and other necessities? Is it on that assumption that the supplementary assistance will be given?
Mr. Macleod: I am sure that the hon. Member knows that that is a matter for determination by the National Assistance Board. Apart from any question of Ministerial responsibility, it would be highly improper for me to intervene in that matter.
I want to comment also on the point about the arrangements in rural areas, although that question has only just been touched on today. There are, in rural areas, both for chemist contractors and for dispensing doctors, special arrangements which have been agreed upon with the professions concerned. I emphasise again that this is only in rural areas and only in those areas where a considerable proportion of drugs change hands without the supplier and the patient meeting. The arrangement we have made involves the use of postage stamps which may be accepted, and which are to be cancelled by the dispensing doctor or the chemist contractor concerned and rendered in that form to the Executive Council, and so to the Treasury.
There has been—not in this House but in the national Press—a good deal of comment by doctors and others about this arrangement, but it has been worked out very closely with the General Medical Services Committee. This comment has been made by doctors in the "British Medical Journal" and by others.
During the course of our debates on the Act there have been—and it has been hinted again today—comments on the different habits of prescribing in various areas of the country. The allegation is normally made that in what are looked on as the rich, wealthy residential areas the cost of prescribing, and perhaps the number of prescriptions also, is very much higher than it is in the industrial areas. It is a very important point. As far as I can, I have made the closest
554
study of the returns of all the Executive Councils, and I must confess that I can draw no valid conclusion whatever from them. Anyone who likes to study them can make whatever case he likes.
Perhaps I may give two examples. I do not want to start a private war in this matter, but it seems to me an astonishing thing that at Blackburn the cost per person per year—which is the best guide—is £1 4s. 1½d., whereas in Bolton it is 16s. 2d. The second illustration shows how impossible it is to make any conclusion, because it is said—and, indeed, it is understandable—that because of the patients—the rich, wealthy Tory patients, as they are imagined to be—[Interruption.] Well, if it is not, perhaps the hon. Member can answer this point. If the cost in Bath is £1 2s. 8½d., why is it £1 4s. 10½d. in that other well-known Tory spa of Wigan?
Mr. William Hamilton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary, assuming that she is to speak in this debate, and I hope she is, also give the figures for places like Inverness and Elgin, compared with Hamilton and Kilmarnock, and say why residential areas are at least 50 per cent. up on working-class areas?
Mr. Macleod: We will certainly have a look at the Scottish figures, but when we talk of the highest areas in England let us remember that these figures cover industrial cities like Manchester, Wakefield and Blackburn, residential areas like Blackpool, Southport and Bournemouth, and rural areas like Cornwall and Westmorland. If anyone can draw any conclusion whatever from the facts that I have given, he is a better man than I am.
Mr. Ellis Smith: The Minister has the advantage of us, because he will have seen the figures for days and will have had an opportunity of making an analysis of the returns. Has he himself come to any conclusion as a result of that examination?
Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir; I have just said that the close study that I made led me to the conclusion that there is no conclusion to be drawn.
The next matter that was raised in relation to the charge in the chemist's shop, which is the last matter that I want to take up in this particular field, because

555
I want to go on to the question of results, in which most people are interested—was that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) about allowances made to the chemists. It is quite true—and we recognise it and have said so in the Regulations and in all the documents that have been issued—that cases are going to arise in which somebody will not call back for a bottle of medicine. It is quite true that cases may arise in which not only a person genuinely has no money, but in which—and this is also essential—the need for that particular medicine is extremely urgent.
We have arranged with the representatives of the chemists that an allowance which works out at one prescription in every 48 will be made to cover these contingencies. How that works out will be in this way. The chemist will receive 1s. for each prescription form paid for, but only 11¾d. will be deducted eventually from his remuneration by the executive council. The arrangements in relation to rural areas are slightly different.
Mr. Linstead: Before my right hon. Friend goes on to his general survey, could he help me over the question I raised of the prescription which extends to more than one form, and say whether it is going to be necessary for a patient to pay 1s., 2s., or 3s. according to whether the prescription runs to one, two or three pieces of paper?
Mr. Macleod: I have looked carefully at that point, but I do not propose to pontificate on it tonight, because I was asked a Question on this matter last week in this House. I said I did not intend to make this a matter of caligraphy, but there are many reasons against what is called the "continuation form." I do not want to go into them in great detail, but I am told that such a form may be an encouragement to what has previously been called "medical shopping." I think that is a valid point.
Secondly, it may be that there would be a danger of adults' and children's prescriptions being dealt with together, and the possibility, so I am informed by those who advise me, that the dosage might be confused. But I have said in this House before that this is one of the matters which I am going to watch carefully as
556
the scheme develops, and I do not intend in any way to give a final answer to that tonight.
Mr. Frederick Messer: The form could be made bigger.
Mr. Macleod: The form could be made as big as this table, but there would still be immense difficulties. However, I will look into all those matters.
There is one most important matter to which no reference has been made tonight. I think the reason for that is that most people know that it is a matter which has been settled. At the same time, it is one which I think should be on the record. It is that satisfactory arrangements have been made to enable what are called the "five shilling pensioners," those occupying residential accommodation under Part III of the National Assistance Act, to get a refund, and that certain arrangements have been agreed between the local authorities and the representatives of my Department on which I do not need comment further. I know the House will be glad to know that, as indeed was always the intention of my predecessor, these people have been brought within the scheme of exemption from these charges.
Mr. R. Ewart: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question in connection with that? It is a matter I intended to raise if I had been called. Will that provision apply to similar persons in residences outside the local authority institutions, such as those run by, say, religious denominations and the kind of institution run by the Salvation Army?
Mr. Macleod: Arrangements have also been made to cover this sort of case. There is a segment of this field where the people looked after by voluntary organisations are the responsibility of local authorities under Section 26 of the National Assistance Act, and that covers the point raised by the hon. Member.
I come now to the most interesting point which has been raised, and that is to see exactly what has been happening as a result of these charges in the shops and hospitals. I have asked for returns, and they have been coming in up to this afternoon and this evening, and have added to the figures I have in my

557
possession. I have had replies from 14 regional hospital boards, from eight provincial boards of governors, and from 24 London boards of governors. I think that the sample they have been able to offer the House has been of hospitals within their own immediate experience, constituency, or whatever it may be, though the sample has inevitably been small.
I must make a number of reservations before I give these figures and these conclusions. First of all, we must remember—and everybody of course appreciates this—that any conclusions drawn from the first month of a scheme are, or may well be, very faulty. Secondly, we have to bear in mind that this scheme started in the middle of the Whitsun holiday and that complicates some of the reckoning, not only for the first few days but for some time after that. Thirdly, we have to remember that the month of June—and I hope this goes on—has been exceptionally fine, and that of course has a considerable effect in these matters.
Five general conclusions are reached by my senior officials, which they have put before me, as a result of the investigation we have made into hospital charges for drugs and appliances. I think the House will be interested in them. First, there has been no noticeable decline in the number of prescriptions dispensed during June which cannot be accounted for by the Whitsun period and holidays. Second, there has been no evidence of any variation in practice as a result of the charges, for example, the ordering of larger quantities on prescriptions, or repeat prescriptions. Third, there has been no falling off in the number of out-patients. Fourth, there is no noticeable increase in queueing in out-patient departments, but some congestion and delay is occasioned by patients needing advice, explanation, or change of money. Fifth, there are no difficulties consequent upon the introduction of charges for either drugs or appliances.
Really, in view of that evidence, collected as carefully as we have been able to collect it from as wide a sample as we can get, first of all what nonsense is made of some of the speeches we have heard in this House and in Committee. Secondly, it is extremely hard to understand how in the passage of the Bill, now
558
an Act, we managed to spend a day a line going through it.
Mr. Frederick Willey: The right hon. Gentleman has given the conclusions reached. Would he give the evidence? What is the percentage fall in the number of prescriptions as compared with last year?
Mr. Macleod: If the hon. Member would only wait a moment; I should have thought that it was clear, at least to the rest of the House, that that would be given in about the next sentence or so.
Mrs. Braddock: With reference to the supply of drugs to hospitals, will not the right hon. Gentleman say that hospitals have been informed that they must not raise their drug account or drug purchases at all? Would not that be an indication that no increases were made in the drugs necessary to supply hospitals?
Mr. Macleod: I do not know whether the hon. Lady would like to quote the authority she uses for saying that no hospital must increase its drug bill. I have not heard of it.
Mrs. Braddock: The right hon. Gentleman should make inquiries.
Mr. Macleod: We might well ask for the evidence on that too.
Before we come to the prescription charge, I should like to take up the point made about the effect on dental treatment by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, subject to what reservations I have made. There has been a substantial fall in the demand for dental treatment during the past month. It is also unquestionably true that a substantial proportion of the estimates submitted have been for those who can claim exemption.
It follows, therefore, that the policy of Her Majesty's Government that where we have not enough resources and enough dentists those most in need shall not go without is being implemented. That figure has to be taken also together with the increase in the number of dentists in the school dental service, which on the full-time basis has gone up in the last six months from 716 to 793. That trend is continuing. Therefore, the teeth of these priority classes will in the future be better looked after than they ever have been.
Mr. Baird: Let us give the right hon. Gentleman that point. Let us assume that, as a result of the charges, the children are going to be treated a little better than they were before. He himself admitted that between 2,000 and 3,000 school dentists were required to get an efficient school dental service. He has not got anything near that number and he is not likely to do so with these charges. Does he not admit that, as a result of these charges, a very large section of the population will allow their teeth to rot because they cannot afford to pay for dental treatment?
Mr. Macleod: That is quite untrue and the hon. Gentleman, as a professional man, must know that that observation is a very silly one. The short answer is that, whatever the ideal number we need, 793 is better than 716.
I want to give the position, as we estimate it this month, in relation to the prescription charges. The general conclusion is that there has been something like a 15 per cent. drop in all. That is again subject, I must say, to all the reservations that have been made about June. I am comparing, as the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) did, June with June.
Dr. Stross: In estimating the fall of 15 per cent., has the Minister got any evidence of what is happening to individual prescriptions? Perhaps I may give an example. It appears from evidence that we have got that the tendency is that they are more costly on a percentage basis than they were before. Has the right hon. Gentleman got any evidence yet?
Mr. Macleod: Not on the actual cost. The hon. Gentleman knows the position of pricing in this country. It is impossible to give that information.
On the point which was raised about quantities—and again we have had all this talk about what the doctors would do, how they would pile it on to every form and there would be no saving—I have here 10 replies from the regions on this point. The replies are as follows: Newcastle, no substantial change, tendency to order more for chronics; Leeds, no substantial change; Nottingham, most report increase in tablets but little in liquids, increases usually for chronics;
560
Cambridge, no substantial change; Reading, no evidence of increase; Bristol, no information; Tunbridge Wells, little general change; Wales, little change; Birmingham, no evidence of change; Manchester, little evidence of change.
Mr. McNeil: The right hon. Gentleman presumably has obtained these reports from pricing bureaux, and if he has them from pricing bureaux presumably he is able to give some kind of answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend?
Mr. Macleod: No, they come from much wider sources than the pricing bureaux. They come from my own regions, executive councils and a great variety of sources. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the pricing is a good deal behind.
On the question of appliances, the National Assistance Board have not yet available full information, but they have made a spot check in two areas, Leicester and St. Pancras, and the results are as follows in this month. Number of applications for relief from the charges: appliances—Leicester, four, of whom three were already in receipt of assistance; St. Pancras, no applications. For prescriptions—Leicester, 10 applications, eight of whom were in receipt of assistance; St. Pancras, 10 applications, 10 of which were in receipt of assistance. It is fair to add that those figures exclude people who have made use of the automatic method of refund through the General Post Office; but that merely strengthens the point that that part of the scheme is working extremely well.
Since we have been asked questions about Scotland, perhaps I might give the National Assistance Board figures for Scotland, subject to the comments that I have made. From 1st to 24th June, on prescriptions by family doctors, the number of applications to the National Assistance Board was 272 out of one million—that is all—and out of that number 176 persons were already in receipt of National Assistance. The figures that I have given prove that there is extremely little dissatisfaction with the scheme. Unless the hospitals and the regions are making false returns that is unquestionably true.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of the posters—
Mr. Manuel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Prayers we are considering cover Scotland and a Scottish Minister is sitting on the Government Front Bench. Can we have an assurance that a Scottish Minister will deal with the position in Scotland, or is it to be dismissed in two lines by an English Minister?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I cannot call either an Englishman or a Scotsman unless he rises to his feet.
Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of the posters and the cost of the additional forms in a full year. He seemed to imply that the figures were astronomical. I have given them in the House in reply to a Question. In a full year the posters for England and Wales cost £203, and the estimated cost in a full year of the forms that have been brandished round the House today is £4,862.
The real question lying behind the debate is whether or not the Regulations and, in particular, the "bob" on the prescription will work. The Leader of the Opposition said at Nottingham 10 days ago:
"The prescription charges plan was put up to us We found it would not work. They have no ideas of their own"—
"They" are the Tories—
"so they picked it up like a boy picking up a banana skin and, naturally, slipped on it."
I do not know how one manages to pick up a banana skin and slip on it, but it just shows the dangers that attend these colourful ventures into speech.
But what is of the first importance—because we have heard that said again tonight—is when the Socialist Party came to the conclusion that these Regulations, which they are going to oppose in the Lobby, would not work. Presumably it was not when the Leader of the Opposition made his announcement as Prime Minister that there would be such a charge. Presumably it was not a few months later when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) piloted this provision through the House. Presumably it was not in 1950, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, said,
"The power to charge will, of course, remain so that it can be used later if it is needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 60.]
562
Finally, to come a little closer to the twins sitting opposite, the right hon. Member for Greenock and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), a year ago they introduced the 1951 Act and they took power in Section 2 to make the requirements of the National Assistance Act applicable to Section 16 of the National Health Service Act; and presumably they thought even a year ago, within a few weeks of their going out of office, that this scheme would work.
Mr. Marquand: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman since I hope to address the House very soon, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; but the right hon. Gentleman has said all this before, and he knows perfectly well that in my Second Reading speech on the Bill, as it then was, I said definitely and in some detail why we rejected a prescription charge.
Mr. Macleod: If the right hon. Gentleman rejected a prescription charge, it seems a most extraordinary thing to do to waste the time of the House in taking provision to send these people to the National Assistance Board. We were used to the right hon. Gentleman filibustering on our Health Service Bill, but I did not realise that he was filibustering also on his own Bill. It seems to me that it is not this Government which slipped on this banana skin.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point, I asked him a serious point about the Social Survey, which I think he will agree gives very important information for the purpose of trying to estimate what the effect of these charges will be.
Mr. Macleod: The answer has been given in the economic debates previously by representatives of the Treasury, and the answer is that in the circumstances of the country at the time we simply did not think the money spent on that part of the Social Survey worth the information we were getting from it.
These Regulations and, in particular, the shilling on the prescription charge rest on three pillars. They implement, first of all, the undertaking given to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. They rely for their statutory authority on Section 16 of the

563
1949 Act piloted through the House by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. They rely for their National Assistance provisions, finally, on the arrangements so conveniently made by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who piloted the Bill, and I myself, who present these Regulations, have been no more than the doctor and midwife to the child they have conceived.
10.39 p.m.
Mr. H. A. Marquand: It is a little hard to determine whether the loud applause which greeted the right hon. Gentleman when he resumed his seat is a tribute to the political matter which he introduced at the end or to the fact that at last we have a Minister of Health who at least has been able to give the House of Commons some explanation of what his Measures are all about. [Laughter.] It is welcome indeed. I think hon. Members opposite know perfectly well what my reference was. [Interruption.] We know that there are conspicuous examples of some hon. Members whose form of debating during the last Parliament was to giggle and laugh on all occasions, and who have succeeded thereby in getting into the Government. But it is not likely that any vacancies will be provided for them in the future, so they had better get jobs in the Conservative Central Office and see whether they can get in that way.
We are grateful for such factual information as the right hon. Gentleman has been able to give us tonight about what has happened as a result of the working of these charges. If, in addition to being a skilful and not unsuccessful politician, he also wishes to be a good Minister of Health, he will, in spite of the usual political interchanges, take careful note of what many of my hon. Friends have said in this debate. He will not brush aside too lightly the evidence and information that they have brought forward from their practical knowledge of the conditions in which our people live, and the way the National Health Service works.
He will not too easily persuade himself that all is going well, and I hope he will, in particular, pay attention to the suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member
564
for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop), namely that, although there may be some arguments on the grounds of economy for the dropping of the sickness survey before these charges came into operation, the sort of evidence that has been produced tonight and the doubts that genuinely exist in the minds of many people engaged in the Health Service, do make it most reasonable that the sickness survey should be re-instituted.
Let us watch carefully and be sure we get the sample information from all over the country as to what is really happening so that next time we come to debate these charges—perhaps when the Ministry of Health Estimates are presented—we may have some opportunity of really knowing what the effect has been in detail.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us some views about the effect of the prescription charge in the out-patients' departments of hospitals, and he said that no very great change seemed to have taken place. In particular there was no general evidence of the prescribing of larger quantities of drugs. I do not think any reasonable person would have expected that result in out-patient departments of hospitals which, after all, are run under the regional hospital boards, under the close direction and control of his own Department. It was not there we feared there might be increased prescribing.
It is a pity he could not have given us fuller information than he was able to do about what has been the main topic of the debate today—very naturally—that is the prescription charge in relation to the general practitioner service. It was very naturally the main topic of the debate. Much was said during the debate on the Bill quite recently about charges in out-patient departments, charges for dental treatment and surgical appliances. The general practitioner charge for prescriptions came under the 1949 Act, and though some references were made to it, there was no other discussion.
Naturally, then, tonight most of the discussion turned upon that. I shall confine my remarks, which I will endeavour to make as brief as possible, to that part of the Service. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we have had only five weeks at

565
most in which to watch the working of this charge. During that five weeks we have had a holiday, we have had fine weather, and it is a period of the year anyway in which illness and disease are not normally heavily prevalent, certainly nothing like they are in the winter. But it is remarkable, in view of that fact, in view of the short period in which the charges have been in operation, and in view of the unusually favourable circumstances in regard to the prevalence of illness and weather, that there has been brought forward tonight so much evidence as has in fact come forward.
I thought that a 15 per cent. drop in prescriptions was a substantial change, comparing one June with another, in so for as we can form judgments on so short a period of experience. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be complacent about this side of the matter as well as about the hospital side, and there was almost a rubbing of the hands with glee by his hon. Friends behind him which seemed to me to be entirely mistaken.
The hon. Members for Putney (Mr. Linstead) and Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) said that they had had very few complaints. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) actually said that the schemes were working with surprising smoothness—a hasty generalisation to make on so short a period of experience, and a hasty generalisation to make in view of the evidence that had been supplied by some of my hon. Friends behind me.
I suggest there are two explanations of the difference that exists between us on this matter, apart from any party differences and any prejudices with which people may approach the topic. One is the explanation to which I have already alluded: that it is summer time. The other is the explanation of geography. Hon. Members opposite who spoke with such complacency represented Putney, Reigate, Colchester—
Mr. Fort: And Clitheroe.
Mr. Marquand: The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) may have spoken too, but if so his observations escaped my attention. If he wants to be included in being called complacent, by all means let him be so and let it go on record. If I understood the hon. Member for Putney aright, he said he did
566
not understand why a greater fall in prescriptions had taken place in the North rather than in the South. If he would only come north with me some time to Middlesbrough, I could explain to him the difference on the spot.
I could point out to him the difference between the North of England, where, on the whole, a far greater proportion of the national wealth of this country is made, and the South of England where a far greater proportion of the national wealth of this country is consumed. That is the difference. The hon. Gentleman would not speak of occasional hard cases if he could come with me into certain parts of my constituency. We are bound to speak from our own experience of this matter; it is the only really reliable evidence that any of us can have at this moment. If he had come with me into the poorer parts of my constituency the week-end before last, when I talked to the chemists, he would have found that these cases are not occasional hard cases in such areas. These are areas in which people have hard times all their lives and to whom the extra imposition comes as a heavy burden.
Mr. Linstead: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, my constituency is a typical suburban London constituency with a substantial industrial element in it, of whom nearly 25,000 voted for my opponent. From that constituency I have had one letter of protest only.
Mr. Marquand: I get comparatively few letters from my political opponents, too. I suppose because they have no faith in me and they have the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) to look after them. In exactly the same way the hon. Member for Putney has remarkably few letters from opponents because there are plenty of good Labour Members in London to whom they can write if they want guidance. But I will come to that point in a moment because I have some evidence to give to the House about it. I want to say, first, that we all agreed with the hon. Member for Putney when he paid tribute to the zealous care and attention with which the chemists are trying to do their best for their customers at this time.
I was very much impressed by the attitude adopted by the men to whom I

567
spoke in my constituency, who have now become, not so much public relations officers for the Ministry of Health, but welfare officers for their own customers and relieving officers at the same time in some cases. The chemist today, knowing his customers in these districts, where the labourers in the great steel works live, recognises such people when they come into the shop and proceeds to indicate to them what is available in the way of relief from payment for prescriptions. They told me that people come frequently into their shops in such districts and look anxiously around them to be sure no one else is there before they say in a whisper that they are on national assistance; what must they do about it?
This, of course, is not confined to the industrial areas of the north because, as the hon. Member for Putney readily says, even in the most prosperous districts there are areas of poverty and hardship. I have in front of me a letter which was sent by a responsible person in a seaside resort who had been asked among others to return to the Minister answers to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman told us about tonight. I shall not weary the House with the whole letter; I just want to make this quotation from it:
"The general impression was that there was no difference being experienced in the number of prescriptions dispensed except by chemists with pharmacists in the poorest working class areas."
So what is true of an area like Middlesbrough, in which there are huge working class areas, is also true in areas like seaside resorts and pleasant and agreeable places like Putney. This blow has been felt severely.
It has never been claimed from this side of the House that the imposition of a prescription charge of 1s. would cause hardship to everybody. Far from it. We based our case on the claim that the hardship would be caused to the poor. They, fortunately, after six years of Labour rule, are not as numerous as they used to be. We have admitted that the numbers involved may be comparatively small. They may be equal to the three or four million, for example, who draw the retirement pension. Some of the retirement pensioners can meet the
568
charge, but we must include other classes who cannot. Most serious and significant of all to my mind was the statement made to me by one of a chemist—I hope the House will accept my assurance that I did not ask tendentious questions at all; I asked the questions objectively in the presence of another person, who was not a member of any political party, so that the whole thing could be above board and not suspect in any way of bias.
He said to me, "The most serious effect that we see so far "—and I have admitted that the experience is brief—"is not so much upon the old-age pensioners or even upon the adults whom we know to be living on National Assistance. It is on the children. It is those who we know to be the mothers of large families whom we have found not to be coming to the shop so often as they used to do." And the doctors confirm that tendency.
There is a tendency—there is bound to be—among the mothers of large families, living upon a labourer's wage, in those difficult conditions, to hold back from going to the doctor. As I have said before, one of the greatest benefits of our National Health Service—indeed, the greatest benefit of all—was the way in which it relieved such a mother of anxiety about her children's health. It enabled her to feel that she could freely go to the doctor when her children needed attention, that she could place her difficulties, anxieties and doubts in front of the doctor and get him to deal with them. The onset and the spread of illness have been checked by those means, and the danger is that that will cease.
I said on the Second Reading of the Bill which imposed the charges on the out-patient departments and all the rest, that I thought that this business would end in mess and muddle. I have heard nothing tonight to make me wish to change that forecast. I still believe that it will do so. I believe that evidence is growing of a growing complaint. The volume of complaint has not yet anywhere nearly reached its maximum dimensions. As the weather changes, as we pass into winter, as the onset of disease increases, the number of complaints that even the hon. Member for Putney will get will exceed all his expectations, and he will be very sorry that he was so complacent tonight in the House of Commons.

569
We have had an exploratory debate in the interests of our constituents. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that our rules about the number of days within which Prayers can be tabled have made it necessary to bring the Prayers on as early as this date. It is a pity that more time could not have been taken to study in some detail the effects of the charges, but such evidence as we have had tonight makes us believe that we were right in the stand that we took against the imposition of these charges.
It has been suggested that some of those who spoke earlier from this side of the House might have been inciting their constituents to break the law. That is certainly not true. That has been denied already, and I think the denial has been accepted. Nothing would be further from our thoughts and intentions than to incite people to break the law. I must, however, warn the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends that it is extremely difficult to enforce any law which has no moral sanction behind it, and he will find it increasingly difficult as the days pass.
Mr. Edward Heath (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question,
That are humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Dental Treatment) Regulations, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 1020), dated 23rd May, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be annulled,
put accordingly, and negatived.
Motion made, and Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 1021), dated 23rd May, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be annulled.—[Mr. Marquand.]
The House divided: Ayes. 235; Noes, 254.

Division No. 188.]

AYES

[11.0 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Adams, Richard

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Allen, Sholefield (Crewe)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hamilton, W. W.

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hannan, W.

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Daines, P.

Hargreaves, A.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hastings, S

Awbery, S. S.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Hayman, F H.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

Baird, J.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

'Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Balfour, A.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Herbison, Miss M.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Hobson, C. R

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Holman, P

Bence, C. R.

Deer, G.

Holt, A. F.

Benson, G

Delargy, H. J

Houghton, Douglas

Beswick, F.

Dodds, N. N.

Hoy, J. H.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)

Donnelly, D. L.

Hubbard, T. F.

Bing, G. H. C.

Driberg, T. E. N

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Blackburn, F.

Dugdale, Rt Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Blenkinsop, A.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Blyton, W. R.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Boardman, H.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Bowen, E. R.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Bowles, F. G.

Evans. Stanley (Wednesbury)

Irving, W J. (Wood Green)

Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth

Ewart, R.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A

Brockway, A. F.

Fernyhough, E.

Janner, B

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Field, W J.

Jay, Rt. Hon D P T.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Fienburgh, W.

Jeger, Dr. Santo (St Paneras, S.)

Brawn, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Finch, H. J.

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Burke, W. A.

Follick, M.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Burton, Miss F. E

Foot, M M

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Freeman, John (Watford)

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Callaghan, L. J.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Carmichael, J.

Gibson, C. W.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Castle, Mrs. B. A

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

Keenan, W.

Champion, A. J

Grenfell Rt. Hon. D. R.

Kenyon, C

Chapman, W. D.

Grey, C. F.

King, Dr. H. M.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Clunie, J.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanehy)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Cocks, F. S.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Lewis, Arthur

Coldrick, W.

Grimond, J.

Lindgren, G. S.

Collick, P. H.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Logan, D. G.

McGhee, H. G.

Pearson, A.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

McInnes, J.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Porter, G.

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

McLeavy, F.

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Proctor, W. T.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Pryde, D. J.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Mainwaring, W. H.

Rankin, John

Turner-Samuels, M

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Reeves, J.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Manuel, A. C.

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Wade, D. W.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Watkins, T. E.

Mayhew, C. P.

Rhodes, H.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Mellish, R. J.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.

Weitzman, D.

Messer, F.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Mitchison, G. R.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Wells, William (Walsall)

Monslow, W.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

West, D. G.

Moody, A. S.

Ross, William

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

Royle, C.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Morley, R.

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Wigg, George Wilkins, W. A.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)

Short, E. W.

Wilkens, W. A.

Mort, D. L.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N)

Moyle, A.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

Nally, W.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Slater, J.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Oldfield, W. H.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Oliver, G. H.

Snow, J. W.

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

Orbach, M.

Sorensen, R. W.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Oswald, T.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Wyatt, W. L.

Padley, W. E.

Sparks, J. A.

Yates, V. F.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W (Dearne Valley)

Steele, T

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

Pannell, Charles

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Pargiter, G. A.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Mr. Popplewell and

Parker, J.

Swingler, S. T.

Mr. Horace Holmes.

Paton, J.

Sylvester, G. O.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Cole, Norman

Harden, J. R. E.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Colegate, W. A.

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Alport, C J. M.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr Albert

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Arbuthnot, John

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Cranborne, Viscount

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H F. C.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Aster, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Heaid, Sir Lionel

Baker, P. A. D.

Crouch, R. F.

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr, J. M.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchlay)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Baldwin, A. E.

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Banks, Col C.

Davidson, Viscountess

Hirst, Geoffrey

Barber, A. P. L.

De la Bère, Sir Rupert

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Barlow, Sir John

Deedes, W. F.

Hollis, M. C.

Beach, Maj Hicks

Digby, S. Wingfield

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hopkhison, Rt. Hon. Henry

Ball, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Dormer, P. W.

Horobin, I. M.

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaslon)

Doughty, C. J. A.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Drayton, G. B.

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Birch, Nigel

Duthie, W. S.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Bishop, F. P.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Black, C. W.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Fall, A.

Hutchison, Lt.-Com, Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Finlay Graeme

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Braine, B. R.

Fisher, Nigel

Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Fort, R

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Jennings, R.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Gammans, L. D.

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Bullard, D. G.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E.

George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

Kaberry, D

Burden, F. F. A.

Glyn. Sir Ralph

Keeling, Sir Edward

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Godber, J. B.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Carson, Hon. E.

Gomme-Dunoan, Col. A.

Lambton, Viscount

Cary, Sir Robert

Gough, C F. H.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Channon, H.

Gower, H. R.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Clarice, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Wastbury)

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

572

573

Linstead, H. N.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Stevens, G. P.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Oakshott, H. D

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Odey, G. W.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Storey, S

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Low, A. R. W.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Stuart, Rt Hon. James (Moray)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Osborne, C.

Summers, G. S.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Partridge, E.

Sutcliffe, H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

McAdden, S. J.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Teeling, W

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Peyton, J W. W.

Thomas, Rt. Hon J. P. L. (Hereford)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

McKibbin, A. J.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Pitman, I. J.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Powell, J. Enoch

Thomton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

MacLeod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Tilney, John

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Touche, Sir Gordon

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Profumo, J. D.

Turner, H. F. L.

Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

Raikes, H, V.

Turton, R. H.

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Redmayne, M.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E

Ronton, D. L. M.

Vane, W. M. F.

Markham, Major S. F.

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Vosper, D. F.

Marples, A. E.

Robson-Brown, W.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

Roper, Sir Harold

Ward, Hon George (Worcester)

Maude, Angus

Russell, R. S.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Maudiing, R.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr S. L. C

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)

Wellwood, W.

Mellor, Sir John

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Molson, A. H. E.

Shepherd, William

Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Molt-Radclyffe, C E.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Wills, G.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Nicholls, Harmar

Snadden, W McN

Wood, Hon. R.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Soames, Capt. C.

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

Spearman, A. C M

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Speir, R M.

Mr. Butcher and

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Mr. Edward Heath.

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Hospital Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Regulations, 1952 (S.I.,
1952, No. 1025), dated 23rd May, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be annulled.—[Mr. Marquatud.]
The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 251.

Division No. 189.]

AYES

[11.10 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Burton, Miss F. E.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Adams, Richard

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Callaghan, L. J.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

Carmichael, J.

Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Ewart, R.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Champion, A J.

Fernyhough, E.

Awbery, S. S.

Chapman, W. D.

Field, W. J.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Chetwynd, G. R

Fienburgh, W.

Baird, J.

Clunie, J.

Finch, H. J.

Balfour, A.

Cocks, F. S

Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.

Coldrick, W.

Follick, M.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Collick, P. H.

Foot, M. M.

Bence, C. R.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Freeman, John (Watford)

Benson, G.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N.

Beswick, F.

Crossman, R. H S.

Gibson, C. W.

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

Daines, P.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

Bing, G. H. G.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Blackburn, F.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Grey, C. F.

Blenkinsop, A.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Blyton, W. R.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Boardman, H.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Grimond, J.

Bowen, E. R.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Bowles, F. G.

Deer, G.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Delargy, H. J

Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

Brockway, A. F.

Dodds, N. N.

Hamilton, W. W.

Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

Donnelly, D. L.

Hannan, W.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Hargreaves, A.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)

Hastings, S.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hayman, F. H.

Burke, W. A.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)

Mitchison, G. R

Slater, J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Monslow, W.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Hobson, C. R.

Moody, A S.

Snow, J. W.

Holman, P.

Morgan, Dr. H. B. W

Sorensen, R. W.

Holt, A. F.

Morley, R

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Houghton, Douglas

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Sparks, J. A.

Hoy, J. H.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)

Steele, T.

Hubbard, T. F.

Mort, D. L

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

Moyle, A.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Nally, W.

Stross, Dr. Barnett

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Swingler, S, T.

Hughes. Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

Sylvester, G. O.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Oldfield, W. H.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Oliver, G. H.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Orbach, M.

Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

Irving, W J. (Wood Green)

Oswald, T.

Thomas, David (Aberdare)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Padley, W. E.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Janner, B.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)

Pannell, Charles

Turner-Samuels, M.

Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

Pargiter, G. A.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Parker, J.

Wade, D. W.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Paton, J.

Watkins, T. E.

Jones, David (Hartlepool)

Pearson, A.

Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C)

Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Weitzman, D.

Jones, Jack (Rolherham)

Porter, G.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

Wells, William (Walsall)

Keenan, W.

Proctor, W. T.

West, D. G.

Kenyon, C.

Pryde, D. J.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

King, Dr. H. M.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Rankin, John

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Reeves, J.

Wigg, George

Lewis, Arthur

Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

Wilkins, W. A.

Lindgren, G. S.

Reid, William (Camlachie)

Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N)

Logan, D. G.

Rhodes, H.

Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

McGhee, H. G.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

McInnes, J.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

McLeavy, F.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Ross, William

Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Royle, C.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

Mainwaring, W. H.

Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

Wyatt W. L.

Mann, Mrs Jean

Shackleton, E. A. A

Yates, V F.

Manuel, A. C.

Short, E. W

Younger, Rt. Hon K.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Mayhew, C. P.

Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mellish, R. J.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Mr. Popplewell and

Messer, F.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Mr. Horace Holmes.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T.

Duthie, W. S.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Bullard, D. G.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.

Alport, C. J. M.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Burden, F. F. A.

Fell, A.

Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

Butcher, H. W.

Finlay, Graeme

Arbuthnot, John

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Fisher, Nigel

Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

Carson, Hon. E.

Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Cary, Sir Robert

Fort, R.

Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)

Channon, H.

Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

Baker, P. A. D.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T D. (Pollok)

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Clarke, Col, Ralph (East Grinstead)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Baldwin, A. E.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

Gammans, L. D.

Banks, Col. C.

Cole, Norman

Garner-Evans, E H

Barber, Anthony

Colegate, W. A.

George, Rt. Hon. Maj G. Lloyd

Barlow, Sir John

Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

Glyn, Sir Ralph

Beach, Maj. Hicks

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Godber, J. B.

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Cranborne, Viscount

Gough. C F. H.

Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C

Gower, H. R.

Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Bennett, William (Woodside)

Crouch, R. F.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Birch, Nigel

Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

Harden, J. R. E.

Bishop, F. P.

Davidson, Viscountess

Hare, Hon. J. H.

Black, C. W.

Do la Bère, Sir Rupert

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Deedes, W. F.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Digby, S. Wingfield

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Braine, B. R.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Donner, P. W.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

Doughty, C. J. A

Heald, Sir Lionel

Brooman-White, R. C.

Drayson, G. B.

Heath, Edward

Browne, Jack (Govan)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

576

577

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

Schofield, Lt.-Col W. (Rochdale)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R

Hirst, Geoffrey

Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E

Shepherd, William

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Markham, Major S. F.

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)

Hollis, M. C.

Marlowe, A. A H.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

Marples, A. E.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry

Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)

Snadden, W. McN.

Horobin, I. M.

Maude, Angus

Soames, Capt. C.

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Maudling, R.

Spearman, A C. M.

Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Speir, R. M.

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Medlicott, Brig. F.

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Mellor, Sir John

Stevens, G. P

Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

Molson, A. H. E.

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Stoddart-Scott, Col, M

Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Storey, S.

Hyde, Lt.-Col, H. M.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

Nicholls, Harmar

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Summers, G. S.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)

Sutcliffe, H.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Nield, Basil (Chester)

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Jones, A. (Hall Green)

Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Kaberry, D.

Oakshott, H. D.

Thompson, Lf.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)

Keeling, Sir Edward

Odey, G. W.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)

Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

Lambton, Viscount

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Tilney, John

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Touche, Sir Gordon

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Turner, H. F. L.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Osborne, C.

Turton, R. H.

Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

Partridge, E.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Vane, W. M. F,

Linslead, H. N.

Perkins, W. R. D.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

Pitman, I. J.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

Powell, J. Enoch

Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.

Low, A. R. W.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.

Weliwood, W.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

Profumo, J. D.

White, Baker (Canterbury)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Raikes, H. V.

Williams, Rt, Hon. Charles (Torquay)

McAdden, S. J.

Redmayne, M.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

Renton, D. L. M.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

Wills, G.

McKibbin, A. J.

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Robson-Brown, W.

Wood, Hon. R

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Roper, Sir Harold

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

Russell, R. S.

Major Conant and Mr. Vosper.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

Motion made, and Question,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Regulations, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 1026), dated 23rd May, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be annulled.—[Mr. McNeil.]
put, and negatived.
Motion made, and Question,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (General Dental Services
578
Charges) (Scotland) Regulations, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 1027), dated 23rd May, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be annulled.—[Mr. McNeil.]
put, and negatived.
Motion made, and Question,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges for Hospital Accommodation) (Scotland) Regulations, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 1028), dated 23rd May, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be annulled.—[Mr. McNeil.]
put, and negatived.

SCHOOL CROSSINGS, LICHFIELD
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]
11.23 p.m.
Mr. Julian Snow: The subject of my Adjournment Motion tonight is connected with the desirability of examining what can be done to prevent children being massacred on the roads, and those hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber and jeering about the subject are ill-advised—
Mr. Speaker: I ask hon. Members to pass from the Chamber quietly and without talking.
Mr. Snow: I was saying that those hon. Members are ill-advised because no subject is worthy of greater attention than this one.
I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport to the problem which exists in the City of Lichfield at the intersection of two trunk roads, A 38, which is the Exeter—Leeds trunk road, and A 51, which, in local terms, runs from Stafford to Lichfield. I might add, in parenthesis, that if the Levetts Fields by-pass of Lichfield, which has been the subject of two deputations to the Minister, were accepted—it is a project which could be put into operation very cheaply indeed—much of what I have to say tonight would not arise. However, that can wait for another time.
The problem is largely, though by no means entirely, related to the school safety issue. I have evidence here from the council of the City of Lichfield, from the Staffordshire police and also from the headmistress of the school chiefly concerned—the Friary School at Lichfield. The town clerk of the City of Lichfield, in a letter to me, has said:
"The City Council consider that two zebra crossings for these main thoroughfares through the city are entirely inadequate and that pedestrians in the centre of the city are exposed to very great danger, having regard to the heavy traffic."
The Staffordshire police say that their view is very much the same. The words, in fact, are:
"the police consider that the installation of zebra crossings in Friary Road and St. John's
580
Street is the obvious solution and one they strongly support."
I shall refer later to the comments of the headmistress of the school in question, although there are other schools involved. The only possibly contentious remark I shall make tonight—and it is not very contentious—is that I think in his speech of 20th June to the House, the Parliamentary Secretary—and I shall quote him—made a remark which I think may possibly be misconstrued in certain parts of the country. He said in that speech—and I quote from HANSARD, column 1800:
"We are convinced that it is unwise and unfair to entrust schoolchildren, especially the very young, to the purely legal safeguard of art uncontrolled pedestrian crossing. Where children have to cross really busy roads on their way to and from school, anything less than some form of positive control can be worse than useless."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 20th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 1800.]
I must say that I do not entirely share that view, and one of the questions I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary tonight is this: what precisely is the role of the divisional road engineer in these cases? Because evidence which I have here—and as a matter of fact I have sent some of it to the Parliamentary Secretary for him to examine—seems to indicate that the divisional road engineer fulfils rather an arbritrary role and that local opinion is not sufficiently taken into account. Frankly, I should have thought that in this matter the opinions of parents and ordinary citizens should be given the most careful consideration. In the face of the evidence which I shall produce, I do not think this treatment has been given to them.
I propose to concentrate on two crossings, although the council have drawn my attention to three. The one with which I do not propose to deal, except in passing, is the so-called Church Street crossing, not because I do not think it is important—I know how important the local council regard it—but because it does not lend itself so happily to the argument which I wish to put forward tonight. In all these questions there is a tendency to try to analyse the problem into whether it is a school problem or an ordinary pedestrian problem. This case is a combination of the two. I will deal, first of all, with the school problem.

581
It so happens that this intersection of these two trunk roads is within 300 to 400 yards of a very large catchment area for school children. As a matter of fact, in the near vicinity of this intersection there is the Lichfield Grammar School, the Friary School, the Secondary Modern School, St. Michael's School, St. Joseph's School, Christchurch School and certain smaller schools. If I might take Friary School, which happens to be at the immediate intersection I was talking about, this school has itself a large catchment area from the rural and mining areas in the district, and every day 300 children come in by bus and are decanted in the immediate vicinity of the school and where these two uncontrolled crossings were before they were abolished.
In addition to that 300, 60 children or so from Lichfield itself have to make the same crossings. The danger hours appear to be from 8.30 to 9.10 a.m. and from 3.45 to 5 p.m. in respect of all children, and in addition for the 60 Lichfield children from 12.10 to 2.20 p.m., when they go home for luncheon.
From the point of view of normal pedestrian traffic; apart from the schools which embody this traffic in child pedestrians, there is quite an important communications aspect. There has been recently organised opposite the school a new bus station, and about 300 yards away there is a second subsidiary bus station near the city railway station—and there is the city railway station itself. All these three communication services supply their quota of children. Furthermore, in St. John's Street—this may seem a rather small point, but from many points of view it is worthy of consideration—there is the most ancient establishment known as St. John's Hospital where old people are housed, and they have difficulties in crossing these roads which bear a burden of heavy traffic.
In my view, whatever the Parliamentary Secretary may decide, any crossings that may be arranged both on Priory Road and St. John's Street should be also aided in their effect by the provision of railings at the corners of the intersection—fenced railings to prevent children swinging underneath them and cutting across. This will be difficult unless he will examine the question of the ancient building at the corner of Bore Street and Bird Street, which, I think, is at present
582
used as a show room for an adjacent shop and which it seems to me might be considered for demolition.
By the side of this building and along Bird Street there is an extremely narrow footpath which will only permit one pedestrian—walking along two abreast is impossible. I took an opportunity a few days ago to stand near this particular entry into the intersection, and I saw pedestrians having to step into the roads with their backs to the oncoming traffic, and I saw one or two incidents which looked extremely dangerous. At this particular point it is my argument that railings should be provided and one building should be considered for demolition in order to give a greater view around the corner into Bore Street and wider accommodation for pedestrians.
There is another complication in connection with this important intersection. Coming from Tamworth in the direction of Rugeley, at this intersection there is what is known, I think, as an "infiltration" light, which permits traffic going in that direction to turn and go in a constant stream left along A.38—the Friary Road. Importance is lent to this particular point I am making because a member of the staff of the Friary School was herself knocked down at this point through obeying the traffic lights but being hit by a vehicle using the "infiltration" light.
I should like to emphasise that these two roads bear extremely heavy traffic. I do not know whether I am correct in saying, I think I am, that the weight of trucks along these roads has increased very considerably in the post-war period—and that it is an additional danger.
With regard to the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary in that part of the speech I quoted, about road patrols probably being the answer to all this, that does not conform with local opinion. I have described already the danger periods to which the pupils attending the Friary School are subjected. The head mistress of the school in a letter to me, and in talking about the timing of the intake and exit of the pupils, said:
"This very wide spread of times makes the Road Patrol system unworkable as it would mean employing two men for four or five hours of the day each."
The Town Clerk, in a letter to me on the same point, said:

583
"It is contended by the divisional road engineer that patrols for school children would be more justifiable at certain of these proposed crossings than zebra crossings, but my council contend that the extra zebra crossings would meet the need far better than having to waste manpower on adult patrols."
I am not quite sure that I agree with the remark "waste of manpower" because, if we could overnight produce these patrols, having trained them, and be able to pay for them, it might be a good argument that they should be employed. But we have yet to pass the legislation under which those patrols would be financed, the right people would have to be found, and they would have to be trained. I am deeply anxious that something should be done very quickly. My own view is that there is a very strong case for these crossings to be permitted.
May I add here that in respect of Friary Road, that is, A.38 up to the intersection, there is no speed limit on this road until it reaches the school gates. Having taken some trouble to examine what has been said in previous debates on pedestrian crossings—for instance, the debate when the regulations were placed before the House during the time of the previous Administration—I am somewhat perturbed that there has been some indication of undue Treasury interference in what is a technical problem.
I have heard that at the time these zebra crossings were first proposed, the then Minister of Transport, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) proposed, and was so advised to propose, that at least half of the then uncontrolled crossings should be made zebra crossings, and that this figure was cut down by two-thirds of the original figure on financial grounds. I do not know whether that is the case, but if it is, it seems to me highly improper that the Treasury should have interfered on financial grounds in this matter which affects the safety of children. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will comment upon that point.
I took the wise precaution of consulting the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents on this matter. I am advised that, when a year ago this cutting down of the proposed zebra crossings was first made, safety workers all over
584
the country thought those cuts were far too arbitrary and condemned them in the strongest possible terms. I can do no better than conclude by quoting from the letter I have received from the Head Mistress of the Friary School, because I believe that it depicts in excellent English—as might be expected from a lady of her academic qualifications—precisely what she feels, what the staff feel, and what parents feel. The House will bear with me if I make this rather lengthy quotation. She concludes by saying:
"I do hope that you will be able to impress on the Minister of Transport the very real dangers to which the girls are subject and the likelihood that, sooner or later, there will be a serious or fatal accident similar to the one outside St. Michael's School, Lichfield, which led to action being taken there.
These crossings are in use not only or mainly by school children, and, therefore, should not be regarded as suitable for cover by road patrols. It is, however, because the danger to school children is the one which I feel most concern about, that I put that aspect of the matter to you.
I would ask you to consider, and to invite the Minister to consider, whether it is fair for parents, who send their children off at 8 o'clock each morning to travel by bus or train to school, and do not perhaps see them again until 5.30 in the evening, to have this constant anxiety about their safety at the road crossings.
Is it fair that girls of 16 or 17 should have the responsibility day by day of securing the safe crossing of the travel parties in their charge? Is it fair that I, myself, or the school staff, should have the responsibility of some 375 children on what is acknowledged to be a highly dangerous corner, and where owing to the wide spread of times involved it is not possible to maintain staff supervision or to employ road patrols?"
I cannot add to that adequately, but I just leave these ideas in the Minister's mind. I believe that many parents today are developing an entirely understandable psychosis about the danger of their children going to and from school. I sympathise entirely with the problem which confronts the Minister, and nothing that I have said tonight must be construed as critical, except that I feel that possibly the role of the divisional road engineer needs re-examining. I hope that this particular case, which I admit is of very local interest, will receive the Minister's kind consideration and very urgent attention.
11.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): May I say at once that I am very glad indeed that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has taken this opportunity of raising this subject tonight? No topic could be more important—I think this was the preface to the hon. Member's own remarks—than the safety of children on the highway; and I assure him that we have given a great deal of thought to how best they can be protected, especially when they have to cross busy roads on their way to and from school.
I propose, first, to generalise on the main problem before coming to the local application which the hon. Member has put before the House. During the recent road safety debate on 20th June, I tried to explain what we are aiming at in the new policy of pedestrian crossings, which, as the House will remember, we inherited from the previous Administration. This is entirely a non-party issue.
I do not want to occupy time by repeating what I said on that occasion except to mention again that the removal of old crossings which were in unsuitable places is an essential feature of our policy, and that we are convinced that the reduction in numbers which has been made since last summer has played an important part in restoring respect and usefulness to the crossing system as a whole. Tonight, therefore, I am grateful for this opportunity to state very briefly our views on school crossings. I have tried to explain them in recent months to several right hon. and hon. Members who have approached me individually on the subject, but it will be useful if they are more widely known through the medium of this Adjournment discussion, brief as it is.
Many crossings of the old type were laid down opposite or near schools, with the object of helping the children to cross the road safely, and in many cases such crossings were seldom used by anybody except the children on their way to and from school. They therefore constitute good examples of the type of crossing which naturally ends by being disregarded by drivers.
That has two very undesirable results. Each disregarded crossing helps to
586
devalue the remainder, and, indeed, the idea behind the crossings. Secondly, of course, it becomes a danger rather than a safeguard for the few pedestrians who use it. It is for that reason that we are most anxious to get across to everyone who is interested in the problem the point that, while a crossing in the right place may be helpful and valuable, a crossing in the wrong place is worse than useless and can, indeed, be a positive danger. If it be true that crossings in the wrong places can be dangerous it is particularly important that we should avoid them at places where children cross. Zebra crossings, even in the best places, demand reasonable behaviour and careful judgment, especially on the part of pedestrians. Only too often we hear of pedestrians not exercising this careful judgment and of accidents or near accidents occurring.
I think that hon. Members will agree with me that if a child is told he has, priority on a zebra crossing he or she may too easily come to regard it as an absolutely safe place and it is too much to expect a child to gauge the moment when it is safe to step into the carriageway to cross a busy road. I say that in spite of all the excellent work which is being done in the schools and by the police to make children traffic conscious. But we cannot get away from the fact that their judgment is immature.
It is, therefore, wrong for local authorities and parents, or whoever may be concerned, to think that they have provided for children's safety in entrusting them—and I must use a phrase to which I think the hon. Gentleman took exception—to the purely legal protection offered by a zebra crossing. We are convinced—and we have gone into this very carefully—that where children have to cross busy roads on their way to and from school they should be under the control of a responsible, trained adult.
There are not sufficient police everywhere to go round for this purpose. For this reason we have been advocating the wider use of the traffic warden or adult patrol. They are provided at the moment by the Commissioner of Police in the Metropolitan Police District and by some local authorities in other parts of the country. Statements have been made in

587
the House recently on this subject, but it may not be out of place if I repeat that it has now been agreed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland should make arrangements with the appropriate local authorities for the recruiting, training and organisation of school crossing patrols, with financial assistance from the Exchequer.
These, I am sure, are the lines on which this problem should be tackled, and, as I have said, many local authorities employ these patrols already. There is a misconception, I am afraid, in some people's minds, and I should very much like to remove it, that a zebra crossing is an inexpensive substitute for this form of protection. I am sure that this notion is wrong and that the removal of many crossings near schools, which may often have seemed strange to the local people, has been the right thing to do in the interest of the children themselves.
Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Is the Home Office to be made to pay for the school wardens?
Mr. Braithwaite: I said the Exchequer. Discussions are going on now with the local authorities. I should like, if the hon. Member will allow me, to deal with the questions of the hon. Member for Lichfield, whose Adjournment this is.
Coming now to the crossings near the Friary School, which the hon. Member asked me to consider, I wish first to examine the problem and then outline a remedy. I always think it is a pity if an hon. Member gets the Adjournment and goes away empty-handed. One of the crossings was opposite a school on the Exeter—Leeds trunk road and was within 60 yards of a light controlled junction. We have been informed it is also near a bus station. We have even examined that, too. Most of the passengers who use the buses wish to go to and from the centre of the city and they have to pass the traffic lights, where they could cross in reasonable safety. This is just the sort of place where an uncontrolled crossing is unnecessary and can prove dangerous. If one were provided vehicles would have to stop whenever a pedestrian was on the
588
crossing and the proper working of the traffic light signals might be affected.
It also seems to me most important that drivers shall not be asked to stop twice at points very close together. Experience shows that drivers may well prove intolerant of pedestrians using zebra crossings and preventing them crossing the lights before the green signal changes. Experience has shown that badly placed crossings may well be a cause of accidents by encouraging carelessness in drivers.
The other crossing was on a major road which joined the trunk road at the traffic lights, and was opposite the eastern entrance to the same school. It was also within 100 yards of the traffic lights. Here, again, a crossing would handicap the proper working of the signal crossing and might encourage careless driving. In neither of these cases would the children gain any greater measure of safety by the provision of an uncontrolled crossing. It is always safer to cross busy roads when traffic is brought to a standstill, as it is here by traffic light signals. I realise, however, that the layout of the junction and the filtration of traffic allowed by the signals does perhaps make it more awkward than need be for pedestrians to cross. We are, therefore, having the junction examined by the divisional road engineer, and I hope that it may be possible to modify the layout to make it more convenient.
I understand that the local authority are also worried about the length of time a paid patrol may be necessary. The answer may be that a paid patrol could deal with the busiest periods of coming and going or for the times when the youngest children are there. I would like to stress again that it is only for the reason that a child using an uncontrolled crossing would not have proper protection, and, indeed, might find it dangerous, that we cannot agree to provide them on these roads. If we can make the signal controlled crossing satisfactory for pedestrians that would be best, and an adult patrol may not be necessary at all if this corrective measure is taken.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to other crossings in the city where the local authority are dissatisfied with the present situation. I did give a reply to him on 19th May on this subject. But

589
I should not like this short debate to end with the hon. Member feeling that he and his constituency are suffering from excessive State control or rigid regimentation. The divisional road engineer is guide, philosopher and friend rather than an authoritarian in these matters. The Minister has, of course, an overriding duty and authority, but we are always loth to use it and would much
590
rather proceed in agreement with the local authority and police alike.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Seven Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

  KOREA (PRISONERS OF WAR)
  KOREA (PRISONERS OF WAR)
  CHINA (CHRISTIAN MISSIONS)
  CHINA (CHRISTIAN MISSIONS)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  A.T.C. (Accommodation)
  A.T.C. (Accommodation)
  Volunteer Reserve (Training)
  Volunteer Reserve (Training)
  Thoresway—Binbrook Road
  Thoresway—Binbrook Road
  Exercises (Foot-and-Mouth Disease Areas)
  Exercises (Foot-and-Mouth Disease Areas)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Banana Allocations
  Banana Allocations
  Early Potatoes (Price)
  Early Potatoes (Price)
  Sausages (Price)
  Sausages (Price)
  Subsidies (Price of Milk)
  Subsidies (Price of Milk)
  Jam (Price of Sugar)
  Jam (Price of Sugar)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Ex-Miners, Far East (Release)
  Ex-Miners, Far East (Release)
  Released Service Men (Civilian Clothing)
  Released Service Men (Civilian Clothing)
  Military Operations, Korea (Expenditure)
  Military Operations, Korea (Expenditure)
BRITISH DEPENDENCIES
  Financial Aid
  Financial Aid
  Rice Acreage, S.E. Asia
  Rice Acreage, S.E. Asia
WEST AFRICA
  Elections, Sierra Leone
  Elections, Sierra Leone
  Gambia Government (Disposal of Car)
  Gambia Government (Disposal of Car)
  Public Order, Gold Coast (Police Responsibility)
  Public Order, Gold Coast (Police Responsibility)
  Girls' School, Enugu
  Girls' School, Enugu
  BRITISH GUIANA (WATER CONTROL SCHEMES)
  BRITISH GUIANA (WATER CONTROL SCHEMES)
  MAURITIUS (TEACHERS' PENSIONS)
  MAURITIUS (TEACHERS' PENSIONS)
WEST INDIES
  Trinidad
  Trinidad
  Port of Spain (Council Finances)
  Port of Spain (Council Finances)
MALAYA AND SINGAPORE
  Political Situation
  Political Situation
  War Damage Claims
  War Damage Claims
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  MAKERERE (EDUCATION COSTS)
  MAKERERE (EDUCATION COSTS)
  BRITISH CITIZENS, BERMUDA (JURISDICTION)
  BRITISH CITIZENS, BERMUDA (JURISDICTION)
KENYA
  Cotton Fund
  Cotton Fund
  Farm Institutes
  Farm Institutes
ROYAL NAVY
  Dartmouth College (Examination Passes)
  Dartmouth College (Examination Passes)
  Married Quarters, Gosport
  Married Quarters, Gosport
POST OFFICE
  Advisory Committee (Meetings)
  Advisory Committee (Meetings)
  Members of Parliament (Television Appearances)
  Members of Parliament (Television Appearances)
  Telephone Subscribers, London (Rental)
  Telephone Subscribers, London (Rental)
  Postal Orders (Pool Betting)
  Postal Orders (Pool Betting)
  WASTE FOOD (COLLECTION)
  WASTE FOOD (COLLECTION)
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Dental Patients (Identity Numbers)
  Dental Patients (Identity Numbers)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  GENERAL MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (REMUNERATION AWARD)
  GENERAL MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS (REMUNERATION AWARD)
  GREEN BELT (POLICY)
  GREEN BELT (POLICY)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

WEST INDIAN FEDERATION
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what replies have been received from the West Indian Government to the despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies inviting them to send representatives to a conference on West Indian Federation in London this summer, and when this conference is likely to take place.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, most of the Governments concerned welcome the idea of a conference in London. The preliminary work on the details of federation mentioned in paragraph 4 of the despatch has not yet been completed, and my right honourable friend regards it as most important that the conference should not be held until this has been done.

PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC HOUSES
2.37 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to take action for the preservation of the houses of outstanding historic and architectural interest which were the subject of a Report in 1950.]
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government fully appreciate the need for action to preserve houses of outstanding historic and archi-
590
tectural interest, but in present circumstances the financial resources which can be allocated for this purpose must inevitably be very limited. Her Majesty's Government are, however, giving careful consideration to the question of how best the help which might be available can be made effective.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his answer—which I do as a matter of courtesy, because it is a most unsatisfactory answer—I should like to ask him whether he realises that it will cause anxiety and distress to members in all parts of your Lordships' House, and among all those people in the country who are concerned about the safety of one of the greatest contributions which our people have ever made to world culture. I should like the noble Earl to say whether he is aware that when the National Trust—who probably know more about this subject than does any other institution—gave evidence before the Gowers Committee, they prepared a list of between 300 and 400 houses of outstanding importance—a much smaller, but more important list than that of 2,000 which appears in the Gowers Report itself—and that during the interval up to the end of last year no fewer than forty of these houses, representing 10 per cent., have disappeared. Does not the noble Earl think that this is a most serious situation? I should like to ask the Government whether, in view of the great importance of this matter, and the unsatisfactory character of the answer which has been given, they will be prepared to afford facilities for a fuller discussion of this problem.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords. I do not think there will be a great deal of difference between us in regard to the remarks which have fallen from the noble Lord, other than that the financial implications are all-important. If the noble Lord requires a debate, no doubt he will make arrangements through the usual channels.

CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
2.43 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the proposals for Central African Federation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that we have

591
chosen a singularly suitable temperature in which to discuss African affairs. It is my hope that the outside temperature will not be reproduced inside the Chamber, and that we shall have a cool and objective debate. I do not propose to say anything as to the earlier history of this matter—a history in which, as your Lordships well know, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, played a distinguished part. I should like to say here that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has written to me and expressed his regret at being unable to be present to-day, owing to an important function elsewhere. I am sure we are all sorry that he is unable to be with us to give us the benefit of his long experience in this matter. Therefore I propose to come to the last few years and touch upon them very shortly.
An Official Committee was set up in 1950, and was announced in the House of Commons on November 8 of that year by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In June, a Report (Cmd. 8233) was presented. That Report maintained that any form of co-operation or federation should be acceptable to the inhabitants. It suggested that the best form of co-operation was that of a true federal system. It provided for an African Affairs Committee, under a Chairman who should be Minister for African interests, and it stressed the urgency of the problem. When the Report was published I informed your Lordships on June 13, 1951 (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 172, col. 52):
"Neither His Majesty's Government … nor the other Governments concerned are at this stage committing themselves to acceptance of any of the particular proposals in the Report, which is published as a basis for consideration and discussion."
I then added that the proposals appeared to His Majesty's Government and the United Kingdom
"to embody a constructive approach to the problem which deserves a careful consideration of all the peoples and Governments concerned."
Since that date, as your Lordships know, there have been a number of Conferences. There was one at Victoria Falls in Africa, and there was one in London. The London Conference, unfortunately, was handicapped, because the Africans from all the territories did not participate and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in
592
his statement to us on June 18 of this year, said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 177. col. 278):
"It was a matter of great regret to the Conference and to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that African representatives of the African Representative Council of Northern Rhodesia and the African Protectorate Council of Nyasaland who had come to London declined an invitation to participate in the Conference or even to attend as observers."
That was not a particularly good start for the Conference.
Now the Government have published a White Paper, Cmd. 8573, and we find on reading it that the White Paper embodies a number of changes from the earlier White Paper—that was the Report of the officials who were gathered together to consider this matter. I do not propose to go through them in detail, because I have no doubt they will be dealt with by later speakers, in particular, I understand, by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. In the immediate future there is to be a visit to Africa by the Minister of State and another Conference is to be held, possibly in October. In the same statement to the House, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said:
"It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that, after these Commissions have reported, a further Conference shall be held in Africa later in the year to give final shape to the federal scheme."
The upshot of all this—and the reason I very quickly run over the course—is that it seems to me that, while it is not absolutely definite, Her Majesty's Government are committed to the federal idea. I have already quoted from Lord Salisbury's statement. There is also the statement which was made in other places on this particular matter. In the White Paper, Cmd. 8573, paragraph 7, the Government said this:
"After the change of Government in the United Kingdom a statement was made in Parliament on the 21st November, 1951, that His Majesty's Government were in full agreement with the Victoria Falls communique, and that they favoured a scheme of federation on the general lines recommended in the officials' report. They believed that such a scheme would be in the best interests of the African as well as the other inhabitants of the Territories. The statement specifically endorsed the assurances set out in the Victoria Falls communiqué regarding African interests, and undertook to ensure that they should be formally embodied in a federal constitution."
Therefore, I do not think there is much doubt about the matter. But if I had any

593
doubt I think it would be cleared up by the last paragraph of the statement made by the noble Marquess to which I have already referred. He said:
"The federal proposals published to-day take full and fair account of the interests of all the inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. They offer the framework of a new political organism which we believe will satisfy the needs of Central Africa and promote the welfare of the three territories and all their inhabitants. We earnestly hope that the Draft Federal Scheme will be very carefully studied, both here and in Central Africa, and that as a result of the discussions upon it the constitution of a Federation on the basis proposed will eventually be approved."
I do not think anyone could deny—I will not say that they have finally committed themselves, but that they have gone a great deal further than the previous Government did in this direction.
Now they do emphasise in the statement, and I am glad of it, the need for study, and they say that a final scheme based on the present draft scheme is to be evolved. That is the position of the Government. What is the position of the Opposition, of the Labour Party? The Labour Party is not committed to this or any other scheme and, quite frankly, it has not yet made up its mind on this question. In fact, one of the reasons—I think perhaps the great reason—for this debate to-day is that I hope it will assist all those interested, not only in the Labour Party but outside, to make up their minds on this question. I think the Labour Party is right in not rushing at this most important question. I think it needs to give it considerable study before arriving at a firm conclusion. The final White Paper has been in our hands for only a fortnight and we need a great deal of time before we can finally make up our minds on what our policy should be.
I should like to tell your Lordships the impact on my own mind when I first heard the proposals for federation. I was then a Minister in the Commonwealth Relations Office, and, of course, we saw these proposals long before they were published. My mind, therefore, was to some extent insulated against any Press suggestions or criticisms from outside, because no one knew what was in the Report. If I tell your Lordships what I thought, I hope I may be excused from the charge that suggestions were made to me from one source or another. It seemed to me, when I first
594
read the proposals, that they deserved considerable care and study. I appreciated the need for a larger unit, politically and economically, in Central Africa. But I foresaw difficulties of public opinion in Africa and in the United Kingdom—difficulties which have certainly proved to be present in the minds of many people.
May I say a word on the political aspect? Here are comparatively weak territories with various types of government. There is Southern Rhodesia, which is a self-governing Colony; there is a Protectorate; and there is an ordinary Crown Colony. The lines between them are often drawn without much reference to any of the economic advantages—and, in fact, the international treaty line cuts right across Northern Rhodesia; it does not even follow the boundary between the two Rhodesias. So that when this part of Africa was first delineated, when it was first mapped and political organisations and organisms; were created, it was quite certain that they were not necessarily those which one would have chosen from purely economic reasons. These territories, with comparatively small populations, create to some extent a vacuum of power in Central Africa. There are powerful forces to the north and there are powerful forces to the south. The old slumbering Continent of Africa is stirring. I remember General Smuts saying to me just before he died:
"This old country of Africa that nobody took any notice of years ago is just waking up and is coming into its own."
The people of Africa are demanding new lamps for old. If the vacuum that is left in this part of Africa is not filled by us, there is the possibility that other forces may fill it—forces, perhaps, that we should not like.
There appeared to me certain economic advantages in federation. I thought that there was quite a strong case for federation economically between Northern and Southern Rhodesia; but I was not convinced that there was such a strong case as regards Nyasaland. Nyasaland is one of the countries which have been sadly neglected and exploited in the past. It is only in the last few years that any one has paid much attention to Nyasaland, and it may be that the future of Nyasaland lies rather to the east, with Tanganyika and the ports there, across Lake Nyasa and along the railway now being built than

595
through the Rhodesias to the port of Beira. It would, moreover, be a good thing if the people of Nyasaland could work for Nyasaland rather than be used as a labour force in the copper mines of Northern Rhodesia, in Southern Rhodesia and even down as far as the Rand. I think it would be very useful to have Nyasaland in the Federation, but perhaps more useful from the point of view of the Rhodesias than from that of Nyasaland.
The other matter that struck me was this. Economic affairs in the Rhodesias are mainly concerned with copper and coal. These two questions go on and on like a roundabout, where wooden painted ostriches, camels and horses and ducks go round and round till the music stops; and when it resumes they go round and round again. Let me give your Lordships an example. There is a great demand for copper, either from people in this country or instigated by the United States. The United Kingdom Departments go to Northern Rhodesia and say, "We want more copper." Northern Rhodesia says, "We will give you more copper if we can get more coal from Southern Rhodesia." The Departments go to Southern Rhodesia and ask for coal, and Southern Rhodesia say, "Yes, but we should like another engine." You say "Another?" they say "Yes, another." And so the Departments rush round to get an engine.
In a month or two's time there is a great outcry for more copper. You go to Northern Rhodesia and say, "We want some more copper." They say, "Very well, but we need more coal." So you go to Southern Rhodesia and ask for more coal. They say, "Yes, if you can get us more wagons." So you rush round and get them wagons. Shortly afterwards there is still another outcry for copper; and you go to Northern Rhodesia and they answer, "We want still more coal." You go to Southern Rhodesia and ask for coal, and they say, "Yes, if only we can get more labour." So you go to the experts here and send them out to try to improve the labour situation in Southern Rhodesia. Once again the same thing happens and you go to Southern Rhodesia and say, "What about more coal?" They say, "Yes, if only we could have another engine." You say, "We got you an engine," but they
596
reply sadly, "Another engine." So it goes on: copper, coal, engine, wagons, labour. The roundabout goes on, and in my experience there is no end to it. In that way and in many others the two countries are bound together; and this playing off of one against the other is not helpful. And, of course, from the larger economic point of view both Rhodesias need large-scale investment. Barriers should be swept away. They need unified, better, and more comprehensive services; separate services are wasteful and uneconomic.
For all these reasons there is a great argument for economic union or federation between the territories. But I realised then and I realise now that the European settler and African opinion may be hard to convince of the need for the scheme; and even if they were satisfied of its need they might be hard to convince that their interests would be safeguarded. In the event, we know that what I forecast has happened, and that European opinion in Southern Rhodesia has been apprehensive that federation would mean too much Whitehall control, and that African opinion has been apprehensive that it would mean too little.
Mr. Stockil, the leader of the European Opposition Party in Southern Rhodesia, has described the federation proposals as "a bridge to Gold Coast ideas." African opinion, so far as I have been able to ascertain it—we have met Africans here, and we have had a large number of letters and communications from people in touch with African people in the territories concerned—is based upon fear. I think it would be a mistake if there were too much concentration upon the details of this particular constitution. Africans are not worried about the details at all, so far as I understand. They have a certain fear, and it is our duty, as a House of Parliament responsible for them, to study the reasons for their fear.
What is the fear at the back of the African mind? I would say that it is twofold. First of all, they are afraid that they will come under the domination of the white settlers; secondly, they fear that their land will be taken away from them and given to the Europeans. They have no faith in entrenched clauses; they have no faith in paper constitutions. Now they will hear—which I think is a very sad thing for them to hear—that there will

597
be no proper discussion in this Parliament of the details of the proposed constitution. Because when the Secretary of State for the Colonies was asked in another place on June 25 whether it would be possible for Members to move Amendments to any Bill which embodied the federation proposals, he said, in a Written Answer (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 502, col. 182):
"No. It is contemplated that the Bill (if there is one), should be an enabling one authorising Her Majesty to establish a federal constitution by Order in Council. The details of this constitution would by then have been agreed by the four Governments concerned and there would have been earlier opportunities for the House to discuss them."
That seems to me an extraordinary bit of constitutional theory: that because somebody else has come to an agreement the Members of this Parliament are not to discuss the agreement and are not to move amendments to it. It seems to me that we are going back to the days of King Charles I, and that all that has happened since has been forgotten by Mr. Lyttelton. I hope that the Government and the noble Marquess will not agree to that proposal. I cannot help thinking that it must have slipped by when the noble Marquess was not looking; otherwise, he would not have agreed to it.
As I say, we on this side of the House, and no doubt noble Lords on the other side, have talked to Africans about this question, and I tell your Lordships quite frankly that I was both impressed and touched by what the Africans told me on this question. They see things in simpler terms than we do. For instance, Sitemabulu, the Barotse Chief, whose grandfather first made a treaty with Queen Victoria and who himself, as a small boy, knew Livingstone, told me that he looked upon it as a straight deal between his grandfather and Queen Victoria, and he felt that he did not want the relationship which had subsisted between the Queen and the Chief to be altered in these present days. As he put it, he did not want "the shadow of the young Queen to grow less." They feel that they are being brushed aside, as it were, from our portals: they are to be sent away from the doorstep of this country.
I am not saying they are at all right in that view, but I am trying at this moment to investigate the fear that is in
598
their minds and the reason for it. It is perhaps a rather curious commentary upon so much anti-British criticism in the world outside, when we are so often called, in certain places, "Imperialists" and the rest, that here are large numbers of Africans, millions of them, whose one hope it is that they will not go from the shield and protection of the British Crown; that, so far from regarding us as Imperialists, they desire that connection between them and us shall long subsist. It is rather a curious factor that it should be the Conservative Party who are trying to force on Africans a different frame of mind. I look upon this as essentially a problem of human relationships, not a question of paper constitutions. I will tell your Lordships why.
When the party from Northern Rhodesia arrived at the airport in Africa, they were hungry, they were tired and, as we can well understand in this weather, they were thirsty; but they were not allowed into the airport restaurant because they were black. They came over to this country at the invitation of the Secretary of State; they were entertained in your Lordships' House, in another place and in the best hotels; and, of course, they were able to use, among other places, the airport restaurant. It was not a very good start for a Conference at which these people were being asked to remove themselves from British authority and to place themselves under the authority of people who would not even allow them to drink a glass of lemonade in that airport restaurant. That is why I say that this is primarily a question of human relationships; and while this colour bar exists in the extreme form in which it does in certain parts of the world there will never be a proper human relationship.
Is this the only way? Supposing that African opinion cannot be persuaded in the way that the Government think, and a great deal of objective opinion thinks, is the best way of dealing with this problem, is it the only way? What about a system on the lines of the East African High Commission? There is a system working to the North which gives, I think, practically all the economic advantages that this system would, without the political disadvantages. I do not want to weary your Lordships with this point now because I shall be raising it in a

599
later debate, but I have always suggested that we lack imagination in these schemes. This idea of shelving off Dominions really applied to Dominions which were peopled originally by Europeans from this country. It evolved out of the American Revolution. That fact bears no relation at all to most of the territories in the Colonial Empire. And yet we have not faced this position. We have made no provision for those territories, whether they are too small to be able to stand economically on their own feet, or whether a multi-racial problem is involved. That has the same effect. I have proposed a Council of Greater Britain where this country and all those territories which I have described should meet and to which they should send representatives. If there were a Council of Greater Britain of the type I have mentioned, then I think Africans and others would be prepared to have economic and political groupings within the orbit of that greater Council.
The Africans and others would not be afraid that they would emerge from or be driven away from the shadow of the Queen if such a Council existed. But it does not exist; it may never exist. The Colonial territories may crumble away as the Roman Colonies crumbled, and become a source not of strength but of weakness to the Mother Country; and they and we in this country may then be overrun, as we were once before, by barbarians from the banks of the Rhine and the Elbe. To force through federation in the teeth of African opinion—that is if Her Majesty's Government fail to persuade Africans of the desirability of federation—would, in my view, be both a crime and a tragedy. It would be a betrayal of all that we, as a people, stand for. It would be a justification for all the malicious, bitter, anti-British feeling expressed in so many quarters. It would have wide repercussions. Only to-day in The Times there was a report of the Presidential Address to the United Central Africa Association by Sir Godfrey Huggins, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. He said that he believed that Europeans could not remain in Africa unless they carried the indigenous inhabitants with them. He went on to say:
"If they work together"—
that is, the Europeans and the Africans—
600
"there is no reason why our descendants should not remain here indefinitely. But if you are going to refuse Africans to take any part at all in the Government of their country, then it is only a matter of time when your descendants will be pushed out of Africa altogether."
That is the view of Sir Godfrey Huggins.
Furthermore, I would say that to push the Africans into a situation of this kind would in fact be useless, because the elaborate machinery (I am talking about the constitutional machinery) envisaged by the federation proposals implies that Africans will co-operate freely with the Europeans. If they do not, then the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on; and if they will not attend a conference at Lancaster House in London, called by the noble Marquess, is it likely that in this frame of mind they are going to form part of the various bodies, the legislative councils and the like, envisaged by this federal proposal? Therefore, I appeal to the Government to take time over this matter and to do everything possible to carry African opinion with them. If the scheme is a fine scheme, then we should be able to convince African opinion, opinion in this country, and world opinion that it is a fine scheme. There is no need to steamroller the thing through. I ask the Government not to do that. The noble Marquess's grandfather once said that Africa is a continent created to be the plague of the Foreign Office. I hope his grandson will regard Africa as an inspiration for wise statesmanship. Africans in all parts of Africa are watching intently these developments. By our actions we shall be judged. Pray God we act wisely and do well! I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, although I am speaking at an early stage in the long list of speakers who wish to address your Lordships' House, and although my view I hope and think represents the opinion of probably many millions of Liberal-minded people, not only in this country and in the Commonwealth but also in the world, I am nevertheless going to keep my remarks extremely short and not elaborate my points. Briefly, what I have to say in criticism of this proposal is that I deplore any scheme of federation in Central Africa, or indeed in any part of the world, which is not supported by the freely expressed consent of the populations concerned. That seems to me to be

601
a fundamental principle of democracy which must be the basis of any sort of organisation or idealism in the modern world. Further, with great respect I would remind noble Lords on the Government Benches that the peoples of Nyasaland and of Northern Rhodesia are actually under the protection of Her Majesty the Queen, and to effect any unilateral alteration in that status would surely amount ostensibly to a grave breach of trust. Stated quite baldly and crudely, that is the criticism which we on these Benches have to make.
But when we seek to fill in the existing framework with some alternative, constructive picture, I do agree that we meet what seems a formidable task. However, the fact that we have a frame of certain measurements and an unfinished picture which has to go into that frame but does not yet quite fill it up, should not lead us on this side of the House to despair, nor, I hope, noble Lords on the other side of the House to precipitate action which, in the opinion of many people, might have quite disastrous results. I believe, as I am sure many of your Lordships believe, that African opposition is real and widespread, and is based on a genuine fear of exploitation—not exploitation by Government officials, the white officials whom I believe the majority of the African peoples have come to respect, to admire and to trust (and I am sure we should all like to pay a great tribute to the magnificent work they have done), but exploitation by what are called the white settlers, who in the past have not scrupled, and in the future will continue not to scruple, to turn things to their own advantage in a country where civilisation is only slowly coming to political adolescence.
There is surely no doubt that those who have carefully and with genuine good will evolved this scheme have tried, and on paper perhaps have succeeded, to protect the African from the form of exploitation which he fears. But the inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland cannot help smelling danger in the set-up of the third State in the Trinity which is to form this Federation—Southern Rhodesia; and perhaps they may have the aroma of something even more frightful not so very much farther off than Southern Rhodesia itself. Can we blame them for their suspicions, when they, as a race, have not yet come up
602
to the standards of civilisation and political education of European countries? We must, I suggest, arrive at a balanced judgment between those who maintain that the white man must always hold the whip hand, and those who see in the hand of the white man nothing but a whip. Those are two extremes which are quite unrealistic and must be discounted. I therefore urge Her Majesty's Government not to force this matter through, or, more important, not to seem to be forcing this matter through in the present state of African opinion. If the Government is acting on the principle of Bis dat qui cito dat, may I suggest this possible translation: "He who gives too quickly will have to give twice"?
The accusation which I make against this scheme in general is simply that the timing and the order of battle have gone wrong. That this federal scheme should be evolved at all is admirable, but I submit that it is regrettable that it should be published as ready to be implemented, ready to be put on the African people whether they want it or not, when the main element in it—that is acceptability by the people to whom it applies—is still in a completely fluid slate. The Secretary of State for the Colonies is, I believe, still hoping to persuade the African people by a personal visit to Africa. The Governments of Northern Rhodesia and of Nyasaland are still charged with the task of altering and educating the African attitude, so far as they can, in every way. The very fact that these hopes, expectations and desires are still ahead of us and not abandoned behind us surely means that the frame of federation, as it is conceived, and the picture which we have to fit into it, are not at the moment quite ready to be mated. Finally, I would urge Her Majesty's Government to live up to their name, and in this critical matter, as well as in the cause of democratic progress, to be for once just a little conservative.
3.20 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, the proposed federation of these three territories in Central Africa has an importance far beyond the territories themselves. It has to be considered in the context of world politics and in the context of the British Commonwealth, with the great changes that have taken place since the war, as well as in relation

603
to the self-governing Colony of Southern Rhodesia and the Protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and of Nyasaland. Take the world politics aspect first. In the last seven years, a political revolution has been accomplished in Eastern Asia with astonishing speed. The greater part of the Oriental nations dependent on the West have become free. Britain has given unconditional independence to India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma. Holland has transformed its East Indian Empire into the Republic of Indonesia. The United States have given independence to the Philippines. The temper of nationalism has its perilous side. Thanks to the wise statesmanship of the West, its aims have been achieved and its dangers averted. The problem still confronts us in Asia, in Korea, in Indo-China and in Malaya, as we know to our cost. A similar nationalism and similar forces of social revolution confront us in Africa, and one of the great problems before Western statesmen is how to guide and control them aright.
One of the outstanding results of this political revolution in Eastern Asia is that the British Commonwealth is no longer a White Commonwealth. With the independence of the numerous peoples of India and Pakistan, in particular, it has become multi-racial. The balance of power is altered. Britain is now an equal member of a multi-racial Commonwealth. This fact has a significant bearing on the future of Africa. A characteristic problem of Africa is that it is a plural or multi-racial society, and what Britain does there affects every corner of the Commonwealth. Therefore, it should not surprise our British fellow-subjects in Central Africa that the Draft Federal Scheme should arouse keen interest outside Central Africa, and that it should even be regarded as a test case of the attitude of the British people and Parliament to the interests of the Africans. I know that many British settlers in Africa and many British magnates in this country with large business concerns in Africa are deeply concerned about the welfare of Africans, and are doing what they can in vigorous ways to promote a better understanding between the races.
The Churches have a particular claim to an interest in this matter. Their fundamental concern is the concern to which
604
the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has referred—human relationships between men of different races. Also the Churches and the Missionary Societies were closely connected with the beginnings of European interest in the territories, through Dr. Livingstone's discoveries and their follow-up. Many missions of various Churches are at work in all three territories. The British Council of Churches, meeting in Belfast during April, made a statement on the general situation from the human relationship point of view. That Council represents all the non-Roman Catholic churches in the British Isles. The statement recognised that there are two main races concerned in Central Africa, and that each has its contribution to make to the total life of the community. Then the statement continued:
"It is the conviction of the Council that the future peace and prosperity of the territories must be sought neither by way of the domination of either race nor by way of the segregation of the races, but by way of partnership. …
"The achievement of partnership will not be furthered by brushing aside the fears of Africans as completely unfounded or as the creation of a politically-minded minority. There is good reason to believe that a considerable proportion of them are well aware of the fundamental choice to be made. They value freedom above economic or administrative advantage. An attempt to impose a plan of federation in the face of almost unanimous African opposition, even suposing it were ill-informed, would destroy the basis on which its success would depend—willing partnership. Such partnership requires that African trust and co-operation be won by sympathetic understanding of their misgivings and by clear demonstrations of good faith."
The Churches, in that statement, offer no opinion with regard to the constitutional merits of the scheme. It is, as the noble Lord who spoke last agreed, a question of confidence or trust. The Church of Scotland at its recent General Assembly made the same point—that full consideration must be given to African opinion and that no scheme should be adopted without the consent and co-operation of the Africans. The Presbyterian Church of England passed a similar resolution.
When amalgamation was first proposed in 1938 there were only 76,000 Europeans in the territories, and 4,330,000 Africans. Nevertheless, the Royal Commission under the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, rejected the proposal for amalgamation, and two of the main reasons given

605
were differences in native policy between the three territories and the opposition of African opinion. The situation now is that the 76,000 Europeans have grown to 169,000 and the number of Africans has increased to 6,000,000. The former Secretary of State, Mr. Griffiths, in November, 1950, before the London Conference of 1951, promised that full account would be taken of African opinion. The Report of the officials at the London Conference affirmed that the similarity in the native policy of the Governments was plainer than the difference. That is hardly an opinion which Africans in the Northern territories would share. The Victorian Falls Conference made it quite plain that one of the main obstacles to the general acceptance of Federation rests in the apprehension felt by Africans in the two Northern territories that federation might impair their position and prospects in respect of those territories.
The recent London Conference told its own tale. Not only were the delegates and other spokesmen from the Northern territories absent, but they made their reasons for absence plain in a long letter to The Times on April 29. I need not trouble your Lordships with the whole of the letter, but in it they said this:
"We oppose Central African federation on principle on the following grounds. We fear the extension to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland of the native policy of Southern Rhodesia if the three territories are federated. … The native policy of Southern Rhodesia approximates more closely to native policy in the Union of South Africa than to native policy in any other British Africa territory."
Later they said:
"We have no faith in professed safeguards for African interests. The constitutions of the Union of South Africa and of Southern Rhodesia have proved that they are valueless."
They added:
"We prefer political reforms in each territory first."
The question of atmosphere is crucial. It' cannot be denied, whatever one may feel, however one may wish it otherwise, that there is a deep-seated mistrust. What are the grounds for this mistrust? The Africans in Northern Rhodesia have always objected to a close alliance with Southern Rhodesia. Thousands of them have worked in Southern Rhodesia and know at first hand the general attitude of the European to the African. They are convinced that the position of the Africans is worse in Southern Rhodesia.
606
They are also convinced that the move comes from powerful white groups who desire to get rid of Colonial Office control under which the Africans want to remain.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said that questions of constitution are secondary; and I agree. Nevertheless, there are points in the constitution which deserve a little attention. The constitution provides that out of thirty-five members of the Federal Assembly, only six are Africans. That is the crucial weakness. The Protectorates are retained up to a point, but among the subjects transferred from the two Northern Territories to the Federal Government are the vital interests of immigration and higher education, including African higher education, which is crucial because, unless the Africans have higher education, they will not be able to take responsibility in government. Further, under the heading "Miscellaneous" there is a provision for amendment of the Constitution by a two-thirds majority, in which the six Africans would play a very small part. While in theory the Constitution may be amended favourably to Africans, they fear, after what has been said in Southern Rhodesia by the Prime Minister and in Northern Rhodesia by Mr. Roy Welensky, that it will be very much the other way. There are safeguards offered, and I am not saying that safeguards of this kind may not be valuable: it all depends on the degree of trust and confidence felt in the safeguards by the Africans concerned.
The African Affairs Board to be set up under the scheme is composed of three Africans, three Europeans and an independent Chairman. They have powers of objection to the Bill. They have powers of representation to the Government, but they have no powers of positive action for the advancement of Africans. Because the consideration of African interests is so distasteful in certain quarters in Southern Rhodesia, even the African Affairs Board is being represented as a necessary evil, which need not last long and which might be the first step towards complete freedom from Colonial Office control. I fear the Africans have no belief in safeguards. The Africans also observe—because I think we must consider this in a world context, in a British Commonwealth context and a general African context—how different are the provisions in this

607
scheme from the developments in the Gold Coast, different as I know the circumstances to be, and how different they are also from the provisions in the proposed new Constitution for Tanganyika, which is a major step forward in political responsibility for Africans. What a fall from the policy of 1923 announced in the White Paper on Indians in Kenya, issued by a former Duke of Devonshire! Let me quote from that Paper this paragraph:
"Primarily Kenya is an African territory, and His Majesty's Government think it necessary definitely to record their considered opinion that the interests of the African natives must be paramount, and that if, and when, those interests and the interests of the immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail. Obviously the interests of the other communities European, Indian or Arab, must severally be safeguarded… But in the administration of Kenya His Majesty's Government regard themselves as exercisng a trust on behalf of the African population, and they are unable to delegate or share this trust, the object of which may be defined as the protection and advancement of the native races."
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I ask the right reverend Prelate whether he is referring to a document for which I was officially responsible, with my noble friend Lord Halifax, a document known as the Wood-Winterton Agreement? This was an Agreement between representatives of the India Office and the Colonial Office in regard to the position of Indians in Kenya. Is the right reverend Prelate aware that at that time there was practically no immigration into Kenya, and that there is no resemblance between the situation there and that in Northern Rhodesia? There is no huge immigration of European settlers into Kenya, as there is in Northern Rhodesia.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, what I was seeking to point out to your Lordships was that the policy of the British Government, which in 1923 was a Conservative Government, was that the interests of the Africans are paramount and that, whatever other races come in, and in whatever numbers, the interests of the Africans must be safeguarded and must remain paramount. I happen to know something about that situation because I was closely concerned with Archbishop Davidson in the negotiations with the Duke of Devonshire and the India Office at that time. All these things depend on adminis-
608
tration and practice, but I would have your Lordships and my noble friend Lord Winterton mark that the safeguards here are for Europeans, Indians and Arabs, and not the other way about.
I believe that formidable objections are raised by African opinion, and that these formidable objections have in some way to be met. I am not blind to the importance of closer association. I am not blind to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made about the vacuum of power, or to the importance of power and discipline. But it is extraordinarily important to meet the objections of the 6,000,000, and more especially the Africans in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. There is to be a referendum of the Europeans, and the result of that referendum is to be decisive. How are the Africans' views to be gathered? What steps do Her Majesty's Government propose to take? Little has been done, so far, in this direction. Too little time has been given; too few words have been said. It is not enough for the Governor, or for Mr. Roy Welensky to broadcast grave utterances: something much more personal is required. Nor, in my submission, are the district officers the proper people to canvass the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland as powerful champions and advocates of a scheme, because the success of their relations with the Africans depend on trust and confidence. I would also dare to affirm that a threat to ignore African objections must necessarily weaken any possible African trust in safeguards.
I have spoken much of the objection of the Africans, for it is on this point, I think, that the main issue depends. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I had the opportunity, when representatives from the two Northern territories were here, of conversing with some of them. I have also been in touch with various missionaries in the territories. There is no doubt at all about the African opposition. One such missionary, speaking of Nyasaland, in April, said that the resistance of the Africans to federation has grown greatly since the Victoria Falls Conference, and all the fears which they have expressed are proving only too well founded—and here I quote:
"The Africans are absolutely united. Any attempt to suggest that only a few hotheads

609
are stirring up all the trouble, or that Africans' opinion is divided, or that they say 'No' without understanding, is sheer folly."
More remarkable still, yesterday I happened to be with the most prominent French Protestant pastor living. He has just returned from a visit to Northern Rhodesia, where he was engaged in visiting the French Protestant Mission. He is a man of great judgment and great wisdom. He saw the paramount Chief of Barotseland, and many Chiefs and many Africans, and he summed up his judgment thus:
"There are no more devoted subjects of the Queen in any part of the British Empire than the Africans. They are loyal to the core. They go back to the great Queen Victoria and to the Treaties made with her, on which they absolutely rely. But they are as one man against federation."
I therefore join with the two noble Lords who have spoken in begging the Government not to commit themselves in this scheme now; to take note of the opposition among the Africans: to take note of the great and, I would say, growing anxiety in many quarters at home.
The decisions which Her Majesty's Government have to take are grave. They will have repercussions all over the world, all over the British Commonwealth and in all the African territories, including the High Commission territories. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, spoke on another occasion of the urgency of this matter, and said:
"I firmly believe that this might, and probably will, represent the last chance of maintaining the British way of life in that part of the world."
That is an important consideration on which I am Sure the Marquess will enlarge. But no convincing reasons have so far been given for the urgency. I would say that it is riot part of the British way of life to attempt to force a plan through against the overwhelming opposition of Africans after their opinion has been asked. To do so is to ask for trouble; it is to ask for failure. I am aware of the vacuum of power; I am also aware of the Central African Council, and how little that has really been used. I am aware, as all your Lordships are, of the great loyalty of this wonderful cohort of Her Majesty's subjects in Africa, and I beg Her Majesty's Government to adopt a policy of building up confidence and trust, and to do nothing in haste.

KOREA: DEFENCE MINISTER'S SPEECH
3.46 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am sure the House will understand if I interrupt the debate for only a few moments to make a statement similar to that which is being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place with regard to some remarks that came from the Minister of Defence at a dinner at the Canada Club last night which have received publicity in the Press. This is the statement:
"I will give the House the full facts at once. Last night Lord Alexander, speaking impromptu at what he took to be a private gathering of the Canada Club, according to the reports which I have received and with which Lord Alexander agrees, said there were weaknesses in Korea one of which he did not like to mention in the House of Lords. When guests shouted, 'Why not?', he answered, 'Because it is a thing I was asked not to mention as a matter of secrecy. I should be very much happier if General Van Fleet had a little more reserve in his own hands. I think that if the Chinese attempt a full-scale offensive they will penetrate the front to a depth of some miles in some places. But I believe owing to the efficiency of the Eighth Army and their fire power they will be able to bring the offensive to a halt.'
"The word 'secrecy' which he used on the spur of the moment was no doubt unfortunately chosen. What he intended to imply was that his remarks might be liable to be misconstrued if said ill a public speech and not that they affected military security, which in my opinion they did not.
"When preparing his statement for the House of Lords, Lord Alexander took the special precaution of referring the principal points in what he proposed to say to General Omar Bradley. The General replied that he would prefer that no public reference should be made as to the strength of the reserves but that he did not dissent from the statement as an expression of

611
opinion. He thought that in its original form it might be misconstrued as implying a serious inadequacy of reserves. In making this point he said that naturally any commander would be happier to have larger reserves and to this extent the proposed statement was unexceptionable. In its original form it might be interpreted as implying that there was virtually no reserve, which was too bleak a picture.
"In consequence of this Lord Alexander omitted from his public speech in the House of Lords any reference to the reserves. But, speaking as he thought to a private gathering, off the record, he made the reference in the form I have read to the House—namely, 'I should be very much happier if General Van Fleet had a little more reserve in his own hands.'
"This statement seems to me to be perfectly harmless, and if it had been made in the House of Lords as part of Lord Alexander's official statement it would not, I believe, have attracted undue attention. The circumstances of the occasion, the setting of the remark and the use of the word 'secrecy,' have invested the incident with an air of mystery and significance which can only be removed by a full statement such as I have made.
"I may add that the mobile reserves of the Eighth Army in Korea have been substantially increased by the availability of the considerable forces which were used on Koje Island for the restoration of order in the prisoners-of-war camps there and, as Lord Alexander has said in the House of Lords and repeated in other words at the dinner, 'I believe that a full scale offensive by the enemy under present conditions can be held and that he will suffer terrific casualties. He may outmatch us in numbers of men, as he does considerably, but we are superior in fire power and mobility.'"
3.52 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for the statement he has just made. This House is a very generous Assembly, and even the youngest of us sometimes makes an indiscretion. I am sure the Minister of Defence will not mind my saying that it
612
was an indiscretion to talk to the Canada Club and reveal to them things that he did not reveal to us. It is always said that a good rider must have three falls. I daresay the same principle applies to a politician—he must have three indiscretions before we can entirely condemn him. The only aspect of the matter which worries me at all is this. We asked the noble Earl to go out and give us a plain and unvarnished account of what he really thought. To my mind, the gravity of the matter is this: he gave us his opinion subject to one qualification which, if I remember aright, related to the air. If it be the fact that he had at the back of his mind another qualification, of course it inevitably qualifies the impression which he gave to us. That, I think, is worrying. But so far as the indiscretion is concerned, I am sure that we shall all realise that we have made indiscretions before and we shall probably, if we continue in politics, do so again from time to time. I knew nothing about this matter until a few moments ago, and if it is necessary to refer to it on a further occasion I shall ask the liberty of the House to do so.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE (EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS): My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Earl for the remarks he has made. I should like to assure your Lordships that what I said about the reserves in no way alters my opinion about the strength of the front. May I enlarge on that point for a moment? I was thinking more in these terms. If the Chinese do launch a very strong offensive and break in, if General Van Fleet has a good, strong reserve in his hands he can gain a very decisive victory. Without a strong reserve in his hands, that is not so easy. I can assure your Lordships that the statement I made yesterday about the Korean campaign has not been altered in the slightest by what I have said since. What I said yesterday is my honest and true opinion.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, before we leave this subject, may I say that I was unable to be here to hear my noble friend's clear statement. The impression left on my mind very strongly indeed is that when these very momentous statements are made in either House, in view of the situation I should like the Government to

613
consider seriously the advisability of having the particular meeting at which these statements are made in secret session.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I hope the Government will think very carefully about that suggestion, and I hope they will decide against it. I have had experience of secret sessions, as has the noble Marquess. I can assure the noble Lord who has just spoken that you hear nothing in a secret session which you do not hear in open debate; and if you did, it would not be secret.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene in this discussion about secret sessions. I would only say that in certain circumstances secret sessions are sometimes inevitable, but I think they are unfortunate and should be avoided if possible.

CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION
3.56 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the debate this afternoon is still fresh in our memory, in spite of this extremely interesting and dramatic interruption. I could not help wondering more and more as I listened to the three speeches which have been made on this subject of federation in Central Africa whether, when the speakers had finished, there would be anything left of what I had originally intended to say. But if there is, it is because my approach to this problem is rather different, and not because I differ in any essential from the views that have been expressed. This is the first debate in either House of Parliament on the proposed federation set out in this White Paper, and as Parliament is the sounding board of public opinion at home I think it is significant—and I have no doubt that the Government will take note of the fact—that Labour opinion, Liberal opinion and opinion in the Church of England take the same view, in broad outline about this matter.
My main excuse for taking part in this debate, and for venturing to think that what I have to say may possibly interest your Lordships, is the accident of office during the post-war years. It happens that since the war I have been concerned as a Minister with the preparation or
614
practical working of three federal Constitutions for new nations emerging from dependence on the United Kingdom. I was twice at the India Office while India was trying to establish the Constitution set out in the India Act, 1935. At the Burma Office I had to prepare for the association of Upper and Lower Burma in the present Union of Burma which, of course, is a federal union, and later on, at the Colonial Office, I had an opportunity of discussing the federation of the British West Indies with responsible people in every territory. I certainly do not claim—I should not dream of doing so—that, as a result of this limited experience, I am anything like an expert on the federal system of government. But I think I can fairly claim some degree of sympathy with any Minister whose official duty it is to "sell" a federal Constitution, and also a good deal of appreciation of the quality of really Job-like patience which is required for this hazardous undertaking. I hope that at any rate I have gained some independence of judgment and sufficient objectivity to venture to ask others for the careful consideration of my views.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that independence of judgment in dealing with these important issues of Commonwealth or Colonial policy is just as desirable in all Parties now as it has ever been. I am sure it would be a disaster for the Commonwealth and the Colonies if such issues as we are discussing this afternoon ever became Party shuttlecocks. I hope it will be understood, therefore, that if we disagree with noble Lords opposite about their policy for Central Africa, we do so from an honest conviction that they are mistaken, and not because we have any rather silly ideas about its being the duty of the Opposition to contradict the Government.
There is another rather common misconception about the attitude of Labour supporters to problems of Colonial or Commonwealth policy which I should like to mention. It is sometimes said, and more often implied, that the Labour Party is biased in favour of indigenous Africans and against European settlers. That may be true of individuals (there are prejudiced individuals in every Party), but it is certainly not true of the Party as a whole, or of Party policy. We recognise that Europeans who have made their

615
homes in Africa have just as much right to work and live there as the Africans who themselves, at one time or another, were mostly settlers in Africa. We realise just as clearly as anyone that the progress we all want to see in Africa will depend on the growth of good will and greater understanding of both sides.
Anyone who wants to form an opinion about the future of these mixed societies is bound to ask this preliminary question: "Have I tried to read the mind of Europeans and Africans, not merely by studying their problems but by placing myself imaginatively in their shoes?" Even so, it is extremely hard for us to appreciate all the difficulties, because the circumstances are so very different from our own. The first lesson I have learned from my experience of these federal Constitutions in the Commonwealth is that they are just the right thing for small social groups or territories, of small size and in geographical propinquity if they have reached the stage of self-government. They are far more satisfactory than any attempt at solitary independence. Indeed, federation is the only way in which self-government in any real sense can be achieved. Most of our present Dependencies will, I hope, decide to follow in the footsteps of those Commonwealth countries which have reached independence by way of federation. The desire for a closer political association of this type has long been evident in the British Caribbean and it may well become more pronounced in British South-East Asia as well as in British Africa as time passes. I therefore share the view of the noble Lords opposite that we should continue to commend federation as the ultimate goal in Central Africa. I am glad there is no difference between the Parties about this and that the late Government were as willing as the present Government to initiate preliminary discussions and administrative arrangements.
As a result of this preparatory work, we have detailed proposals before us this afternoon for the federation of the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland. If these proposals are approved by all concerned, they will become the Constitution of a new self-governing State in Central Africa. Many of your Lordships, especially those who have spoken, have already formed their conclusions about this matter. My
616
own view, and I say it as a convinced supporter of federation, is that the Government would do well to withdraw these proposals now and not to ask for a verdict upon them at this stage. I do not think either that opinion in Central Africa is ready for federation or that federation is desirable so long as these three territories are at such different levels of social and political development. I believe that everyone who wants federation in the long run would rather see these particular proposals withdrawn now, before it is too late, than turned down or imposed. And those are the only alternatives to withdrawal. It would be a great pity if they were turned down later. It would be a tragedy if they were imposed.
May I give my reasons for taking the view that these proposals are premature? I think it is generally accepted that one of the essential conditions for the effective working of any federal Constitution is its acceptability to public opinion. I invoke in aid a passage from the book of our leading authority on the federal system of government, Professor C. K. Wheare—I quote from his book on Federal Government. He states:
"To begin with, the communities or States concerned must desire to be under a single independent government for some purposes at any rate. That is essential. Unless they are prepared to go as far as this, the question of federal government does not arise. If they are not prepared to submit themselves to an independent government … then they have not achieved the first prerequisite of federal government. A league, an alliance, a confederation, may be appropriate for them, but not federal government."
What Professor Wheare is saying is, quite simply, I think, that the desire to federate is the essential prerequisite of federation. It is the absence of this desire to federate in some of the communities in Central Africa that, to my mind, vitiates the Government's present proposals. If anyone doubts the validity of this general truth, he has only to look at our own efforts at Constitution-making in Whitehall. Any Constitution, however good it may be in theory, will not work in practice unless it is based upon consent.
A Sunday newspaper which supports the Government quoted the 1935 Constitution of India as an example of the successful working of an imposed Constitution. But in fact, this Constitution never worked while it was imposed, and India did not become a federation

617
under British rule. In spite of constant pressure from the India Office—and as I was there for a part of the time, I know what our policy was—in spite of our constant efforts, the federal part of the 1935 Constitution remained a dead letter. It could not be operated because the Princely States refused to come into the Federation. This Constitution (I am sorry to contradict an authoritative correspondent of the Sunday Times) is the best possible example of a brilliantly conceived federal structure which failed to work so long as public opinion was against it. The essentials of the 1935 Constitution were implemented, not by the British Government while it controlled India but by an independent Government of India when that control had ended. India became a Federation by borrowing the provisions of the 1935 Act for its own Constitution in 1949. By 1949 federation had become acceptable to India opinion.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It is not a Federation now: India is not federated with Pakistan.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I was speaking of India and not referring to Pakistan. I agree with the noble Viscount that part of the arrangement was that Pakistan and India should become separate States. Consideration of India, in the sense of an Indian continent, perhaps led to a misunderstanding on the part of the noble Viscount.
May I give an example of one part of the Commonwealth where a Government has publicly acknowledged that federation must depend upon public opinion? We have told the West Indian territories that they can federate only if the local inhabitants have decided that they want a Federal Government. Federation has not yet come about in the West Indies because the principle has not been endorsed by all the island and mainland territories. It is true that most have endorsed it, but the territories of British Honduras and British Guiana have decided to stand out. I cannot help regretting that the Government have not pursued the same policy in Central Africa. They might have told these territories, too, that we are not going to do what people living in the territories always fear—foist a Whitehall Constitution upon them. The Government have said that these proposals
618
in the White Paper are subject to the approval of the local Legislatures and Governments, but not that they are subject also to the approval of the local inhabitants. I hope the noble Marquess will set my mind at rest, but so far as I am aware there has in the Government statement been no statement that these proposals are subject to the approval of a majority of the local inhabitants of these territories. It was obviously assumed by the officials in their Report of March, 1951, that federation in Central Africa would depend on the consent of the local inhabitants as well as on acceptance by the local Legislatures and Governments. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote the following passage from the Report, Chapter III, paragraph 35:
"We have constantly borne in mind that whatever is proposed must be designed not only to promote the well-being of the territories and their inhabitants, but also to be acceptable to the inhabitants and to the Governments and Legislatures concerned."
This matter is causing a good deal of alarm and anxiety to many people who are concerned about Central Africa, and I should be grateful if the noble Marquess could possibly set our minds at rest. It is not too late for the Government to say that they will not push through these proposals against the wishes, so far as they can be ascertained, of the majority of the local population. It would be a great relief to many people if they could say that. I understand the present position to be that they have not said that they will impose federation, but they have also not denied it. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that they may do it.
I think we can be quite certain that federation, or any other form of closer political association in Central Africa, would break down sooner or later without the support of both the major communities, African and European, in all these territories. All the evidence we have suggests that any federation based on these proposals would find many opponents in both camps. Southern Rhodesia is, of course, more articulate than the two other territories. The White Paper has already been debated in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament and discussed in the Salisbury Press. Mr. Stockil, who was quoted by my noble friend Lord Ogmore, and the Opposition in Southern Rhodesia dislike these proposals heartily because, they say, they

619
are too favourable to the Africans and would rob Southern Rhodesia of the independence which it enjoys under its present Constitution. And even the usually pro-Government Press of Salisbury is against federation in its present form.
I ask the Government whether it is wise in these circumstances to risk a rebuff on a referendum. If Sir Godfrey Huggins wins the referendum and Southern Rhodesia enters the Federation, the new State might have a short life. Nothing could prevent secession when Mr. Stockil and his friends win an election in Southern Rhodesia. In fact, of course, no Constitution in a democracy can be stable or permanent without the support of every major Party. No one blames noble Lords opposite for the reception of their proposals in Southern Rhodesia. It is their desire to be fair to the Africans which has made them seem unfair to the European. I do not believe anyone, not even a genius, could devise a Constitution which both communities would accept at the present time. The trouble is that there is too much suspicion and distrust between the races. The underlying fear on both sides should be allowed to heal before federation is pressed further. Time has always been the best healer in these racial antagonisms, because it allows mutual respect to grow from shared experience.
Every indication we have had of African opinion shows that the politically-conscious African is against federation, root and branch. The African representative body in Nyasaland, the African Protectorate Council, has voted against it, and the African representatives from both Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland refused to take any part in the Lancaster House Conference which drew up these proposals. It was a great pity that the Africans declined to state their case, and I know it was not for lack of encouragement by Her Majesty's Government. It does not matter, from the point of view of making federation a success, whether the Africans have good or bad reasons for objecting to it. The plain fact is that federation is chose jugé in the African mind and that no ingenious constitutional safeguards or official exhortations will make the slightest difference. This attitude on the part of the African population seems to me the most decisive reason
620
for proceeding no further with these proposals at the present time. I ask the noble Marquess to consider the desirability of not having this Conference in October and of trying to induce everyone to wait until the times are more propitious.
This is not the occasion for discussing the detailed constitutional proposals in the White Paper, many of which are admirably suited to the economic and administrative requirements of Central Africa. But there are three political provisions which, if I were an African, would make me reject this Constitution out of hand. The first, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, is the lack of adequate African representation in the Legislative Assembly, where only six Africans will represent, with their European colleagues, a population of approximately 6,000,000. Another difficulty is that this is a rigid and not a flexible Constitution, and it is unlikely that African representation will be increased in the future by a widening of the present narrow franchise. This can be done only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislative Assembly, which is predominantly European. The intention, of course, is admirable, but the rigidity of the Constitution, which is intended to protect African interests, will in effect prevent Africans from increasing their representation at the centre to keep pace with progress in their education and political capacity.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would the noble Earl prefer a more flexible Constitution and protection for African interests?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I would prefer no Constitution at the present time. That has been the burden of my speech this afternoon.
The second objectionable feature is the subordination of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to Southern Rhodesia in the Legislative Assembly. Southern Rhodesia will have seventeen out of thirty-five seats, a number that bears no relation to its share of the total population of the area of the three territories. This, again, is I think a constitutional platitude: that a federal Constitution should always maintain a fair balance between the federal units at the centre. This is secured usually by means of an Upper Chamber, but there is no provision in this Constitution for a Second Chamber, and

621
representation in the single Chamber is heavily weighted, as I have mentioned, in favour of Southern Rhodesia.
These elaborate safeguards for African interests, excellent as they are in intention, are seriously open to objection by Europeans—we have heard the European objections—as well as by Africans. To the Europeans those safeguards will mean that these Dependencies can never expect to achieve full Dominion status. We must understand the European as well as the African point of view about this matter, because naturally they feel that they want to reach Dominion status like every other dependency of the United Kingdom, and they will be denied this because, under the proposed new Constitution the Home Government will always claim the right to veto legislation dealing either with the African population or with amendments to the Constitution. From the African point of view, these safeguards will not inspire confidence because Africans will fear that the first strong Federal Government will assert its independence and natural desire for Dominion status by by-passing the African Affairs Board and ignoring the protests of Whitehall. It cannot be denied that this might happen. No paper Constitution is likely to withstand for long the pressure of the European demand for freedom from interference by Whitehall and for equal status with other self-governing countries of the Commonwealth. From the African point of view, paper safeguards are no substitute for their own political competence.
I have heard only two arguments for rushing through a Constitution of this kind which would be bitterly resented by many Europeans and most Africans in all three territories. One is that immediate federation is the only method of preserving the British way of life in this part of the world. But, surely, recent events in South Africa have made it most unlikely that Southern Rhodesia will want to joint the Union in the near future. We all see, with sadness and bitter regret, that race relations are deteriorating in the Union and that relations between the British and the Afrikaaners are also getting more and more difficult. Indeed, the Union itself seems sometimes to be in danger of falling asunder. I cannot believe that, in those circumstances, there are many Southern Rhodesians who will want to joint their southern neighbour.
622
The other argument that one hears is that the economic development of the three territories requires central planning and common services. This is undeniable. It is obviously desirable that such matters as railways, civil aviation and postal and telegraph services should be managed by a single authority. But we already know from experience in other parts of the Commonwealth, and in fact from experience in Africa, that all the advantages of common services and co-ordinated economic development can be obtained without political union or even federation. May I ask your Lordships to consider some examples which I propose now to give of that general statement? In the Caribbean, a Regional Economic Committee is starting this year a Trade Commissioner service for the whole British West Indies with Canada and the United Kingdom. This is a service which this Committee is carrying out on behalf of all mainland and island territories in the West Indies, which are very much more widely scattered and separated than the three territories with which we are dealing this afternoon.
In Africa, there is the example of the East Africa High Commission, which manages many affairs, such as transport and communications, for the East African territories. I hope the Government will seriously consider, and ask the three Governments in Africa to consider, the possibility of establishing a Central African High Commission on the lines of the organisation already operating so successfully in East Africa. If these Governments are genuinely anxious for closer administrative and economic association, they can have it with very little delay indeed and without any alteration at all in their present political relationship.
I also hope that the Government will give careful thought to the difficulty of legislation. I refer to legislation here at home, a matter that has been mentioned already by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. They have said that a Bill would have to be passed. This Bill would be an enabling Bill to give Ministers a general power to set up a Federal Government for the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland. The new Federal Government will then be given their specific powers and a specific constitutional structure by Order in Council, and this Order in Council, or several

623
Orders in Council—I am not quite sure whether several would be required—will not be subject to approval by Parliament. That is the procedure. Parliament will therefore be asked to accept or reject the broad principle of federation. If it accepts, it will have no power at all to alter any of the specific constitutional proposals. These matters will be wholly withdrawn from Parliamentary control, and of course they include the safeguards to which many people attach so much importance. I feel sure that there are many people in both Houses of Parliament who would prefer the procedure adopted by the Conservative Party in 1935, which submitted the detailed Constitution of India to Parliamentary approval in the terms of the Government of India Bill. I do not think that anyone will deny that many improvements were made in that Bill during its passage through Parliament. Many will feel, and quite justifiably, that the procedure suggested by the Government is inviting them to abdicate some part of their Parliamentary responsibility.
To deal with the second aspect of legislation here, your Lordships will remember how worried we were in 1947 about the possibility of Conservative opposition to the India Bill. We were very anxious indeed about it, but Mr. Churchill, whose views about Indian self-government we all know well, is far too big a man not to be able to change his mind when the interests of the Commonwealth require it. He did so in this instance about self-government for India, and I profoundly hope that he may be willing to do so again. Everyone was glad when the India Bill was passed with the support of all Parties in Parliament and of public opinion throughout the country. How different would be the atmosphere of controversy surrounding a Bill to carry out these proposals! Labour and Liberal opinion on one side would be ranged, in all probability, against Conservative opinion on the other. This would lead inevitably to an unsatisfactory relationship, when the Opposition here is in power, between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the new Central African State. Moreover, the cleavage between Africans and Europeans within the new State, which this new Bill would greatly aggravate, would be worsened by the tendency of
624
Africans to glance over their shoulders at politics in this country.
I have been speaking for far too long, and I apologise. Before I close, I should like to add a few words of a personal nature. Ever since I took my seat in your Lordships' House about twenty years ago, my chief interest in public life has been the Colonies. I have followed Colonial policy as closely as I could under a succession of Governments, mainly Conservative, and I have never felt anything but happy about the future, because it seemed to me that we were making steady progress in all directions. So, my Lords, for the first time in all these years, I feel intense anxiety about the future of these territories. This anxiety is due to my fear that we may be about to commit an irrevocable mistake.
4.30 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we were told here last week, in the discussion upon another Motion, that many debates in this House are academic and have no relevance to the urgent issues of the day. Your Lordships will probably remember that. I do not propose to reopen that discussion to-day; it is certainly not the occasion. But there is one thing about which I am sure we all agree—namely, that the subject of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, which is now under discussion, the scheme for Closer Association in Central Africa, does not come into that category. It is vitally important and it is of very considerable urgency.
I do not propose this afternoon to go at any great length into the past history of this question. As your Lordships know, it has already been discussed on numerous occasions in this House. We all know that Government after Government, of all Parties, in the last twenty years, have tried to find means of linking Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland more closely together. We all know the reasons which prompted them to pursue this policy—reasons based, above all, first on the importance of building up a strong British bloc in that part of the world, which is something I hope we are all agreed upon, and secondly, on the economic interdependence of the three territories themselves.
No one, so far as I know, would dispute the desirability (certainly Lord

625
Ogmore did not) of facilitating the supplies of coal from Wankie, or from the newly discovered deposits of the Sabi Valley in Southern Rhodesia, to the great copper fields of Northern Rhodesia. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, stated it very fairly in his speech this afternoon. And equally, I imagine, no one doubts that if the swiftly flowing waters of the Zambesi gorges could be harnessed to provide hydro-electric power for the three territories, both to the North of the river and the South of the river, it would be to the benefit of all. All of them would share in the prosperity which would be created. There is also the question of investments to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, very properly referred. Finally, I imagine that everyone who has any personal knowledge of that part of the world will agree that the free flow of labour across the boundaries would be to the advantage both of the men themselves and of the three countries from which they come. That, I imagine, is common ground among us all. It has certainly not been disputed in any of the speeches which have been delivered this afternoon, and I certainly would not dispute it myself.
But, my Lords, up to now, as we know, every effort that has been made, with the greatest good will, to bring about this closer association has been shattered on the rock of native policy. Successive efforts of Governments have, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has just said, failed to remove the fears both of the Africans themselves and of Parliament in this country, that closer association cannot be achieved without some loss of the rights and liberties which the African population have hitherto enjoyed. But if I my say so, with all deference, to their eternal credit the late Government refused to be deterred, and they decided to make yet a further effort to produce a scheme which would satisfy the legitimate aspirations of Europeans and Africans alike.
The method which was adopted, as Lord Ogmore has already said, was to appoint a Committee of officials, with full knowledge of local conditions, from the Departments concerned in this country, and from Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, to produce a Draft Scheme which would form the basis for a further examination of the subject. In due course, as we know, that Com-
626
mittee reported. They rejected the amalgamation of the three territories, on the ground that it was unlikely to be acceptable to the Governments of the Northern territories—and I think that was perfectly true. Equally, they rejected a proposal for a loosely knit league, if I may so describe it, under which the territories would retain their full independence and would delegate certain functions to a central body appointed by themselves. That was one of the propositions that was put before them. They rejected that because they were driven to the conclusion, from which I certainly would not dissent, that a loose arrangement of that kind would lead only to continued friction and would make efficient administration almost impossible. Finally, they came down on the side of the middle course, which is a Federation under which the Central Government would be granted certain specific powers and the remainder would be left as before, to the territorial Governments.
I do not say that their Report was accepted, but I always imagined that in principle it was generally blessed by all Parties in this House. Certainly during the time I have been here I hardly ever remember a debate in which there appeared such broad unanimity. But the late Government announced, and I think quite rightly, that they could not reach definite decisions until there had been full time for the provisions to be discussed, both here and in Africa, and for opinion to crystallise. And so in due course, as we were told this afternoon, the Conference to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore referred, met at Victoria Falls to examine the proposals of the Committee. That Conference, unhappily, reached no conclusions. Indeed, at first sight, it served only to show how wide were the differences which still existed. But, my Lords, I believe, taking a longer view, that that Conference, though it was not a success, may have been of use in bringing those differences into the open; and, at any rate, it did produce an agreed communiqué which proclaimed certain broad principles that have been of considerable value in our later discussions.
At that point, as your Lordships' know, a change of Government took place in this country. As so often happens here on great issues of Imperial policy,

627
however, a change of Government did not lead to a change of policy. The Conservative Government took up the task where the Labour Government left it; and within two months of assuming office, in spite of other urgent questions facing them, of which your Lordships are well aware, a meeting was called between the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (who was my predecessor, Lord Ismay), the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia and the Governor of Nyasaland, to examine the criticisms which had been made at Victoria Falls, and to see how, if at all, they could be ironed out. And three months later, in May of this year, just about two months ago, another Conference was held in London, in an attempt to achieve a further advance.
It is, I think, proof of the value of those earlier consultations, both at the Falls and in London, that this Conference was far more harmonious and fruitful than the earlier one. I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that it is a matter of regret to us all that the Africans of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland felt unable to attend, even as obsevers. With all deference, I would say that they have made a mistake, because after all, a completely non-co-operative attitude, and unwillingness even to listen to the arguments which are being put forward by others, can never strengthen one's case. But I do not agree with what was said by one or two speakers this after-noon, that the absence of the Africans of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland by itself made that Conference futile. I do not agree about that for a moment. I do not suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said it. But, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—with whose speech I am going to deal a little later—did say that he thought we ought to withdraw from everything now because there was no co-operation from the Africans and so on. But Africans from Southern Rhodesia did come and, if the House will believe me, they played a very useful part; and in other respects the Conference was fully representative.
After, I think, about three weeks of extremely intensive effort, the Conference
628
came to full agreement on a Draft Scheme on the basis of the officials' plan, amended to meet the comments and criticisms made since. It is that Scheme—incorporated in the White Paper—that is under discussion to-day. I would say plainly to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and others, that the Government believe it to be a sensible and workable scheme. The draft Constitution which is enshrined in the White Paper is necessarily long and complicated. It covers thirty-seven closely printed pages, and if I tried to expound them all this afternoon, I am afraid that I should try your Lordships' patience quite beyond endurance. I propose, therefore, to confine myself mainly to those parts which contain (if I may use such a word here) the "guts" of the scheme—I should have liked to say those parts to which the speeches of previous speakers have been devoted, but during the whole of the debate so far, no speaker has mentioned the Scheme. There were one or two offhand comments by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, but everyone else who has spoken has studiously avoided it. It seems to me that it is very important that the House and the country should know what this Scheme is, and I propose, if I may, to say a few words about it.
First, I should like to say a word about Chapter 2, which deals with the division of legislative powers between Federal and Territorial Legislatures. This Chapter is divided into three parts. The first part deals specifically with the division of legislative powers, to which I have referred. First, there is to be a federal list—what is described as an "exclusive list"—which includes all the subjects which are to be entrusted entirely to the Federal Legislature. Then there is a concurrent list, which contains subjects which can be dealt with either by the Federal or the Territorial Legislatures. If any case of disagreement arose, the Federal law would prevail. Lastly—and there is no list of these—come all the other subjects, which will be within the purview of the Territorial Legislatures. These will remain as at present within the province of the Territorial Legislatures and, in the case of the Northern territories, will still be under the direction of the Colonial Secretary. That is not affected by the Scheme for federation.

629
Chapter 2, Part 1, also gives effect to a pledge—and I would commend this to the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who, I thought, made a rather Cassandra-like speech, if I may say so. It gives effect to a pledge made at the Victoria Falls Conference that land and land settlement questions, which are very important to the natives in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, will remain, as at present (subject to the ultimate authority of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom), the responsibility of the Territorial Government and Legislature in each territory. So they are completely safeguarded. Part 2 of Chapter 2 enumerates those subjects which are to be allocated respectively to the exclusive list and to the concurrent list. All the others remain, as I have said, territorial responsibilities. I would emphasise to your Lordships that these territorial responsibilities include practically all the matters which are of vital interest to the ordinary African people—native administration, local government, primary and secondary education and trade unions. All those things are left where they are, and are the responsibilities of the Territorial Legislatures. Health comes in the concurrent list.
Then there is Chapter 2, Part 3, which is concerned with the form and method of election of a Federal Parliament. These questions of form and method of election are matters of machinery which are clear and which I need not elaborate this afternoon, except to say that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke very strongly about the representation of Africans in the Federal Chamber. They said that there were not enough there. They said that there were too many representatives of Southern Rhodesia. The answer to that is that at present—whatever may be the case in the future—Southern Rhodesia is undoubtedly the most highly developed of the three territories and will be the senior partner in this Federation—and if you have a Federation that is bound to be the case.
There is this further point I would make on their criticisms. In Southern Rhodesia there is a common roll of voters, a form of electoral system of which I am sure both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl would
630
approve. And although it is true that there is a property qualification, Africans can qualify and there are numbers of them who could, if they wished, vote for the election of ordinary elected representatives in addition to those representatives who are going to be chosen to represent purely African interests. It is a curious fact that though there are large numbers of Africans at present in Southern Rhodesia who could vote, only one in ten has taken the trouble to qualify. I was very surprised to learn that; and no doubt your Lordships will be equally surprised. I can only conceive the reason to be that they are not very politically-minded, and that the great majority are fairly satisfied with the treatment they are getting. There is, at any rate, no reason why they should not vote. I take it that as the general prosperity of the Federation grows—and, after all, that is one of the main purposes of creating it—more and more Africans will be able to qualify. One would hope the balance would swing to a greater degree towards the Africans so that later the lack of balance would not be so great.
I should like now to come to Chapter 5, which deals with the measures for the protection of African interests. This is really the most important chapter of the whole scheme. As your Lordships know, the proposal that was put forward by the committee of officials was that there should be a Minister for African Interests who was not to be elected like other members of the Government but was to be appointed by the Governor-General. This proposal for what came to be known in informed circles as a "cuckoo Minister" became the subject of extremely severe criticism. It was, I believe, the one great weakness in an otherwise extremely able document. For one thing, I believe it to have been constitutionally unsound. It is surely utterly wrong that one single member of a Government should not be democratically elected like the others but should be appointed on quite a different basis. The point was very well put, if I may say so, by Mr. Dugdale, the Minister of State at the Colonial Office in the last Government in a debate in another place on March 4, 1952. He said: (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; Vol. 497, Col. 255)
"Whatever Minister in any Cabinet could possibly survive under those conditions? He will have a dual loyalty, a loyalty to the people

631
who appointed him and a loyalty to the Secretary of State in this country to whom he will be responsible. It is an intolerable position and goes beyond the system of collective responsibility. Indeed it goes quite against it, and I consider that it is so unworkable that the Minister would himself before very long disappear because his position would be quite untenable."
That is a very clear and convincing statement with which, I am sure, the great majority of us would entirely agree. I quote it only because I understand there are sections of opinion in the noble Lord's Party which now and again hanker after a "cuckoo Minister"; but I think they have been blown over the water by their own Minister of State. Moreover, in my view, such a Minister would be in an extremely weak position if he came into conflict with his elected colleagues, and so the protection which it was hoped would be given to Africans by this scheme would be largely illusory.
For those reasons, the "cuckoo Minister" has now been discarded and has been replaced by a strengthened African Affairs Board. I am quite certain that that is a far better proposal from every point of view. The Board is to be composed of seven members, two from each territory—one European and one African—and a Chairman who is to be nominated by the Governor-General, not on the advice of the Federal Government, but on his own discretion—that is, of course, under the ultimate discretion of the Secretary of State here.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess a question on constitutional priority. I understand that a Governor-General never takes directions from the Secretary of State here and, if necessary, goes straight to the Fountain-head. He is not responsible to any Secretary of State here. In effect, he is a Viceroy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is perfectly right, for example, for the Governor-General to reserve a Bill for Her Majesty's pleasure, which means, in fact, that it comes back here. That can be done. And I should have thought it would be all right for him to make an appointment after consultation with the Secretary of State, to make certain that he had the right person. The real difference is whether he will appoint on the constitutional advice of his
632
Ministers or on his own discretion after consultation with the Government at home. The point is really this: that if he appoints the Chairman of this Board on the advice of his Federal Ministers, there is no certainty that the Chairman will be absolutely independent. It is better that the appointment should be one over which the Federal Prime Minister and the Federal Government should have no control.
LORD OGMORE: I do not disagree with that at all—not in the slightest degree. I only ask the noble Marquess whether this is a new departure in constitutional practice, because I understand that a Governor-General has no contact with United Kingdom Ministers. Certainly that is so in the great Dominions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is true, but Central Africa is not a great Dominion.
LORD OGMORE: It is going to be.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is not at present; that would mean a constitutional change which would have to be passed by the United Kingdom Government. Constitutionally the position of the Central African Federation will be the same as that of Southern Rhodesia—exactly the same.
This Board—and I commend this point to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester—has three main functions. The first is to make representations to the Federal Prime Minister
"on any matter within legislative or executive authority of the Federation as the Board may consider desirable in the interests of Africans."
And these representations have to be considered by the Federal Government. In his speech, the right reverend Prelate said, unless I misunderstood him, that there was no provision for the Board to initiate proposals for the benefit of Africans. That simply is not accurate. If he meant that the Board ought to be able on their own, and outside the Government, to carry out legislation, then I would say that that is utterly and constitutionally impossible.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, may I intervene to say that what I said was that the Board had power to make representations and objections to a Bill, but they had no authority to advance Africans by legislative

633
measures or have their representations quite certainly attended to and given some sort of legislative consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I fully appreciate now what the right reverend Prelate had in mind; but the Board cannot override Parliament. What they can do is to make recommendations to Parliament from an independent position. But we could not have a Board with any wider power.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: Recommendations are different from representations. If the Board have power to make recommendations, I would be satisfied.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We may consider making that verbal change when the next Conference comes along. Meantime, if they have anything which they think of advantage to Africans, they have power of their own volition to put it before the Government, and I think that is what the right reverend Prelate has in mind. If a Territorial Government so requests, the Board can give the Government assistance in the study of matters affecting Africans. These are what I may call the two initiatory powers. Thirdly, and from the point of view of most of us who are considering this scheme, far the most important, before a Bill is introduced into the Federal Assembly a copy must be sent to the Board, unless, first, the Governor-General signifies that it is not in the public interest that the Bill should be published before its introduction—the obvious case is the Budget, which we know can never be heard by anyone but the Cabinet before it is actually introduced—or, secondly, that the Bill is too urgent for a copy to be sent to the Board before introduction—the best example of that is a sudden and dangerous crisis in the affairs of the Federation. If the Board are of opinion, after examination of the measure they have received, that the Bill is a "differentiating measure"—that is, that the Bill either by words or by implication differentiates to the disadvantage of Africans—they can send a notice to the Federal Prime Minister giving reasons for the objection. I am sorry; maybe many of your Lordships have been into all this fully before, but not a single speaker has mentioned these points and I feel justified in going through them again.
LORD OGMORE: As this is the second time the noble Marquess has mentioned this point as a criticism, may I say that I specifically said that these matters of detail would be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Lucan. If every noble Lord has to raise every point in his speech, then speeches will become insupportably long.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I sympathise with the noble Lord, but the fact remains that a great many criticisms have been made of this scheme and particularly that it will never be acceptable to Africans. I want to show the House why it ought to be acceptable to Africans, and for that purpose I must go into some exposition of the proposals.
When notice of an objection has been received by the Prime Minister, the following procedure must be followed. First, when the Bill is introduced into the Federal Assembly, a notice of the Board's objection has to be laid on the Table so that everybody knows that there has been an objection. Secondly, if subsequently, in spite of that objection, a Bill is passed, a notice of that objection has to be laid before the Governor-General and the Bill must be reserved for signification of Her Majesty's pleasure, unless the Governor-General is satisfied that the Bill is not a differentiating measure—even then the objection of the Board has to be reported to the Secretary of State and the decision of the Governor-General has to be subject to his disallowance—or unless the Governor-General is satisfied on representations made to him by the Prime Minister that it is essential in the public interest that the Bill should be brought into immediate operation. Except in these two extremely limited and, I should imagine, rare cases, the Bill must therefore be reserved for signification of Her Majesty's pleasure. This means, in plain words, that it must be referred to the Secretary of State in London and a final decision rests with Her Majesty's Government here.
The importance of this provision will be clear to everybody in your Lordships' House. It means that this independent Board have the power, subject to the approval of the Governor-General, to insist that any measure which in their opinion differentiates against Africans shall be referred back to London for a final decision. I submit to your Lordships

635
that this is a tremendous safeguard for Africans. I believe that any objective person would agree that it has brought about the strongest safeguard which could be devised, and it is, indeed, very satisfactory that not only the Northern Rhodesian and Nyasaland Governments, but the Government of Southern Rhodesia, too, agree to it.
There is one other important amendment to the proposal of the officials' committee which I should like to recommend to the House. It is to be found in Chapter 9 of the Draft Scheme, and relates to the amendments to the Constitution. Under this provision, any Bill for the amendment of the Constitution has first to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the Federal Legislature; and secondly, cannot be assented to by the Governor-General himself, but must be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure—that means that it must come back to London. Moreover, Her Majesty's assent to a constitutional Bill must be signified by Order in Council, and if any Territorial Legislature objects to it, or if under Chapter 5 notice of objection has been laid by the African Affairs Board, it has to be laid before Parliament here. A draft of the Order in Council must be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and must stay there for forty days before it is finally presented—that is the ordinary Negative Resolution procedure with which your Lordships are familiar. This is intended to, and I think will, ensure that Parliament retains complete control over any constitutional amendment that is in the least controversial. I can imagine that in a new Constitution there might be some mere matter of machinery which everybody would agree was an unimportant affair. In that case, if it was agreed by everybody—if the African Affairs Board did not object, and the Territorial Legislature did not object—and if it had the two-thirds majority, I do not think it would be necessary for it to be laid before Parliament here. But that would apply only in those circumstances; in all other circumstances it must lie for forty days.
There is one other point, about which I have been asked a great number of questions, on which I should like to say a few words. There is reference throughout this White Paper to "a Secretary of State." I am constantly asked: Who is
636
meant by that, and why is that rather equivocal phrase used? The answer is this. As your Lordships know, constitutionally in this country all the Secretaries of State can perform each other's functions, so that, in any case, I feel that it is a right phrase. Moreover, in this case there are two Secretaries of State who are immediately concerned—namely, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The official channel for the Federal Government will be the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. But, obviously, on any matter of importance he will have to consult the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and if, unhappily, there is a violent difference of opinion (I hope there never will be) between the two Secretaries of State, the matter will then be referred to the Cabinet. I would add that in all I have said in this context I have referred only to the relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Federation. In the territorial sphere the Colonial Secretary will still, as before, deal with affairs of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations with the affairs of Southern Rhodesia. So much for the main provisions of the Draft Scheme. I hope that I have not wearied your Lordships too much, but it was important to explain these rather difficult constitutional provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked me, quite properly: "Will there be legislation to give effect to the agreement if it is reached; and if so, will Parliament here be able to amend it?" I cannot give the noble Lord a quite definite answer to that, because I understand that it is not yet certain whether or not a Bill will be necessary. But I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will realise that there will be real, practical difficulties if there is any question of detailed amendment of this Scheme by Parliament here. For if it is amended by Parliament in London, power to amend will have to be given to the other Parliaments concerned; and the result of the amendments by the various Parliaments may be such as utterly to destroy the agreement reached with so much difficulty between the Governments in question—in fact, it would almost certainly destroy that agreement. We should then have to start all over

637
again from the beginning. On that sort of basis I do not believe that closer association would ever be achieved. Personally, I do not believe for a moment that if noble Lords opposite were sitting on this side of the House, and we on the other side, they would ever agree to any such proposal. I feel that it would be utterly impractical. It is one thing to submit an agreement for approval, if indeed that was decided upon—and, as I say, no decision has yet been reached on this matter—but it is quite a different thing to agree to an amendment by each Parliament concerned.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel (I may be speaking wrongly here), quoted the precedent of India, and said: "Look what a constitutional thing it was. The Government of India Bill came before Parliament here, and it was amended and improved." We could decide whet we did as to the constitution of India; but we cannot compel Southern Rhodesia to accept amendments if she does not want them. That is beyond our power constitutionally. I should be very much surprised if the noble Earl, holding the views he does, would even wish to compel and override the Legislatures of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Therefore, I do not think the analogy that he drew was an accurate one. As I say, no decision has yet been reached, but I have explained to the House, as best I can, the difficulties which I see in the proposals.
I do not say that this Scheme cannot be improved; indeed, I hope that further improvements may be devised before the next Conference. I shall await with great interest the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. For up to now, except for one or two suggestions made by the right reverend Prelate—I am bound to say this—there have been no suggested amendments of substance from either the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, or the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I had hoped—wrongly, as I see now—that this meant that the proposals in themselves were regarded as satisfactory. I think I can claim that they represent a fair balance between European and African interests, and that they provide very complete protection for the Africans, such as has never found a place in any of the former schemes for the closer association of these territories.
638
I suggest that it is for us to "read, mark, learn and inwardly digest" the scheme, to judge of its merits, and to expound them both here and in Central Africa itself in the crucial months that lie ahead. Then, in the autumn days, when it is proposed that there shall be another Conference, they can be crystallised into a final scheme. Then, and not until then, will the time for final decision come. There is no question of hustle, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, feared. I do not want to hustle, any more than he does. I think we have taken a considerable time over this scheme; we are giving another breathing space, and we propose to take advantage of that breathing space to expound the scheme in all the areas immediately concerned.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Will the matter be referred to Parliament again at that stage?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think I can answer that question at the moment. I do not think it will be referred to Parliament before the next Conference, because obviously it will not be a complete Scheme. I am very ready to consider that, and I am willing to look into it. At the present stage it is very difficult to look beyond the next Conference. I am certainly not going to make—and I hope the House will not expect me to do so—any firm statement or commitment about what Her Majesty's Government do in circumstances which are still quite unknown and which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, himself said were very uncertain. The great thing now is to get the three Commissions to report immediately—that is, the Judicial Commission, the Finance Commission and the Public Service Commission—and then to hold a further Conference to see what comes out of that. In this House or in another place it is always possible, even if the Government do not desire it, for members to insist upon a debate. But you will not find us chary of discussing this question. We are anxious to give it the fullest ventilation.
In the meantime it is, I submit, our great responsibility, in whatever part of the House we may sit, to examine the provisions of this Scheme without prejudice and to try to form our own conclusions on them. It is not enough to say that the Europeans or the Africans do

639
not like it and, therefore, that it is not worth considering it any further. There is far too much of that kind of talk going about now. It is for us, if we are worthy to have an Empire at all, to give them a lead, and that is what I hope will be the attitude, not only of those on this side of the House but of noble Lords opposite when they have completed their examination. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to say at the end of his speech that the Africans must be persuaded. But he also said that his own Party proposed for the time being to come to no conclusions and in effect, to "sit on the fence."
LORD OGMORE: I must object to that. What I said was that this White Paper had been out only a fortnight, and that although the Party were very seriously considering the matter, they had not made up their mind. That does not mean that they will "sit on the fence." That they certainly will not do.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am delighted to hear it; but I hope they will make up their minds, because it is very important that, after consideration, they should agree to this Scheme. I want it to be united advice which is given to the African. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, did not say the same thing as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. He said that he hoped we should drop the Scheme now. He said that the Africans did not like it, that he was very uncertain about the Europeans, and that it was not the slightest good going any further.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made it perfectly plain at the start of his remarks that there is no official policy in the Labour Party in relation to this latest scheme for federation. While federation is accepted in principle, at this stage no decision has been taken about the Scheme which the noble Marquess is now outlining to the House. Therefore, we are all free to express our own opinions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I take it that the noble Earl's advice will be that the thing should be dropped.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Certainly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is clear. The exact advice which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is to give
640
is wrapped in mystery. With all deference, I would add that unless we take the view—and I am sure that no responsible person does—that the Europeans in Central Africa can do without the Africans, or the Africans can do without the Europeans, it is surely clear that ultimately some scheme must be devised which is based on, if I may quote a very famous phrase used by a French African Governor,
"the harmony of the black and white keys."
It really is not a question to my mind, if I may say so, with all diffidence, to the right reverend Prelate, of the paramountcy of the African or the paramountcy of the European. I repudiate both those principles. It is a question of a partnership between the two, each partner being essential to the other. Nor, I profoundly believe, is that impossible.
There seems to be a strange belief in this country, held mainly by people who have very little personal experience of this part of Africa, that directly an Englishman goes from here to Central Africa he ceases to be an honest, decent, citizen, and becomes a sort of Simon Legree, bent only on oppressing and exploiting the African population. What nonsense, and what pernicious nonsense, that is! It is contrary to all our traditions and to all our experience. Do not let us be ashamed of our record in Central Africa. There is no finer chapter in our whole history. As I know the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, recognises as much as I do, we have brought to the primitive people of those parts a peace, justice and security that hitherto they have never known. Nor is that true only of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It is equally true of Southern Rhodesia. Sometimes one hears in this country almost severe criticisms of Southern Rhodesian policy towards Africans, often by people who have never been in Southern Rhodesia at all, and which seem quite incredible to those who have. The picture these critics draw of racial antagonism and repressive Government policy is a pure figment of their imagination. I detected, or thought I detected, a suggestion of that sort of thing in the right reverend Prelate's speech.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: No, that is not quite correct. I forbore

641
from quoting actual details about colour bars and other things which the Chiefs and delegates included in their letter to The Times.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think it is enough for the right reverend Prelate, with all his great name, to come here and, basing himself purely on a letter to The Times, make statements of that kind.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: I did not base myself only on the letter to The Times. I based myself on information from missionaries, delegates, and many quarters.
LORD MATHERS: Is the noble Marquess saying that the colour bar does not exist?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the noble Lord would wait and let me say what I was going to say. I can assure your Lordships, as one who has seen at first hand the relations between Europeans and Africans in Southern Rhodesia (I have been there numbers of times), that they are of a warm and friendly character. I have seen it for myself, and there are others here who have seen it equally. That relationship could exist only on a basis of mutual affection and respect. Indeed, the Southern Rhodesian Government spend considerably more at the present moment on African services, on health, on education of the Africans, on irrigation, on soil conservation and so on, than the Governments of the other two territories. The reason is this. The Southern Rhodesians, just like ourselves, are intensely proud of their British traditions. They regard themselves, as we do, as trustees for their African fellow citizens. Make no mistake. Were the British to abandon their trust in this part of the world, those countries would go straight back to the condition in which we found them, until they were gobbled up by others far less enlightened than ourselves. That is a hard fact which both the Africans themselves and we in this country ought to realise and face. If political and social progress is to continue in those territories, it will be through the guidance and the leadership which men and women of British stock can give, here and in the territories themselves. That is the strong conviction
642
which inspired the colonists who went there forty or fifty years ago, and that is the conviction I firmly believe and which, I personally know, inspires them now.
In the famous inaugural Slade Lecture, which was delivered by John Ruskin, speaking of Britain's mission in the world, and the spreading of her beneficent influence on the Colonies which she founded, he used these splendid words:
"These colonies must be fastened fleets, and every one of them must be under authority of captains and officers; and England, in these her motionless navies (or in the true and mightiest sense, motionless churches, ruled by pilots on the Galilean Lake of all the world) is to expect every man to do his duty."
Among those most deeply moved by that noble passage was, I am told, a young undergraduate—Cecil Rhodes. He never forgot it. It became the inspiration of his life and he carried it about with him to the day of his death. Such was his faith and such, I hope and think, is still our faith. It is in that faith, that firm, living, courageous faith, that I commend these principles to the House, not only for their intrinsic merits, which I think great, but, it may be, as a model, a British model, of yet wider applications, of that great principle of brotherhood between races which they enshrine for the uncharted years that lie ahead.
5.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the speech we have heard from the noble Marquess has been a most impressive one. He has gone further, I must say, than he should have gone in defending the present situation, the present customs and beliefs in Southern Rhodesia. One has only to read the speeches of that great statesman, Sir Godfrey Huggins, to find some discrepancies between the observations expressed by the noble Marquess and those by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. I notice in the last speech he made that he said that under the conditions which prevailed in a large number of the countries of the world where the vast proportion of the population is backward, the only thing is for the Government to be in the hands of an educated and intelligent minority, provided that the test is education and intelligence and not colour of skins.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would you not accept that? Would you accept that view or not?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I was going to say that the test of education and intelligence is evidently reserved to the speaker, and those views seem to me to be inconsistent with most of the principles that have governed our Colonial policy all these years. A refrain has run through almost all the speeches we have heard this afternoon and that is fear, distrust and suspicion of the two races—of the white and the black races in Africa. That is a thing we cannot get away from. It may be true, as the noble Marquess says, that it is not enough to say that if Africans oppose a measure, it should not go through. I say that it is not enough to say that such and such a measure is necessary on political or economic grounds, regardless of whether or not it attracts the consent of the great majority of the people.
I look at the new scheme, comparing it with the original officials' scheme, and I think that the differences, such as they are, are not calculated to allay the suspicions of the Africans. I think that should be the test: whether the present proposals are better or worse than the original ones. Reference has been made to a Minister, whether he is called a "cuckoo" Minister, a "constitutional monstrosity" or any other term that may be applied. The whole conception of federating territories of such vastly different sizes, and differing in wealth and conditions, has its constitutional novelty and it certainly calls for some novel device to deal with it. I am not sufficient of an authority on constitutional practice to know what the rights and wrongs of the position are, but the way I look at it is this: Is the African Affairs Board, in its proposed new form, stronger or weaker than in the original one? The noble Marquess talks about it as a strengthened African Affairs Board, but it seems to me that the effect of the few amendments and alterations is undoubtedly to weaken it. The mere fact that there will be no Minister in the Cabinet directly and solely responsible for African interests, and the fact that a Chairman is to be appointed from outside Parliament and the public service, seems to me to imply a downgrading of the whole Board, and of the whole conception of the feature which is the most important safeguard Her Majesty's Government are proposing in this scheme.
644
Now as to the Board itself: we have had no explanation of the reason for changing the qualification required for members. Why are public servants excluded, and why, also, are members of the Assembly and members of the Legislatures? Doubts have been expressed whether, in countries like Africa, where we know the white population is small they could find men of the right calibre to start a Federation. Why, then, is the field of selection to be narrowed to exclude public servants and members of the Legislatures?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl, but perhaps he would like an explanation on the question of the Parliamentarians. The reason is this: it is extremely important that it should be an entirely independent Board. If you have a member who is a supporter of the Government, he would be biased in favour of the legislation that that Government would introduce. If you are going to have fairly independent views, it is wiser not to put those people into this position.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Surely a Member of Parliament has at least been chosen by some body of the community to represent them. The possibility that a Member would be biased by his political Party views may have a good deal of weight, but, on the other hand, where are these eminent people to be found outside the ranks of public servants and the members of the Legislatures? That seems to me to be a weakening of this Board. There is another change: that the number of members of the Board is reduced from nine to six. The Secretaries of Native Affairs who, under the former proposal, were to be put on the Board, are excluded, and there remain six members, of whom three are to be African and three European. Now, in the former proposals, three were to be African and three were to be Secretaries of Native Affairs; in the case of the other three it was not specified whether they were to be African or European. Therefore, the maximum number of Africans who can sit on the African Affairs Board is now three, whereas before, if my reading is correct, it could have been six, with the Secretaries of Native Affairs—the most important people, whom one would naturally regard as being eminently suitable to serve on this Board because they have spent their lives in studying

645
the native affairs of their territories. It seems to me that the powers of the Board have been slightly modified in that, as I read it, the power of the Board is now only permissive, instead of its being a duty of the Board to submit, or certify, or give notice of, objection to every objectionable measure. The word now is that they "may" send to the Prime Minister notice of an objection.
Finally, there is this curious change in terminology from "detrimental" to "differentiating." It is a subtle difference and it may be claimed by some people that it widens the field and increases the power of the Board. But it seems to me that a measure can be detrimental to African interests without "differentiating." There may be no mention in a measure of differentiation between African and European, and yet the effect of it can be detrimental. I should like to have an assurance from the Government that that does not mean narrowing the powers of the Board to give objection.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The answer is that the word has been carefully chosen, so as to include both measures which explicitly differentiate, and those which might have the effect of differentiating against African. The wording is meant to be wider than the limited definition which I understand the noble Earl himself gave.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I see. But it does strike one as very curious that this word should have been changed. I presume that there is some reason for the change, and it would assist noble Lords if we were told what really is the reason behind this change, Altogether, I submit that these changes, small as they are, definitely weaken the safeguards for African interests. I think they lower the prestige of the African Affairs Board and, in general, there is no question in my mind that, looked at together, of the two schemes the new one is less calculated to give confidence to the African than the old one.
In the matter of the Federal Legislature, a curious provision has crept into the list of disqualifications which prohibit the holding of seats representing African interests in the Federal Legislature and which, equally, may affect the appointed members for African interests. One of the disqualifications is that a candidate has served a prison sentence with-
646
in five years before the date of his wishing to be elected. I may be wrong, but this struck me as being something of a novelty. I am not sure, but I believe that the disqualifications from sitting in the Parliament of this country are bankruptcy and lunacy. I speak subject to correction, but I believe they are the only things that disqualify a man from election.
EARL WINTERTON: And being a Peer.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Serving a prison sentence within the previous five years has been included as a disqualification for persons wishing to represent African interests in the Legislature. Why it that? It seems to me a trifle out of date. The idea that a prison sentence means that a person has been a crook and is therefore not wanted in a Legislature is surely out of date. Look around the world and you will find that there are a good many countries where leaders, very great leaders with a world reputation, have spent tears in British prisons. That is so in most Colonial countries. The politically active men are the ones who have been in prison. I think that a provision such as this should be removed, in order that the best and most active of the political Africans should be eligible.
The question of amendments to the Constitution or to the electoral law is, as has been pointed out, a subject on which the Governor cannot give assent. The amendments have to be submitted to London. That is all very well. Constitutional reform or change of electoral procedure takes place only on the initiative of the Federal Legislature. There is no power on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom to initiate or promote changes in electoral systems or in the Constitution; and it seems that that state of affairs is petrifying the present political situation. The Northern territories, which have been under the Colonial Office, are, like all these territories, on the march; their political progress takes place a step at a time. All Colonial territories are on that road. If we take two of them suddenly and put them into this Constitution it will fossilise them. The Government accept the responsibility, to some extent, for maintaining their protectorate status, but the time will come when some widening of the franchise or of the electoral system

647
will become due—certainly it would become due if they were under the Colonial Office. But are they now to be prevented from any further progress?
The submission of this scheme, as the noble Marquess told us, may be in the form of an Order in Council. I recognise that the scheme, as it has been worked out in the Conference, must have been the subject of fairly keen discussion in order to reach agreement. But it should not be forgotten that at the moment the Parliament of this country is supreme. We are responsible for the inhabitants of these protectorate countries. It seems strange that we should be asked to agree to a scheme affecting the destinies of all these people but giving less opportunity for amendment than we have in an ordinary domestic Bill.
Finally, there are no precedents for federation of territories with such enormous differences. All the classical cases of federation, Switzerland, the United States and so on, have no bearing at all on the case, because here we have a multiracial society; we have the immigrant communities, and, above all, we have this deep-seated suspicion and fear by one community of the others.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask one question? If the former Government felt like this, why did they ever appoint a Committee? They appointed a Committee to consider a scheme of closer association. Now he says that the closer association between such varying territories is impossible.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I wish the noble Marquess had waited a moment. I said that there was no precedent for such a scheme. The conference of officials was convened because of the obvious fact that there are many advantages in closer association or federation. There are many economic advantages; there are political advantages. But there are also political disadvantages, and in such a situation, where the racial mixture is so explosive as in Africa, the Government should take the greatest care and should give weight to African opinion. We know that passions in those countries dominate everybody's actions: they preclude any form of rational thinking. So I beg the Government to make sure that the scheme will contain the maximum
648
safeguards possible, that it gives as many concessions as will convince Africans that the safeguards are valid.
5.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT RUFFSIDE: My Lords, I venture to address the House to-day because I happened to be in Salisbury on March 4, when a certain debate took place in another place which caused a good deal of consternation out there. I am afraid that again in Salisbury tomorrow, when they read of the welcome given to this scheme by the Opposition, they will not feel very delighted about it. I must confess that I thought it was about as luke-warm a reception as could be given to anything. I am surprised at that, because, after all, this scheme is largely based on the communiqué which was issued from the Victoria Falls Conference. The three main items, which that Conference said were essential, are all included in the scheme. Moreover, the proposal for an African Affairs Board, which was not before that Conference but came out afterwards, is enshrined impartially and most particularly in the scheme. I am bound to say that I am a little surprised that anyone should be unable to say beforehand that he would give this scheme at any rate careful and impartial consideration, and go through all its details to see if he could not give it general approval. Yet the only concrete suggestion we have had is that the scheme should be withdrawn.
Where would that leave us? It would make confusion worse confounded. People would get so tired of federation coming on the scene and then being withdrawn that federation would probably be put back seriously for years and years. We have heard little about the danger from South Africa. I will not dwell on that, but one must remember that the Southern Rhodesians look across the frontier, the Limpopo; the natives in Southern Rhodesia look across it with considerable alarm. Federation, good or bad, would at least put a stop to those fears. I wonder why in this debate we hear nothing, or at least very little, about Southern Rhodesia's native opinion, when, after all, the natives there are one-third in number of the natives of all three territories combined. Surely their opinion should be considered as well as that of some others in Northern Rhodesia and in Nyasaland.

649
I was not here when the gentlemen came over to the April Conference, and it was regrettable that they refused to attend any Conference and just would not play. That was not a very helpful attitude on the part of the representatives who came from Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, but I can understand it. After all, they do not want federation; they want something else. I think their hopes are based on the Gold Coast pattern of Government. Federation would stop those hopes. I think they have been very honest and straightforward about it. They oppose the scheme because they want another one. One should not let them have a veto just because they oppose it; otherwise how should we ever progress? It would clearly be an unfair situation if the Government wanted to introduce a Bill which they thought was in the interests of the people and then said: "But we cannot do so because the Opposition puts a veto on it and opposes it." No—I think the Government should carry on with their proposals, and I dare say that, if federation were brought into being, these gentlemen who are very experienced and well-known would prove to be useful and would give wise help in the building up of the Constitution.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships very long, but I want to devote myself to this question of African opinion. There seems to be a general view that Africans, because they are black, all have one opinion. We who are white have different opinions; why should they be different from us? I think it is perfectly true that there are many different opinions amongst the natives of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. There are also differences of language. I wonder whether all your Lordships know that in Northern Rhodesia alone there are seven different native languages which can be printed, and many local dialects. I should have thought that if there were seven different native languages, there would be likely to be many more than seven different opinions, not just one opinion for all natives. I therefore think one must consider carefully to what extent this talk of wide objection really has any meaning. I do not say dismiss it, but I think one can exaggerate it, and that is what is being done this afternoon.
650
Of course, one knows—and the past experience of every Colonial Governor would confirm it—that in every part of Africa, in every island in the West Indies, or wherever it may be, where there has been a slave trade, there is a kind of rooted, inherited distrust of anything proposed by a white man, which is very difficult to overcome. That does not mean that the natives are definitely opposed to it. They may distrust a proposal to start with, but may well come to support it afterwards. A classic example of that was in the case of the hospitals in Southern Rhodesia, where we could not persuade the natives to go to hospital until they were dying. They would go to their village and get some quack medicine, or go to the witch doctor and get something worse, and then, when they were dying, they would go to the hospital and say: "This is the place of death, and nothing else." They have changed their minds since, and now the difficulty is that, whenever they get anything wrong with them, they all want to go to hospital because they know that they can get a cure there.
We must consider a possible approach to native opinion from that angle, and quite likely, when they are convinced that the proposals are for their benefit, as well as for the white man's benefit, even if they distrust them at present they will come round and we shall find that in the end they will become quite good supporters of the proposals. If the Government really feel, as I am sure they do, that this proposal is in the interests of the natives and of the whites—all the people in Central Africa—then I think it is their duty, in spite of what opposition there may be, to go forward and carry out this scheme in the interests of the people. Personally, I am very glad that they are doing so.
I have only one other small thing to say. I am glad that at last there is a plan, because there has been any amount of wild propaganda spread among the natives of Southern Rhodesia and elsewhere. There was no plan; there was nothing definite to get hold of. Anybody could say what he liked, and people were saying all sorts of things when I was out there. I can tell a story from a district on the Portuguese East African frontier, where an acquaintance of mine heard that his boys were going to a meeting of the local tribe to discuss federation. He asked the senior boy the next day

651
what was decided. The native said "We decided we were all against federation." My acquaintance asked, "Why did you decide that? to which the answer was, "Because the speaker told us that if we had federation there would be no more blacks left in Southern Rhodesia and we should have to go either to South Africa or Nyasaland in order to obtain work." That is the sort of thing that is being said. But now that there is a definite scheme, anybody can show categorically that that sort of story is quite untrue; and in the end the truth will spread round to the natives.
I come to my last point, which I am glad to say was made by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury; so that I need not dwell upon it. I was going to refer to the proposed appointment of a Minister of Native Affairs, but the Government have, very wisely, rejected that appointment. Lord Salisbury gave the reasons for that decision and quoted the excellent descriptions of the appointment used in another place. I can only say that in Salisbury, Bulawayo and elsewhere, I found that this proposal met with the strongest opposition. Nobody seemed to know what was to be the position of this Minister who was to look after the natives' interests, and apparently was to be independent of the Prime Minister or anybody else. The appointment was viewed with the greatest suspicion, and he was regarded as a kind of "super-snooper." I am quite convinced that many farmers and others would say "If we are going to have a fellow of this sort we would rather not have federation at all." After all, we must remember that the individuals in Southern Rhodesia are going to have the last word, because of the referendum which is to take place. Once before they have given their veto by referendum, and we do not want them to do it again.
I hope that this scheme will be brought into operation, but that it will not be only after a Party fight and in a Party atmosphere. I hope that it will not start backed by just a small majority after a bitter debate in another place. That would give it a start of suspicion and mistrust from which it might take years to recover. If, after giving a calm and cool consideration to all the points which are made in this White Paper, we can come to an agreement, it will be a
652
great thing for Central Africa, and the Houses of Parliament will have played a great part in building up the future of the people there.
5.54 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, it is a great honour and a pleasure, in the name I am sure of all of your Lordships, in whatever part of the House you sit, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ruffside on his first speech in your Lordships' House. It is a particular pleasure to me to do so, because we have been personal friends for over forty years. I was once his chairman in a certain constituency where he was a Member. I have sat under him in another place, where he occupied a certain position which I must not mention in your Lordships' House. I am afraid that on many occasions I gave him a great deal of trouble, though no more than I gave his predecessors. But that has never affected our personal friendship. If I may say so without impertinence, I think I speak on behalf of all your Lordships when I say that his maiden speech has, to use a banal term, brought a breath of fresh air into this debate. We had from him a point of view which has not been put forward before, except in the speech of the noble Marquess, and I must warn the noble Lords who opened this debate that, before I finish my speech, I shall have some very wounding observations to make about them—of course within the limits of decorum in your Lordships' House. I am entirely in agreement with my noble friend who preceded me that they have done a good deal of mischief by their speeches this afternoon.
I am in a unique position among your Lordships in that I have for the last forty years owned some possessions in Northern Rhodesia. Incidentally, that may give an opportunity to the noble Lord belonging to the Labour Party who follows me, to refer to me as an absentee landlord. I give him that tip in advance. During those forty years I have had the honour—and it is an honour—of being consulted on more than one occasion by individuals, and on one occasion by the unofficial members of the Legislature. I have on more than one occasion also represented their point of view, the point of view of the settlers, in another place, both by asking Questions and in

653
speeches; and I conceive that I had a perfect right to do so. I contend that Britons of European descent in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions overseas, who have not self-government of their own, are entitled to have their views put forward both in another place and in your Lordships' House. I am sure that no one would dissent from that. I speak in the capacity of one who has long connection with the country and has had a very warm friendship with many of its leading men, such as Mr. Roy Welensky, and with his predecessor Mr. Gore-Brown.
My Lords, I wish to submit only two points, though I conceive both to be of great importance. In the first place, I should like to support the point that was made by my noble friend the Leader of the House, when he said, in effect, that the interests of the European, Indian and African inhabitants of the three territories are not irreconcilable, though obviously it is not easy to reconcile them. I believe that the White Paper offers a real chance to do so. But as one having a long knowledge of these matters, I must, with all solemnity, warn your Lordships that if this opportunity is not taken, the economic progress of the territories will be retarded and, even worse, political chaos may ensue. Later I will give your Lordships, very succinctly I hope, my reasons for holding that view. My second point is that grave mischief has already been done by the fatuous and irresponsible hostility shown to the European inhabitants of the territories by certain politicians and newspapers in this country. I should like to take the second point first.
It is sometimes the overt, and at other times the covert, argument of those who hold the view (I am sorry to say that it includes a number of Socialist and Liberal politicians, and I must say that some of your Lordships this afternoon have approached very near to the same position) that the Europeans in these territories are only a minority, that if the African majority say they must not have greater self-government, they ought not to have it, now or in the future, and that we here in England know what is best for European and African settlers alike. I do not know whether the ghost of a certain noble Lord who was at one time very well known in your Lordships' House—Lord North—has revisited the
654
Chamber this afternoon. If he has done so, he will have found considerable support for his views in some of the speeches which have come this afternoon from the Benches opposite and even from the speech of the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester. Lord North, as I say, would certainly have found considerable support for his views. After all, what was Lord North's principal point of view? It was the point of view which has been expressed in several speeches made in your Lordships' House this afternoon—that British Colonists overseas cannot be trusted; that only your Lordships' House and another place know what is best for them and how they should be governed.
LORD OGMORE: May I interrupt the noble Earl to say a word in defence of Lord North, who was a much maligned politician? It has recently come to light that he advised His Majesty King George III to grant a Constitution on the lines of what would now be described as Dominion status. The attitude ascribed to him by the noble Earl is far from being that which was actually taken up by Lord North.
EARL WINTERTON: I would not attempt to set myself up as a historical student against the noble Lord opposite. At any rate, I think that the noble Lord and I would be in agreement on one thing: the results of Lord North's policy were calamitous, for he lost us North America. I think the noble Lord would not disagree with that. Whatever may have been Lord North's motives or whatever he may have advised his Sovereign, the result of his policy was that we lost North America. And I would go so far as to add this, as the noble Lord has rather tempted me to make this observation: that if some of the sentiments and views in the speeches which have come from the Labour—I apologise for having used, by mistake, the word "Socialist"—Benches, from the Liberal Benches and also from the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Chichester, this afternoon, were persisted in, we should lose the support of every European South and North of the Limpopo, because those speeches were imbued with suspicion of their motives. The whole attitude reflected in the speeches was that these people cannot be trusted to deal with the African native.
LORD OGMORE: Really, I am afraid that the noble Earl could not have heard my speech correctly. But he must not put words into our mouths. I personally never for one moment ascribed any such motives to the distinguished settlers in Rhodesia. My main point was that the Government should not impose federation against the wishes of the Africans. That was my main point.
EARL WINTERTON: I do not want to enter into controversy with the noble Lord. Of course, I accept what he says. But the impression left on the minds of us on this side of the House was that the noble Lord and his colleague on the Front Bench opposite, the noble Lord behind him, and the noble Lord who in a most interesting way said that he spoke for millions of Liberals throughout the world—that is a very strong statement—
LORD REA: I am sorry, but I really must interrupt the noble Earl. I do not think I used that phrase. I have no doubt that I do speak for millions of Liberals throughout the world but I claim only to speak for millions of Liberal-minded people. In the speech which I made this afternoon I particularly went out of my way to pay a tribute to the white people of Africa for their work and for the high regard in which they are held by the African natives.
EARL WINTERTON: I accept all that the noble Lord says. It must be my defective hearing that has caused me to fall into error. I thought he said that he spoke for millions of Liberals throughout the world, and I must say that that seemed to me a somewhat tall assumption in view of the fact that the thousands of Liberals in this country cannot decide who their leader is. However, I accept all that the noble Lord said, and also all that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, opposite has said. But I would venture to suggest that, however mistaken I may have been, my intervention in this connection may be of some use to your Lordships' debate. We now know that the noble Lords do not mistrust the Europeans in Africa. That being so, what is it that they are protesting about to-day?
LORD OGMORE: The noble Earl really must get his hearing aid adjusted. I cannot give another explanation of my meaning. What I say is that I do not
656
think the Government should try to impose this federal proposal, however good it is—and I admit that, from my own personal point of view, it has great merits—without having a considerable body of African support. I think it will be a complete failure if there is great opposition from the Africans to-day. I should have thought that that point of view was perfectly logical, and perfectly sensible. I think Lord North would not have disagreed with it in any way. I should have thought that going against that point of view would run the Government into great difficulties and that the scheme would break down.
EARL WINTERTON: I make an appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. We all appreciate his knowledge of Africa and we appreciate the good work which he has done in connection with the African question. If I may say so, he should accept the fact—and it is a fact—that for over twenty years this question has been on the tapis. I myself was at Victoria Falls—of course, in a purely private capacity—and almost twenty years ago I was consulted by unofficial members who had been in consultation unofficially with certain members of the Southern Rhodesian Government about federation or amalgamation. This matter has been on the tapis for over twenty years. Every effort has been made, both by the last and by the present Government, to sound African opinion, so far as it is possible to understand what African opinion is. Though I would not for one moment accuse the noble Lord of falling into that error, there is an awful lot of hypocrisy talked in certain quarters about African opinion. My noble friend who preceded me in this debate has pointed out that in one territory seven different languages are spoken, and it is well known that strong hostility exists between certain native tribes, as, for instance, the Mashona and the Matabele of Southern Rhodesia.
It is all very well for noble Lords and other people to talk about African opinion and its right to be represented. The fact is that all you can do, all that the British Government in the past has ever done, all that this Government is doing, is to seek a method by which the interests of these Africans can, or may be, reconciled with those of European settlers. That method has got to be

657
found, otherwise I warn your Lordships that a most serious state of affairs will arise. There is need for frankness in these matters and I put this to the House. Suppose this scheme fails to go through, either on account of opposition here or opposition in another place, or because the Europeans in the territories reject it. I may say, by way of parenthesis, that some of the greatest harm that has been done to the cause of reconciliation between races in Africa has been done by certain newspapers, especially by the Observer. One would have thought that there would be hereditary knowledge in the office of the Observer as to what happened when such arguments as the Observer is now using were used by other newspapers at the end of the Eighteenth Century.
I should therefore like to suggest, with the greatest frankness, that in certain events Southern Rhodesia might decide to join the Union. What would your Lordships' House do then? What would another place do then? Would some of your Lordships who have spoken to-day make similar speeches then? Would noble Lords opposite and the right reverend Prelate ask that Southern Rhodesia should not be allowed to join the Union? How could any Government stop it? Or the Europeans of Northern Rhodesia might decide to support the proposal for the amalgamation of their territory with Southern Rhodesia and join in passive or active resistance to the present system of government. I am not saying anything about that, except that these statements have been made by some persons, perhaps with rather extreme views, in both territories. What could the British Government do? Very little. One thing those whom the Daily Mail calls our "Native Parlour Pinks" had better realise: that any attempt to use armed force against Britons in Africa is impossible. It is just as much incumbent upon your Lordships' House and upon another place to have regard to the opinion of Europeans as it is to have regard to the opinion of Africans. It is just as important. You have to carry them along with you. I hope that I may say, without wounding anyone's feelings, that the speeches which we have heard from the Benches opposite this afternoon have not encouraged that spirit of reconciliation or good feeling between Europeans and Africans.
658
In conclusion, I would say that I have always been a speaker of individual views, and I should have been prepared to oppose this scheme if I had thought it a bad one. I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House will not think I am being effusive when I say that I appreciate the courage of Her Majesty's present Government in going forward with this scheme. I have nothing but contempt for the havering and hesitation which was shown by the late Government over the matter, a havering and hesitation which has been well expressed in the speeches from the Labour Benches this afternoon. As the noble Marquess the Leader of the House pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, had not made up his mind—the noble Lord said so frankly. Another noble Lord opposite, had most clearly made up his mind and was opposed to the scheme, as also was the noble Lord sitting behind him. On this, as on so many other matters, the Labour Party have no corporate view; and certainly the Liberal Party has no corporate view on this or any other matter. It is divided into two parts and I should have been much surprised to hear that the noble Lord who leads the National Liberals agreed with the view of the noble Viscount sitting in front of him.
I think it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to go forward with this scheme. I am grateful to your Lordships for listening with such patience to a speech which may have seemed unnecessarily vehement, but I feel strongly in this matter. Soon after I entered another place I had the honour to be the Parliamentary Private Secretary of a most illustrous man, one whom even to-day I regard as my master, even more so than the present Prime Minister—Joseph Chamberlain. The noble Marquess has mentioned Cecil Rhodes. I believe that this scheme is in consonance with the views of those two great men, who put forward views not palatable at that time, either with the beginnings of the Labour Party or with the Liberal Party—views which, above everything else, have made possible the creation of the British Commonwealth. I believe that if this scheme goes through it will be no small or mean addition to what I regard as the continual growth and expansion of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
6.13 p.m.
LORD LECONFIELD: My Lords, I have not addressed Parliament since I sat in the first two Parliaments of the Union of South Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who introduced this Motion, referred to the loyalty of the native chiefs to Queen Victoria and that made me think of another loyalty which takes me back to fifty years ago. It is curious that the present Government in the Union of South Africa are putting into operation exactly the same kind of policy that was put into operation by the Government of President Kruger—a reversion of fifty years which is remarkable. I think that this reversal to Krugerism is a very serious matter. The Minister of Justice in the Union Parliament recently made a statement which I wished to bring to your Lordships' attention, but perhaps your Lordships will excuse me if I do not say any more.
6.14 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure it will be the wish of your Lordships that I offer our good wishes and our congratulations on his maiden speech to the noble Lord who has just spoken. As we know, in years past he has played a considerable part in building up British administration in Africa. I should also like to associate myself with the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, the noble Earl, Lord Ogmore, and others who sat under his authority in another place, in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Ruffside. We are delighted that he has joined us in our debates.
This has been a peculiar debate, from one point of view. It has been a debate initiated by a noble Lord who is a member of a Party that apparently has no policy on the subject of the debate and who himself, in spite of his heart-searchings and great knowledge of the subject as the former Minister of the Department concerned, has so far found that his heart-searchings have brought him only the conclusion of indecision. I regret that the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, was not delivered before half-past four this afternoon. I say this frankly, and perhaps other noble Lords on this side of the House may agree. We heard the Government exposed to harsh criticism from the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Rea—the latter
660
was not quite so harsh, but he was critical—and by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester. All those speeches came before that of the noble Marquess. I believe that if we had had the benefit of the noble Marquess's speech at an early time in our deliberations this afternoon those speeches from the opposite Benches might have been somewhat different.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: If it had been suggested to me that the noble Marquess should speak before me, naturally I should have been delighted to give way and hear what he had to say before I spoke.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I speak only as a Back Bencher, but I believe that I echo the feelings of some other noble Lords on this matter. We feel that the Government had such a powerful case, put so powerfully by the noble Marquess, that it is a pity that for two hours, at a time when our galleries are most full of visitors and when the proceedings of your Lordships' House are at their most active, the Government were exposed to these critical speeches. Particularly did I regret the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, because of the inferences—of the prejudices (if I may say so without offence)—which he dragged across the issue by his mention of the colour bar.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: The noble Earl, Lord Winterton, said that he spoke for a number of British settlers in Central Africa, quite rightly. There are no Africans in your Lordships' House, and it seemed to me quite appropriate that I should express the African point of view.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Of course the right reverend Prelate is perfectly entitled to do so, but when he speaks of the colour bar, may I ask whether he has suffered under the colour bar as I have? I have suffered under the worst possible colour bar. If one goes to Liberia, as I did when I was Resident Minister in West Africa, and visits Monrovia, one has a terrible time as a white man. A white man is not allowed in Monrovia except under very oppressive conditions. After the speeches made to-day, perhaps we shall see the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords

661
supporting, and perhaps participating in, a Fabian Society expedition to Monrovia in order to alleviate the terrible conditions of the white man in that country.
LORD MATHERS: Has that not brought home to the noble Lord what the Africans fear?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: But our position has never been anything like that. As the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, our relationship with the Africans in Southern Rhodesia is one of partnership and affection—in fact, a progressive partnership—unlike the country I have mentioned, which we wait to have rescued for us by the Socialist Party.
I desire to speak for only a few moments on one particular aspect of this matter. I feel that these are practical proposals, and that, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, they are sensible and workable. I would ask the critics to remember that it is not a case of this scheme or an alternative scheme to-morrow. For twenty years there have been endeavours along these lines, and it is now a position of having either this scheme, or a scheme on these broad lines, or virtually nothing. Our Colonial purpose is a common one, agreed to by all members of all Parties—namely, a gradual evolution to responsible self-government for the indigenous inhabitants. I believe it is axiomatic that responsible self-government can come only with economic independence. I believe, further, that to fulfil our ideal and aim of Colonial development, with responsible self-government for the inhabitants of the country, this scheme is absolutely essential. I would go so far as to say that, without some proposals such as these, the aim of our Colonial policy is unattainable in Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, suggested that co-ordinating machinery could broadly achieve the economic degree and integration necessary, and he quoted certain instances. But other instances can be quoted. Both the noble Earl and I have some knowledge of the West African Council. What a failure that has been! To achieve economic co-ordination there must be executive power at the centre, and that is what this scheme gives. I think the danger of the
662
present position is that, whether prosperous or depressed, the present three territories are unbalanced and terribly vulnerable as regards trade fluctuation. The worst example of what I would term mono-economy is in Northern Rhodesia. It is interesting to know that Northern Rhodesian revenue has risen from £3,500,000 in 1945 to an estimate of £23,000,000 in 1952. On that estimate, no less than 80 per cert. comes from copper. That is a dangerous position. Nyasaland depends on agricultural products, tea and cotton. It is dangerous that Nyasaland should depend upon those primary commodities, with world fluctuations of demand and of prices. We know that in Southern Rhodesia the high land is more suitable for cultivation by the white man, and we know that many secondary industries have been built up. Together, these three territories can stand on a sounder basis, and can withstand the economic blizzards of world depressions in a way that they cannot do individually now. At present, when an economic blizzard strikes any one of these countries (and who is to say that copper will keep its present world price over an indefinite period?) it strikes the poorest in the land first. Therefore, I submit that these proposals are part of the implementation of our Colonial policy.
I should like just to mention the enormous benefits which will come to these territories from the hydro-electric schemes. There are two great schemes, with the details of which I will not weary your Lordships. It is a romance to think of harnessing the Zambesi at the Kariba Gorge and to think of the Kafue River Scheme. These schemes will take £100,000,000 of capital in their full development, and they will provide 1,000,000 kilowatts of power. I am always puzzled by what a kilowatt is, until I am reminded that it is the size of a one-bar electric fire, before which we all sometimes shiver. These hydro-electric schemes will provide the equivalent of 1,000,000 one-bar electric fires. There must be a federal authority at the centre, with executive powers, if we are to carry through these great schemes and raise the necessary capital.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord, as I am

663
sure he does not wish to misinterpret me. My suggestion is that a regional economic authority for Central Africa should have executive powers like the East African High Commission.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I do not want to argue with the noble Earl, but I feel that the federal authority must have full executive powers, as proposed in the White Paper, for the implementation of these great schemes, and not limited executive powers, such as would be possessed by a regional association. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, at the beginning of his speech touched on the railway position. The three territories are contiguous, they are land-locked and largely dependent on the one port of Beira. There are great schemes in prospect for the development of railway transportation which will reduce by no less than 600 miles the distance of 1,700 miles from the copper belt to Beira. In all earnestness, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that I believe that every executive power put forward in the White Paper is essential if these great economic schemes are to be financed and administered. Here, I believe, is the concept of great, happy, progressive and contiguous territory in Central Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, quoted the late Field-Marshal Smuts. I remember once having the privilege of talking to Field-Marshal Smuts during the war, and he told me that he had a vision of Central African expansion and integration. He said that he felt the implementation of that vision would be the only way of healing the wound which the British Commonwealth had suffered through the new developments in Asia and the parting of India. I believe that this great scheme of integration and co-ordination under the federal proposals is a step along the road envisaged by that great world statesman. In spite of the debate to-day, initiated, as I say, by a Party that has not got a policy, and by a noble Lord who has not made up his mind, I trust that, having heard the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and other speakers, noble Lords opposite will finally come down on the right side, so that we can get together and hammer out an agreed scheme for the benefit of Africa for all time.
6.29 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I shall speak only briefly at this stage of the debate. First, as an ordinary citizen listening to this debate, I would pay tribute to the sense of conviction that came from hearing the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, speak on this issue, followed by men obviously of great experience in these South African Colonial matters. So far as I can see, this is the right solution to this Central African issue based, as it is, on long experience. I can take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that the building up of the Colonial life of Africa depends largely on economic development. I can take up, as a private individual, the point which the Government cannot stress—namely, the proximity of South Africa, and the need to build up the beginnings of a powerful unity, on which can be based a firm policy in relation to whatever may happen. All that I can see, and I bow to the integrity and knowledge of the Government speakers and their proposals.
I want to speak for a moment, from one angle, for the Missionary Societies, which must be taken into account. In many ways they are more in touch with matters than the administrators. It is said in the White Paper that 92 per cent. to 95 per cent. of those engaged in African education, near to the soil and the African, have an opinion which ought to be considered. So far as I can see at the moment, their considered opinion is that, arising out of this measure, there is now a tremendous loss of confidence in this country on the part of the Africans. The tradition of extraordinary loyalty of the African to the Crown is buried deep. The possibility of disturbing that is very serious. The missionary people say that the repercussions run through the sounding board, not only of South Africa but of Central Africa, India and Pakistan, or wherever you like. Whatever the Government says may be quite honest and quite true, but it will be misunderstood and will form a basis of propaganda, not only in Africa, but in the rest of the world. You may get the beginnings of sit-down strikes or Gandhism in Central Africa before it starts in South Africa. I want to put forward that angle for the consideration of the Government.
Another point made in the Council of the Churches' Report is that you cannot

665
get in touch with the African mind as a whole, with its divided tribes and lack of power of expression. You cannot, therefore, find any means of consulting it. One point made in the Missionary Report was that that means that you have to be careful that you do not disregard African opinion. That is the problem—how to combine the value of this scheme with the reconciliation of African opinion. Of course, the Government know that, and are concerned with it. I would make one humble suggestion. When you are dealing with a White Paper and an elaborate Constitution (which the noble Marquess the Leader of the House very ably expounded in all its clauses and details) such a Constitution might be misunderstood, even in a House of this ability. If you put such a Constitution in the hands of a native African population, who cannot understand the ordinary details, they will take it up and criticise it. What I would ask is that the Government, at this stage or before they bring in their final Bill, should consider the possibility of presenting some really adequate preamble—some kind of charter of interpretation—before handing it over to the Africans. A charter of liberties and of principles, which the Government stated clearly and which could be interpreted by the African and enable the African to interpret the various clauses of the Bill, would secure their confidence.
I believe that such an approach would be of immense value, and I think that the document comes rather as a shock. It comes out as a White Paper, with no preamble. Most people in England have forgotten the earlier White Papers, but the Africans have not forgotten them. They are just stupid, if you like, in opposition. I suggest that an adequate preamble might afford an opportunity for the Government to take the Africans into their confidence. It would be wise to create that confidence now. If it is sufficiently clear, it would enable the Africans to appeal to this or that clause of a Constitution of Rights laid down by this Parliament and supported by both Houses. It would mean a charter on which we might do something to create the beginnings of confidence and may be a permanent position. I put that suggestion forward with great hesitation. I am much moved by the Government and by the weight and authority and consideration behind this scheme, but I feel
666
strongly the objection that we are overriding the Africans. There are problems in this House for mutual consideration and thought, and I suggest that we should not be in too great haste, though the issue may be of great urgency.
6.35 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, at this late hour, I should like to say one or two things especially for the ears of the Government, because I regret that I shall not be here for the adjourned debate on Monday. I must, with all respect, say that the course of this debate this afternoon has really been a surprise to me. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who moved the Motion which is now before your Lordships, moved to "call attention to the proposals for Central African Federation." The proposals are the proposals in the White Paper. Lord Ogmore specifically said in the course of his opening speech that he did not propose to go into the proposals themselves. The result of that is that, with the exception of the speeches made in your Lordships' House by my noble friend the Leader of the House and by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, very little has been said about the proposals themselves, and it seems to me very difficult to discuss a Motion if everybody is discussing something else. What, in point of fact, your Lordships' House has been discussing is whether we ought to have federation and, if so, when, and not the proposals for federation which are the subject of the White Paper and which are supposed to be what we are discussing.
If I must follow on that cue—and far be it from me at this late hour to go into details themselves—there seem to me two points which are extremely pertinent. The first is federation itself. The second is whether federation is a desirable thing. Those are the two essential points which have come out of this discussion this afternoon. If I interpreted aright the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and one or two of his subsequent interventions—notably one in the course of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Winterton—I understand that Lord Ogmore is more or less in favour of proposals of this sort. If that is so (and the noble Lord moved this with all the experience he had of Colonial affairs when he was in the

667
Government last year) it is a very valuable contribution to the scheme which has been put forward. I hope that that will be remembered in subsequent debates, which I am sure will take place. What he appeared to be in much graver doubt about—and I think this also applies to the noble Lord, Lord Rea—was "When?" rather than "What?"
If I may deal with the "What?" first and come on to the "When?" afterwards, I should like to say this. I found it very difficult to follow the arguments of so many of the opponents to this scheme for federation, when the whole of the history of British Colonial administration for over a hundred years past has been directed towards the creation of larger units in one form of federation or another—and forms of federation vary vastly from area to area, as we know. Sir Godfrey Huggins, in a recent speech, referred to the growth of federation mainly in English-speaking countries. He referred to the United States, Canada, Australia and so on. It is germane to this particular debate to draw your Lordships' attention to the way federation has, as a result of the policies followed by successive Governments in this country, been extended in all African territories as well.
Your Lordships who have followed these things will realise that there are certain curious analogies between what is proposed in Central Africa and what has already taken place, for instance, in Nigeria. If you will cast your minds back a few years over the history of Nigerian administration, you will remember that we started by having a Colony at Lagos, later on a Protectorate of what became Southern Nigeria, and then at the beginning of this century an administration in Northern Nigeria. There were three separate administrations: there was the Colony of Lagos, Southern Nigeria and Northern Nigeria. They were separate administrations because the territories were dissimilar.
To those of your Lordships who know Northern Nigeria it is arguable that the territory that is now Northern Nigeria, part of the Federation of Nigeria, is far more dissimilar to Southern and Eastern Nigeria than any part of the Central Eastern territories now under discussion. The whole growth of administration in Nigeria has been towards
668
federation. We have got a Federation—I am coming in a minute to the question of the "When?" and the "How?".
There is a similar analogy in the Gold Coast. There is an obvious analogy, of course, in what is happening in East Africa, the growth from three separate independent administrations to a High Commissionership, which in my view will inevitably, as it ought, lead to federation of those three territories. The whole of our policy throughout has been to tend to create larger units of government, to make them stronger so that the prosperity of one territory can be shared by the other, in order to get what is referred to in General Smuts's book on philosophy—that curious paradox that the sum of the parts becomes as a whole greater and more powerful than the sum of the parts individually. That is what federation means, and that is why we have put the three pieces together and they are more than the sum of the three pieces. They grow and enjoy greater prosperity; and each tends to contribute something to the development of the others until the whole produces a development more than the sum of the separate parts of the federation. That has been the way of our administration everywhere. It cannot be wrong that that same process should be followed here in Central Africa. I know that there are a number of noble Lords on the other Benches who will agree with me there. Where they will probably disagree with me is not on federation but on "When?" and "How?".
First as to the "When?". So far as the "How?" is concerned, that is in the White Paper and that is what I thought we were going to discuss. I hope that on Monday it will be discussed in greater detail than it has been to-day. It may not be a perfect scheme, but it appears to be a scheme which is at least workable. Additional amendments may be introduced here and there, but we have a scheme. Let us agree, in the first place, that that is a scheme and that, even with certain modifications, it is a workable scheme which ought to be applied. Then we can get down to discuss what is more a subject of division between noble Lords—that is, should we do it now or ought the scheme to be postponed. The noble Earl who is shaking his head would be, I think, inclined to say that we ought to postpone it. I, for my part, think we

669
ought to do it now, and that it should be done more quickly than I felt was implied in some of the remarks which my noble friend the Leader of the House made.
In reply to an intervention by Lord Ogmore on the possibility of a further debate, and to other noble Lords on the subject of the scheme itself, the noble Marquess held out hope that we should be able to have a further debate here if noble Lords opposite wished to have it. But every month that passes crystallises prejudice and opposition which may have been trivial in the first instance, and there are only too many people in the world, here and elsewhere, whose principal object is to crystallise prejudice instead of trying to be helpful; and in so far as speeches in this House have left that impression, I find myself in agreement with Lord Winterton and Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I hope that that impression will be substantially effaced in the debate on Monday. Lord Ogmore in particular asked whether the House would have an opportunity of debating the proposals before they were carried into effect. He referred to a doubt which had been expressed in another place, whether a Bill would be necessary. I personally hope that they will be debated, but at this point I must remind the noble Lord that, with my noble friends on this side of the House, we were in a position to ask for the same facilities to discuss the new Constitution of the Gold Coast soon after the end of the war and the second and amended Constitution of the Gold Coast before the measures were enacted. For procedural reasons, we did not have the opportunity of a debate. I hope, however, that a precedent for not having a debate before the measures are enacted is there.
As to the "When?" my main criticism on a subject which I have followed for many years (though I have taken very little public part) is that these proposals are many years overdue. This subject has been under discussion for over twenty years. It would have been easier for all concerned if federation had been enacted before the war. It would have been easier if it had been done last year. It will be more difficult to do it next year. The longer this is delayed, the greater will be the difficulties to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchyre, has drawn attention. But there is another aspect which I
670
think is overriding, so far as the economic condition of the territories is concerned. Experience has shown that if there is uncertainty, whether political or economic, capital does not become available for the development of the country or countries. We have had it in recent times—in the experience of South Africa itself. It is a matter of common knowledge that, with the uncertainties there prevalent to-day, the flow of the capital needed for the development of the Union from overseas has dried up. The stream of capital for the development of the Rhodesias is in danger of drying up. A further period of delay, during which no one knows what the relation of Southern Rhodesia to Northern Rhodesia is going to be, would operate in that respect to the detriment of both countries; and if that happens, and the economic position of both countries becomes impaired as a result of further delay, responsibility will rest solely on the opponents of the scheme, which is a progressive scheme, in England to-day.
The argument that the African population is not in favour of this and not in favour of that, or would like to wait a little longer to see whether the thing ought to be carried out or not, is exactly that same argument which is being used to oppose the further federation which has been created in and a round the world. It was the same argument which was used in the United States after the War of Independence against the federal system and the federal unification of the then few States of North America. It was used in Canada; it was used in South Africa; it was used in Australia. And if you went to Nigeria to-day you would find, as I think, a substantial body of African opinion in favour of what has been done, just as three years ago you would certainly have found that same body of African opinion opposed to it. We know the opposition in Northern Nigeria to federation of the South with the East. They made their objections; they stated their case; they obtained the safeguards which they wanted. But they have gone into a federation and now, so far as I know, are happy about it. The opinion of the majority is not necessarily right. Leadership in the world has never come from majorities. It has come from minorities, because, unfortunately,

671
the wise people in the world are always in a minority—and it is always the wise people who lead and do not follow.
LORD OGMORE: Would the noble Lord tell that to the Lord Chancellor, because the Lord Chancellor in the B.B.C. debate suggested entirely the opposite?
LORD RENNELL: No doubt the Lord Chancellor will read the noble Lord's intervention in Hansard tomorrow. Far be it from me to make any pronouncement for the Lord Chancellor on a subject such as that, which is not germane to the debate. To say that the majority does not want something is not an argument which appeals to me. You have to make up your mind whether people in Rhodesia, Southern and Northern, who have taken the view that federation on this basis is a good thing are right and wise. If so, they should
672
be backed, irrespective of the clamour of the masses who cannot possibly understand, or even be told in detail, the very complex set-up which is enshrined in the White Paper. I welcome the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Coventry, that a preamble to this White Paper, explaining it in simple language, would be a very considerable instrument in clearing up the doubts which obviously reign in the minds even of sincere people.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and debate adjourned accordingly.
House adjourned at eight minutes before seven o'clock.