Sitting of 1 May 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MERCHANT NAVY MEMORIAL BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ENDOWMENTS (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Edinburgh Merchant Company Endowments (Amendment),"presented by Mr. J. Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]
  MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Motherwell and Wishaw Burgh," presented by Mr. J. Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
PETITION

  Government Policy
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I beg to ask leave to present a humble petition signed by 10,000 citizens of Bermondsey, in the county of London. They pray as follows:
  "We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that Her Majesty's Government takes all steps necessary forthwith to secure the continuance of the policies laid down by the Labour Government in relation to social security, the National Health Service, educational development, housing and control of prices and profits, so as to secure fair shares for all, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Retired Officers (Indian Tax)
    Mr. Anthony Marloweasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he has made to the Government of India with a view to restoring the immunity from Indian Income Tax which existed in respect of service retired pay prior to the India Independence Act; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I assume that my hon. and learned Friend is referring to Indian Income Tax on pensions and not on pay. The decision of the Government of India to tax Indian pensions is within their legal competence and I know of no grounds on which my noble Friend can make representations against it. Special measures have, however, been taken by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to relieve from any additional net burden of tax those pensioners who, but for the transfer of power, would have enjoyed exemption from Indian tax under Section 272 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
    Mr. Marlowe: Does my hon. and learned Friend mean that, in fact, he is not doing much about this rather difficult problem? Is he aware that many of these retired officers are suffering a financial loss and that they are looking towards Her Majesty's Government to remedy this injustice?
    Mr. Foster: I do not think that the position is at all what my hon. and learned Friend says. For instance, pensioners in the United Kingdom have been promised relief out of United Kingdom funds against Indian Income Tax, and they do obtain it. Perhaps the best thing would be for me to send to my hon. and learned Friend the pamphlet which explains all this information. It is not a fact that they suffer any financial loss.
    Mr. Marloweasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what sum has been set aside from India's Sterling balances to secure

    1629
    payment in the United Kingdom of service retired pay payable by the Government of India to retired British officers living in this country; and whether he will ensure that the administration of retired pay in the United Kingdom is retained in his office and not transferred to the High Commissioner for India.
    Mr. J. Foster: Financial provisions covering the civil and military sterling pensionary liabilities of the Government of India were made in an exchange of letters between the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Indian Finance Minister in July, 1948, published at the time as items 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Cmd. 7472. No final decision has been reached about the future administration of pensions of Indian Army Officers living in the United Kingdom. In the meantime, the Commonwealth Relations Office continues to do this work.
    Mr. Marlowe: Will my hon. and learned Friend do all in his power to safeguard those affected? Is he aware that although he says they are not suffering any injustice, those who seem to know most about it, those who are affected, are feeling a very strong sense of injustice, and perhaps they are more conscious of it than is my hon. and learned Friend?
    Mr. Foster: If my hon. and learned Friend is still referring to Question No. 2, about Income Tax, I assure him that the position is that the United Kingdom have explained to these pensioners how they can get the relief for their loss, caused by reason of the Indian Government's added Income Tax on pensions. As I understand it, the situation is perfectly in order.
    Mr. Marlowe: There is something wrong somewhere.
    Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is an element of hardship in many cases, with reference not to Income Tax but to the non-receipt of full entitlement of pension? Can he do something to speed up the action of the Indian Government in this matter?
    Mr. Foster: If my hon. and gallant Friend will send me details of any cases I shall be very pleased to look into them and expedite them.

    Bamangwato Tribe (Chieftainship)
    Mr. T. Dribergasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further discussions have now taken place between the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the delegation from the Bamangwato Tribe; if he is now satisfied that there are precedents in the recent history of this Tribe for marriage by its chief without previous consultation with the Tribe: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. Foster: In answer to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 29th April to a Question by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker).
    As regards the second part of the Question, I am satisfied that there is no precedent for a chief of the Bamangwato Tribe marrying a principal wife without consulting the Tribe.
    Mr. Driberg: Since the debate that we had last night is not yet reported in HANSARD and many hon. Members will, therefore, not know what was said, unless they go to the Library to look up the typescript—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—this is all part of my question, if hon. Members will not be impatient; that was a subsidiary clause—can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he has had time this morning to ascertain the full facts about Khama III's various marriages, on which he was not altogether informative in the House two days ago?
    Mr. Foster: I have not had time to look into the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, but, of course, the arguments that I advanced at 12.16 this morning still hold good.

    Bechuanaland (Secondary Schools)
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how many secondary schools there are in Bechuanaland; and what are the numbers attending these schools
    Mr. J. Foster: I will obtain the information from the High Commissioner for Basutoland, the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland, and communicate it to the hon. Member when it is received.

  HOTEL, LONDON (ERECTION)
  Mr. Norman Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade if a decision has yet been reached in respect to the proposal to erect a £2,500,000 hotel in London.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): No, Sir.
  Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it has taken him such a long time to make this decision, and why it seems that sympathetic consideration is given to American visitors while British people who live in London do not get the same consideration?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: One of the principal reasons why careful consideration is being given to this project is that we have to take into account the foreign currency earnings which might accrue and the impact it might have upon the housing programme. I think we are wise to consider it carefully.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Boys' Trousers (Material)
    Mr. Doddsasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the successful experiments in the preparation of a material made from a mixture of nylon and wool which ensures that the seats of boys' pants last much longer; and if he will give every encouragement to ensure that it is made available to the public as soon as possible.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I should welcome any progress in the direction which the hon. Member has in mind. I understand, however, that, while the industries concerned have for some time been experimenting with wool/nylon mixture cloths, supplies of nylon staple are very small in relation to demand for this and other purposes. Although new plant is now being constructed to increase nylon production, it will be a long time before these cloths are generally available.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that those actively concerned with the experiment are enthusiastic about its great possibilities, and as it seems to give great promise of reducing the problems of mothers of energetic children will the right hon. Gentleman do everything possible to make the material available?
    Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only schoolboys who need protection in their seats?
    Mr. E. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that before any action is taken he will consult the boys concerned?

    Fabric (Marking)
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the cost of a fabric has to be made in Britain for it to be ranked under his regulations as British made.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There is no regulation governing the marking of cloth with the words "British made." In any particular case it would be for the courts to decide whether such a marking constituted a false trade description under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887.
    Mr. Williams: Does not the Minister think it is time that regulations were laid down so that we know where we are, in describing things as "British made"?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: On the whole it is better to do this under statute than by regulation.

    American Cotton Prices
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken by the Raw Cotton Commission to supply Lancashire spinners with American cotton at the current world prices.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Raw Cotton Commission average their selling prices of all American type cottons. Their present average price is 1¼d. per lb. higher than the corresponding cost of United States cotton but appreciably lower than the cost of the most expensive non-dollar cotton of American type.
    My noble Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I are examining, in consultation with the industry, the case for providing sufficient dollars for the purchase of United States cotton next season, to enable United Kingdom users to obtain supplies at United States levels; but the decision must depend, among other factors, on our available dollar resources and on the importance of other claims upon them.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the days of strict competition that we have now even these small differentiations have a very adverse effect upon our export possibilities?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly bear that very important and very true consideration in mind.

    Australia (U.K. Contracts)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent export credit guarantees cover contracts entered into by British exporters and Australia which have now been cancelled.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As I informed the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) on 24th April, the Export Credits Guarantee Department estimates that its own liabilities arising from the frustration of contracts by the recent Australian import regulations, is approximately £5 million. The cover represented by export credits guarantees is in respect of 90 per cent. of the loss sustained by the policy holders.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that the policies do not cover, where they refer to shipping contracts, against specific contracts, and that quite a number of firms who have actually taken out contracts which appear as "shipping contracts" are not covered?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Contracts may differ according to the policies issued in different cases, but the percentage cover of the total trade to Australia is a very small one.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will my right hon. Friend note that by using the expression "frustration of contracts" he appears to admit, in the case of f.o.b. contracts, that the action of the Australian Government vitiates them? Will he bear in mind that there is first-class legal opinion to the effect that that is not so?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I did not intend by that term to over-ride the legal arguments which I know are going on about this matter.
    Sir Ian Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that his statement does not prejudice or commit anybody in
    1634
    this matter? Is it not doubtful whether many of these contracts are not valid now?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This answer refers solely to the percentage of trade which was covered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will cause to be prepared as complete a list as possible of all outstanding contracts made in the United Kingdom with Australia, which are not included in the categories of exemption, to the recent action of the Australian Government in stopping imports into Australia.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I should welcome any additional information which exporters and trade associations think it desirable that I should have, whether on the subject of outstanding contracts or other aspects of the effects on United Kingdom industry of the Australian import restrictions.
    Mr. Fletcher: In view of the fact that such a list would be of the utmost value during the welcome visit of the Prime Minister of Australia to this country towards the end of the month, would my right hon. Friend give such an invitation to the various industries in order that he may be equipped with the fullest possible latest information?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I am in touch with these industries with that point in mind.

    Furniture and Bedding
    Captain Richard Pilkingtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his inquiry into the future of the Utility scheme for furniture and bedding has yet been completed.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Not yet, Sir. This matter and other matters are still under discussion with the Furniture Development Council and the industry. I should, however, point out that although the bedding utility scheme was revoked on 17th March, divans and spring mattresses which my hon. and gallant Friend may have in mind, are included in the furniture utility scheme still in operation.
    Captain Pilkington: When does my right hon. Friend think he will be likely to make a further statement?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I prefer not to say at the moment. I am in consultation with the industry.
    Mr. C. W. Gibson: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to a final conclusion will he make quite sure that he consults the trade unions in the industry?
    Mr. C. J. M. Alport: Whatever decision is reached as a result of his investigations, will my rght hon. Friend take care to ensure that nothing is done to undermine the standards of craftsman ship and workmanship in the industry?

    Match Industry (Report)
    Mr. G. H. R. Rogersasked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects that the Monopolies Commission will present its report on the match industry.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am informed by the commission that they hope to present their report on the supply of matches and match-making machinery in the autumn of this year.
    Mr. Rogers: As I understand that the inquiries have been completed for some time, is there not rather too much delay in the presentation of this report?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Reports from the Monopolies Commission have maintained a high standard so far, in part due to the fact that they have been considering very cautiously the results of the inquiries which they have made. It is much better that they should take a little longer and produce a first-class report than that they should be hurried too much.

    Broccoli Imports
    Mr. G. R. Howardasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what steps he proposes to take to ensure a more even flow of imported foreign broccoli within the quota for the period 1st April to 30th June, 1952, in order that growers in this country may be safeguarded against unregulated gluts;
    (2) what representations he has received concerning the control of foreign imports of broccoli by the quota system.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have received representations on this matter from
    1636
    certain hon. Members and from the National Farmers' Union. As I informed my hon. Friend, the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) on 10th April, I am examining the existing arrangements in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Minister of Food, with a view to seeing what improvements can be made. As I also said in the same reply, imports of broccoli were suspended on 9th April. There will be no further imports until after 15th November, 1952.
    Mr. Howard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although the suspension of these imports is welcome, it is, unfortunately, too late? Has he any evidence that the quota was exceeded, as it was in the last quarter by over 2,500 tons, and can he say when he will be able to give some hope to broccoli growers in West Cornwall who, at present, are ploughing in their crops?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: It is true that the quota was exceeded. The method whereby this quota is applied is by no means perfect, but at the moment it appears to be the best of a number of rather unsatisfactory choices. I am having the matter examined to see whether we can make any improvement.
    Mr. J. D. Godber: In considering these horticultural matters will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the benefits that will accrue to the producer and to the consumer from a change from a quota scheme to a tariff scheme?
    Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the course of the last two years there has been a steady decline in the United Kingdom of the acreage devoted to vegetables for human consumption, due to the promiscuous dumping of vegetable imports in the last few years? Would he reverse that policy?

    Development Area Factories (Inquiry)
    Mr. Frederick Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up a working party to assist him in his review of the administration of the Development Areas.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not consider that that the appointment of a formal working party is necessary, but I have already asked two men of experience and

    1637
    standing, Sir Thomas Phillips, a former Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, and Sir Edward Gillett, an eminent surveyor, to give me their confidential advice in an inquiry which I am now making into the provision and management of factories in Development Areas and the relationship between the Board of Trade and the Industrial Estate Companies, within the framework of the Distribution of Industries Act.
    Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this inquiry will be much welcomed? Will he, however, still pay attention to the suggestion I have made, because I think he will agree that it is rather more than an administrative problem, and that there are other factors which have to be taken into account?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps I may complete my inquiries first, and then I will certainly bear the suggestion in mind.
    Mr. George Chetwynd: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider putting someone from the industrial estate companies and the factory owners concerned on to this investigation so that he can get first-hand information from those people also?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This is not really a committee. I have called in two distinguished men of experience to advise me, but I will see that the type of knowledge to which the hon. Gentleman refers is made use of in pursuing their inquiries.
    Mr. Shepherd: When making his inquiries will my right hon. Friend try to find out the reason for the extraordinarily high capital cost in relation to the number of men employed in these areas, which is a serious defect?
    Mr. W. A. Burke: Will the inquiries include the Lancashire cotton area?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This inquiry concerns the trading estates.
    Mr. James H. Hoy: Will these inquiries affect the Development Areas in Scotland as well?
    Mr. A. G. Bottomley: Is the Secretary for Overseas Trade in charge of this, and will the two gentlemen report to him before presenting their report to the President? As the President may know, plans had been made ahead and things ought to be speeded up by now.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I hope that these two gentlemen will report to me on this matter.

    Textile Areas (Assistance)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the £25,000,000 of Government advance contracts will be placed with firms in Accrington, Rishton, Oswaldtwistle, Church and Clayton-le-Moors, respectively.
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of Government contracts given to factories in the Leek constituency, Staffordshire.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: While I am, naturally, willing to listen to any representations which hon. Members wish to make on the subject of the placing of these orders, I do not consider it would be in anybody's interest to depart from our usual practice of not saying publicly where individual contracts have been placed.
    Mr. Hynd: Will the President give an assurance that the places mentioned in my Question will have a fair share of those orders, in view of the fact that they are suffering severely at present and constitute the most important constituency in this country?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate the wholly worthy motives which prompted the hon. Gentleman to put down the Question, but I think hon. Members generally will agree that, if we tried to divide these contracts up over the Floor of the House of Commons, it would be rather a difficult job.
    Mr. Davies: While agreeing with the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, will he assure me that my constituency will be considered justly in connection with tenders for the type of contracts with which it can deal?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: All areas will be considered justly in this matter.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In the past we have understood that these contracts were placed by the Ministry of Supply, in consultation with the Board of Trade. Are we to take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that he is now accepting responsibility for the placing of the contracts?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend upon this matter.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: From inquiries we have made in Questions, we understand that there is in aggregate £200 million worth of contracts to be placed within the re-armament orders and that, up to now, £80 million of them have been placed. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a programme has yet been drawn up for the placing of the remaining £120 million?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: This Question referred to the placing of £25 million in a rather limited number of constituencies, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to go wider perhaps he will put down a Question?
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: To avoid confusion in the future, can we take it as definite that the responsibility for placing these contracts, and all other contracts, still remains firmly with the Ministry of Supply, both in regard to quantity and the areas in which the contracts are placed?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to ask a Question about the placing of contracts generally no doubt he will put it down, but it is quite plain that it is the Ministry of Supply which places these armament contracts.
    Mr. W. R. D. Perkinsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the fact that many west of England cloth mills are on short time, he will consider allocating to this area a proportion of the contracts he is about to place on behalf of the Service Departments.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The area will certainly be considered, but unemployment is below the national average.
    Mr. Perkins: Could my right hon. Friend receive a representative deputation of all the interests concerned, led by myself?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps my hon. Friend will see me about that afterwards.
    Mr. Douglas Jayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider scheduling as development areas under the Distribution of
    1640
    Industry Acts, some of the districts worst hit by the present textile depression.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I shall certainly consider, in the light of the criteria given in paragraph 86 of the White Paper on Distribution of Industry, 1948, whether it would be appropriate to schedule any of the districts which are affected by the present recession in the textile industries.
    Mr. Jay: Will the President bear in mind that the original Distribution of Industry Act had this sort of possibility very much in view in providing for the scheduling of extra districts and consider giving to areas like Nelson treatment similar to what has been successfully given to Merthyr, Clydeside and Jarrow in the last few years?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I agree that the distribution of industry policy and Act did contemplate the scheduling of new areas, but great caution was always exercised by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman in expanding this and if it were expanded too wide it would defeat the whole policy of the Act. I am having an investigation made to see if there is a particular area which might be identifiable for this special purpose.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: With what interested organisations is the right hon. Gentleman discussing this problem?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I shall discuss it, among others, with the North-East Lancashire Planning Organisation.
    Mr. Richard Fort: In view of the urgent need to get new industries into East Lancashire, and the pressure there at present, when can my right hon. Friend undertake to report to us the result of the consideration of this proposal?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am already taking all the steps in my power to encourage and steer new industries into these areas.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Since my right hon. Friend mentioned part of my constituency, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the difficulties of unemployment in Nelson today, which is far in excess of the level of unemployment that used to be held sufficient to identify a Development Area and that during a number of years alternative industries to cotton have been actively discouraged

    1641
    from going to the constituency? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that in those circumstances the time has now come for a change in the direction indicated in my right hon. Friend's Question?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: As I have already said, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), I am not waiting for any detailed consideration before adopting as a policy the encouragement of industries to go to these areas.
    Mr. Fitzroy Macleanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider instituting a Lancashire textile week on the lines of the National Savings Week, for the purpose of encouraging sales of Lancashire textiles.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: While I have every sympathy with the current situation in the Lancashire textile industry, I doubt whether my hon. Friend's suggestion would be practicable.
    Mr. Robson Brownasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the grave position of the textile industry, he will consider calling in Manchester a special conference of representatives of all sections at all levels in the industry, including the leaders of the unions, so that there may be full and frank expression of all points of view and a representative committee appointed, not only to make recommendations to deal with the present emergency but also to give full consideration to the long-term problems of this industry.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: While thanking my hon. Friend for putting forward this proposal, I think that the purpose which he has in mind will be served by the arrangements which I have put in train. I am in consultation with both the management and labour sides of the industry through the Cotton Board, and I am arranging a further meeting with them at an early date to continue my discussions of both the short and long-term problems of the industry.
    Mr. Brown: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that the Cotton Board does not represent completely and absolutely all sections of the industry? Having regard to the grave and serious situation in which the textile industry finds itself, would he set up, on the lines set out
    1642
    in the Question, a comprehensive council which would be able to represent to the Government, and in international negotiations, the views of the industry fully and effectively?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think the Cotton Board does represent a very great cross-section of the industry. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that I do not limit my consultations to any one person or any one body. I am open to consult any person in Lancashire.
    Mr. F. A. Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that prices of textiles and clothing are now at such a level that it is unlikely that they will be lower for some considerable time? Will he do all he can with the trade to convey the idea to the public and stimulate demand from them by encouraging them to buy at the lower prices?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am always very shy about speculating about price movements, but I agree that there are very good bargains to be had in the shops and I wish people would buy them.
    Mr. Robson Brownasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will, in his negotiations with the textile industry, impress upon all concerned that full and effective use should be made of modern plant, machinery and methods, in order to strengthen public confidence and sympathy.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In my discussions with leaders of the textile industries, I have emphasised, and will continue to emphasise, the need, which I am sure is well recognised, for these industries to make themselves as fully competitive as possible by the use of the most up-to-date methods and equipment and by any other ways open to them.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is it not a fact that during the last six or seven years large quantities of plant and machinery which should have gone to these industries at home have gone to their competitors abroad?
    Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1946–51 £200 million worth of textile machinery was exported from this country as compared with £40 million worth during the comparative period

    1643
    before the war? Does he not agree that this has, in turn, conduced to unemployment in this country?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I agree that we have a large and useful trade in the export of textile machinery as well as of other types of machinery, but, at the same time, many mills in Lancashire have not been backward in equipping themselves with up-to-date machinery. We have mills there as efficient as any others in the world.
    Mr. I. Mikardo: Is it not a fact that if we had not sold this textile machinery abroad those importing the machinery would merely have got it from America, Switzerland or elsewhere, and that we should merely have been worse off as a result?

    Tractors (Export)
    Mr. Peter Robertsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will allow the export of tractors, which are no longer useful for work in this country, for sale for dollars.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the export of crawler tractors originally bought from the United States of America. These are in very short supply and applications for export licences are considered on their individual merits. Normally, we cannot agree to export unless we are satisfied that the tractors have worked a sufficient number of hours to justify disposal, and then first consideration is given to the needs of other Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Roberts: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if it means that these questions can be dealt with on their merits? I think he will be aware that replies from his Department have tended to show that these machines must do 10,000 hours' work. Can we take it now that these questions will be dealt with on their merits if they are put up to him?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I hope all questions which are put up to me will be dealt with on their merits. What I have stated is our normal practice. As a general rule, we have decided on 10,000 hours as being about the working life of one of these tractors.
    Mr. Roberts: Does that mean that if a machine has done less than that, and is not serviceable, no restriction will be placed upon the export licence?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman has a case in mind of a machine which, while it has not done 10,000 hours, has some other features about it, no doubt he will talk to me about it to see if an exception can be made.
    Mr. Roberts: I am much obliged.
    Mr. Harold Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure himself that before we export for dollars tractors that have done 10,000 hours, he will make sure that they do not undermine the good name of Britain in the export market?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: At present we are not exporting these tractors.

    Census of Production (Staff)
    Mr. F. Macleanasked the President of the Board of Trade how many officials are employed in preparing the Census of Production for the current year.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The number engaged on work in connection with the census which is being taken this year is about 215.
    Mr. Maclean: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the results achieved justify the trouble and expense involved on the part of everybody concerned? Could not the existing machinery perhaps be simplified?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that a census of production serves a useful purpose, but, at the same time, I am far from saying that we have necessarily reached perfection in the matter. I am examining it to see how we can simplify and make it easier, both for us and industry, to answer the questions, and I hope, in consultation with industry, to be successful in that task.
    Mr. John Profumo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great deal of information which is obtained on the census form is incorrect? How much credence can he therefore, place on the reliability of the information which he is getting from the census? Does he not consider that there is a strong case for abolishing the census altogether and having a totally different scheme which would be more reliable, less costly and less troublesome to the small trader?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question refers only to the number of people employed on the scheme, and at the moment it is 215. As I told my hon. Friend, I am considering whether we can further simplify this task.

    British Designs (Japanese Copying)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken to prevent British designs from being copied, and to prevent the words, "Made in England," being stamped on manufactured goods made in Japan and Hong Kong.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am not aware that United Kingdom designs are being copied by Hong Kong manufacturers, but if the hon. Member has any information on the subject I shall be pleased to consider it. In fact, under Hong Kong legislation the copyright of every design registered in the United Kingdom extends automatically to Hong Kong. As regards Japan, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) on 20th November last.
    No cases have been reported to me of goods manufactured in Japan or Hong Kong being marked "Made in England." If the hon. Member knows of such cases and of countries into which goods so marked have been imported I will consider taking the matter up with the Governments concerned.
    Mr. Smith: Has not the time arrived when the Board of Trade should be more resolute in dealing with matters of this kind? If I can be supplied with evidence direct from Hong Kong, surely the Board of Trade ought to be provided with it. Has not the time arrived when we should be given some concrete results from the assurances we have had?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman has some evidence, I shall be very happy, as I have assured him, to receive it and to give it full consideration.
    Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, since he gave me a reply last autumn, I have given him fresh evidence of the copying of British designs by the Japanese? Does he not agree that the longer this
    1646
    goes on the worse it will become? Will he take definite action now and show the Japanese that we really mean business and that they are not going to be allowed to get away with it?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am in complete sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend's question, but the Question referred specifically to the use of the term, "Made in England," and it was to that that I was directing my reply.
    Mr. A. Edward Davies: While the words "Made in England" may not appear on some of the products, is not the Minister aware that, as his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) mentioned yesterday, the practice is proceeding and that it has been experienced in the case of textiles in Nigeria? Certainly, in the case of pottery we have had examples at a comparatively recent date. Can he take some action with America and the other countries concerned, and also with Japan itself, to see that the industry is put on a proper basis?

    Pottery Industry (Discussions)
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he has now concluded his consultations with the representative organisations of the pottery industry; and what action he proposes to take;
    (2) if he has now considered the proposals made to him for the release of decorated pottery for the home market; and what action is to be taken.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Discussions with representatives of the pottery industry about their problems are not yet complete.

    Rubber (Exports to U.S.S.R.)
    Mr. J. R. Bevinsasked the President of the Board of Trade why licences have been issued for the export of raw rubber to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for quantities of 43,371 tons during the first three months of 1952; and if he is aware that this represents 76 per cent. of the total imports of raw rubber to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from both United Kingdom and Malaya during 1951.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The policy of restriction on exports of rubber from

    1647
    Malaya and the United Kingdom to the U.S.S.R. was explained in my answer to my hon. Friend's Question on 20th March; and in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 3rd April I explained that this year's exports have included a substantial accumulation of rubber which was licensed last year but shipment of which was delayed.
    Mr. Bevins: In view of the continuing high level of exports, will my right hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that there has been no change of policy in this matter?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I can give a complete assurance on that point.
    Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to the effect that this raw rubber is being used, at any rate partly, for armament purposes, and, if so, is not that rather opposed to the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The amount of rubber which is being sent is the amount calculated at a normal peace-time rate. It is specifically calculated at that amount to avoid the point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
    Mr. Shinwell: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific? The Board of Trade must have information—or, at least, some information—about the use to which the rubber is being put. Is any of it being used for armament purposes, and does that represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The amount of rubber that has been exported to the U.S.S.R. has been running at a rate which is precisely the same as it was under the right hon. Gentleman's own Government, the average for 1950–51–52. I have no reason to suppose that anybody in any Government can tell precisely for what any particular bit of rubber is used. I have no reason to suppose that this rubber is used for armaments. On the best evidence that we can obtain it certainly is not above their normal peace-time requirements.
    Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that Her Majesty's Government are simply following the policy of the Labour Government?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I thought the right hon. Gentleman's original point was whether we were exporting rubber for the purpose of manufacturing arms.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Would it not help the House if my right hon. Friend could indicate what proportion of Russia's total import of rubber this figure represents?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The imports of rubber for the first quarter of this year from all sources represent about one-third of the annual rate for the whole of 1950.
    Mr. Nicholson: My right hon. Friend has misunderstood me. I meant how much rubber Russia has imported from all sources in the course of a year so that we can see what proportion of that this represents?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.
    Mr. Mikardo: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain, in short sharp words of four letters that even his hon. Friends can understand—
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: Speak for yourself.
    Mr. Mikardo: I did not put the Question down. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how we can expect to continue to get large quantities of softwood and animal feedingstuffs from Russia if we do not send Russia anything in return?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Trade flows both ways between the countries, but it has been our policy—and I think the House generally will agree that it is right—to restrict the exports of rubber to the U.S.S.R. to what is estimated to be their normal peace-time consumption. There has been no change of policy in the matter, and that policy will be adhered to.

    Manufactured Goods (Price Control)
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade what manufactured goods, in addition to carpets, he has freed from price control since 1st November, 1951; and what further manufactured goods he is at present negotiating with representatives of the appropriate trades to free from price control in the early future.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave

    1649
    to the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), on 13th March, when I circulated a list of articles freed from price control since the Government took office. Since that date, I have removed price control from all utility goods, except furniture and nylon stockings, and from carpets, printed felt base floor covering, candles and hollow-ware.
    Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that immediately supply equals or exceeds demand in the case of any manufactured commodity he will, with alacrity, free it from price control, thus restoring freedom to British industry?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I certainly do not intend to hold price controls in any case except where I regard it to be necessary.

    Board of Trade (Staff)
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Liptonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many persons are employed in his Department; and to what extent the number has increased since 1st November last.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Board's staff numbered 8,320 on 1st April, a decrease of 72 since 1st November last.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the President aware that this represents a welcome change from the situation which prevailed a little while ago, when he said that the greater the number of cuts which had to be imposed the more the staff of his Department would have to be increased?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have had to increase the staff to some extent for the purpose of administering the import cuts. If we had not had to have such cuts I should have reduced the staff by over 200. Still, 72 is some contribution to the problem.
    Mr. Bottomley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether some of the 72 were transferred from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Materials?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. This is a fair figure.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of persons employed by his Department, respectively, on 1st May, 1939, 1st November, 1951, and 1st May, 1952, or
    1650
    latest convenient date; what reductions have been made during the last six months as a result of termination of price and other controls for which his Department was responsible; and what further reductions are envisaged in the early future.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The staff of the Board of Trade on the nearest dates for which information is available was:

    1st April, 1939

    4,267

    1st November, 1951

    8,392

    1st April, 1952

    8,320

    I should, however, point out that any comparison between the pre-war and post-war figures would be misleading since the functions of the Board of Trade have changed considerably over this period.
    Although the figure for 1st April, 1952, is only 72 less than for 1st November, in view of the extra work undertaken by the Board of Trade during that period in relation to import licensing and the regional boards for industry, it is equivalent to a saving of over 200.

    Central and Eastern European Goods (U.K. Imports)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of china wood oil, bristles, duck feathers and hogs' casings have been imported from the Eastern and Central European countries during the last six months.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Imports of bristles from Eastern and Central European countries in the six months October, 1951, to March, 1952, were 3,317 cwt. There were no imports of tung oil, which I understand is another name for china wood oil, or of hog casings from these countries in this period. Duck feathers are not recorded separately in the trade returns, but imports of all types of feathers for bedding and upholstery from Eastern and Central Europe in the six months ended March, 1952, amounted to 12 cwt.
    Major Beamish: Would it not be normal for this trade to be carried on through Hong Kong? Am I not right in saying that we are buying from Czechoslovakia and other satellite countries Chinese goods which are being sold to those satellite countries in exchange for war machinery and industrial machinery

    1651
    which are denied to them from this country by agreement with the United States? May I particularly ask my right hon. Friend, if I give him some more figures which do not tally with those he has given the House, to look very carefully into this matter?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: My hon. and gallant Friend is now asking a quite different question from the one on the Order Paper.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is common knowledge that this barter deal largely with Skoda manufacturers of armaments is taking place? Although duck feathers are not specifically mentioned, will he not assume that this rumour is a canard?

    Stockings (Ladderproofing)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce the necessary legislation to make it legally obligatory on manufacturers of nylon and silk stockings to use locknit machinery and ensure that these articles are made ladderproof.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. The hon. Member is presumably referring to machinery which will knit ladderproof mesh stockings. The supply of such machinery is very limited and it would not be reasonable or practicable to make its use obligatory. I am satisfied that, when the necessary machinery is available, manufacturers will make their decisions as to what type of stockings to manufacture in the light of public demand.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister not aware that if he would encourage the use of this type of machinery we would be able to sell more nylon stockings abroad, that the women of this country would be very pleased indeed to get ladderproof nylon stockings and that he, in turn, would become the friend of the women of this country for all time?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that the ladies who have these stockings must be entitled to decide for themselves what type of stocking they require.

    China—U.K. Trade
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of
    1652
    our imports and exports to China up to the most recent date, together with a list of the main commodities in which there is trade.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman discourage the effete and flaccid idea that as the Chinese know the addresses of British business houses they could write to them if they wished to trade, and do his best to encourage legitimate trade in non-strategic materials with these people?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member's question raises a slightly different point from the list for which he asked. Our business houses in China, their location and everything about them are well known to the Chinese and have been open for business at any time.
    Mr. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latter part of his statement is not now accurate—
    Mr. S. Silverman: It was.
    Mr. Davies: I am saying that it is not now and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) can come in if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate the situation so far as the blockade against China is concerned and the non-carrying out of contracts with the Chinese since the new policy?
    Mr. F. Maclean: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason for any cooling off in trade with China is largely because the Chinese Government have put down our trading houses and turned them out?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: They have certainly put many obstacles in the way of normal trade.
    Following is the answer:
    Imports from China in the year 1951 were £7,667,160, and in January to March, 1952, £981,468. United Kingdom exports to China in 1951 were £2,674,733, and in January to March, 1952,

    1653
    £196,837. The following table gives the main commodities:

    UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS TO CHINA*

    £'000

    Commodity

    Year 1951

    Jan.-March, 1952

    Pottery, Glass, Abrasives, etc.

    74

    4

    Iron and Steel and Manufactures thereof

    333

    —

    Non-ferrous metals and Manufactures thereof

    65

    —

    Cutlery, Hardware, Implements and Instruments

    163

    6

    Electrical Goods and Apparatus

    378

    24

    Textile machinery

    360

    97

    Other machinery

    295

    31

    Wool tops

    377

    —

    Chemicals, Drugs, Dyes and Colours

    344

    19

    Pedal cycles

    105

    —

    All other articles

    181

    16

    TOTAL

    2,675

    197

    IMPORTS FROM CHINA*

    £'000

    Commodity

    Year 1951

    Jan.-March, 1952

    Maize

    1,489

    358

    Feeding-stuffs for animals

    793

    138

    Eggs, not in shell

    1,136

    46

    Seeds for expressing oil

    1,429

    189

    Vegetable oils, other than essential—

    Tung oil, raw

    109

    15

    Other

    141

    —

    Hides and Skins, undressed

    205

    40

    Bristles

    362

    9

    Hair, raw

    285

    7

    Silk, raw and waste

    133

    —

    Textile Yarns and Manufactures

    246

    18

    Apparel

    120

    31

    Menthol

    283

    —

    Essential oils, natural

    122

    5

    All other articles

    814

    125

    TOTAL

    7,667

    981

    * Including Manchuria but excluding Hong Kong, Macao and Formosa.

    Trains (Textile Goods)
    Mr. Ralph Asshetonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to promoting the use of textile goods, he will make representations to the Railway Executive to replace paper towels and napkins in railway trains by textile goods.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I have made inquiries and understand that the continued use of paper towels and napkins on the railways is a more economical proposition for a number of reasons than the use of textiles.
    Mr. Assheton: If by chance the economic reasons are that passengers are rather apt to misappropriate the towels—no doubt inadvertently—would my right hon. Friend suggest that the same method of supplying the towels which we have in this House could be instituted on the railways?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have no doubt that the Railway Executive will take note of the suggestion of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman also pass on that suggestion to the Minister of Works, in view of the fact that a circular has gone round some Government Departments saying that when the present cloth towels are used up paper towels will be substituted?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I will certainly look at that.

    Mining Machinery (Imports)
    Mr. F. Willeyasked the President of the Board of Trade for what amount licences are being granted for the import of mining machinery; from which countries such machinery is being imported; and why the machinery is not being made in this country.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Imports of mining machinery in 1951 amounted to £583,000, mainly from Western Germany (£300,000), the United States of America (£120,000) and Sweden (£100,000). Imports from Western Germany and Sweden may be made under open general licence; imports from the United States require specific licences. These imports only amounted to about 2 per cent. of home production and consisted mostly either of spares to maintain existing machinery or, machinery not made in this country.

    Imperial Preference
    Mr. Julian Ameryasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Government will denounce those parts of the General Agreement on Tariffs and

    1655
    Trade which limit Britain's right to give increased preferences to goods imported from Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement in regard to the future policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade with particular reference to increases in the rates of Imperial Preference.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The system of Imperial Preference has played and continues to play a large and useful part in the development of trade between the countries of the Commonwealth. Her Majesty's Government attaches great importance to Imperial Preference, not only as a symbol of the desire of the countries of the Commonwealth to stand together and to trade with each other, but also as a practical means of increasing their trade and their prosperity. I can therefore assure my hon. Friends that this matter will be kept in the forefront of the examination of our future external commercial policy, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which we are now undertaking and about which we shall, of course, consult with other Commonwealth countries as soon as possible.
    Mr. Amery: While appreciating that my right hon. Friend has had this matter under consideration for only three or four months, might I ask him whether he would bear in mind that there is a growing feeling in Lancashire that our prospects of gaining new markets in textiles, as well as holding the ones which we have at present, depend—according to many people—on regaining our freedom to extend the system of Imperial Preference?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: If my hon. Friend will read the answer he will see that I have made a very full statement of what is our general policy in that matter.
    Mr. John Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year, when things were rather different in Lancashire, people in many Colonies were crying out for Lancashire textiles? Can the Presisident say that now that things are not so good Lancashire will send textiles to West Africa and other places where they are very badly needed?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that Lancashire is backward about taking advantage of any opportunities which can assist in that direction.
    Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our trading difficulties overseas are likely to be substantially aggravated in the course of the next few months due to our manifest inability to extend Commonwealth trade and increase protection? Will he treat this matter as one of over-riding urgency?
    Mr. Bernard Braineasked the President of the Board of Trade in respect of what classes of goods have the United Kingdom and other signatories invoked the escape clauses of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; what steps are being taken to restore our freedom to adjust preferences; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Article XIX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which I assume is the escape clause which my hon. Friend has in mind, has been invoked by the United States Government to withdraw tariff concessions on fur felt hat bodies and on hatters' fur. It has not been invoked by the United Kingdom or by any of the other contracting parties to the General Agreement.
    As regards the second and third parts of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have given today to my hon. Friends the Members for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery) and Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro).
    Mr. Braine: Does not the first part of that answer reveal that Britain at least has been playing the game in this matter? Does not the recent Note sent to the United States Government reveal how desperately dependent we have become on a market which, paradoxically, we shall lose if we do too well in it, and has not the time come to speak to our American friends much more frankly?

    American Import Duties
    Mr. Ronald Russellasked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has received to the memorandum sent by him to the United States Government in regard to possible increases in American import duties on British-manufactured goods; and what action he

    1657
    proposes to take under Article XIX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No reply has yet been received, but my hon. Friend will no doubt have heard of the favourable comments made by Mr. Acheson yesterday. As I explained on 24th April in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), the applications referred to in the memorandum are still being investigated by the United States Tariff Commission who have not yet made any recommendations on any of them; accordingly, the question of action under Article XIX of the General Agreement does not at present arise.
    Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that whenever American industry finds itself faced with fierce competition it demands protection, and is it not, therefore, unwise to rely on any permanent increase in our exports to the United States?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That raises rather a wider point than the one in the Question.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the United States Government have imposed quotas against some European imports the quantity of which was increasing and that that largely neutralises their very generous policy of civil aid to Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to represent to the American representative in London the grave dangers of a return to the Smoot-Hawley policy of pre-war days?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That was, of course, the object of the memorandum which was made available to the United States Government.

    Strategic Goods (Export)
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a complete list of all the commodities included under the designation of strategic goods, which this country is precluded from exporting to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China and certain other countries.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: All exports to North Korea are prohibited. The China embargo list was published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on the 19th June, 1951, in a statement after Questions
    1658
    made by the then President of the Board of Trade. As regards exports to the U.S.S.R. and the European Cominform countries, there is a complete embargo on the export of arms, ammunition and atomic energy materials. Further, we have prohibited the export of all other goods which are likely to be of primary strategic importance.
    The complete list is very much more complicated than the China embargo list and I see no reason to dissent from the decision of the previous Government that its publication would not be in the public interest.
    Mr. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us by telling us why the publication of the consequences of our obviously foolhardy policy will not be to the advantage of the House and the country? Has he forgotten that only a few moments ago he lamented the obstacles that had been erected against the normal carrying on of the trade of this country, and is not this the most fatuous of obstacles created by any Government?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: All I can say is that, having weighed the arguments as best I can, I have come to the conclusion that it would not be in the public interest to publish the list.

    ATOM BOMB TESTS, AUSTRALIA
    Mr. T. Dribergasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken by the Ministry of Supply and the Department of Commonwealth Relations, in consultation with the Australian authorities, to protect from harm Australian aborigines likely to be in the neighbourhood of the impending atomic bomb tests.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): As the statement made by the two Governments on 18th February indicated, arrangements have been made for the test of the United Kingdom atomic weapon to be conducted in conditions which will ensure that there is no danger whatever to the health or safety of people in Australia.
    Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, however, whether it is not the case that the testing-ground is

    1659
    quite near to the Central Aboriginal Reserve? Is he aware that authorities who know the area well say that it will be quite impossible completely to clear that Reserve of the several thousand men and women who live scattered all about the wilds of it, or for that matter, of animals?
    The Prime Minister: That point is covered by my answer.
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is not this a matter which we could leave with complete confidence to the common sense of the Dominion Government concerned?
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Australian aborigines who are converted to Christianity are now thinking of sending missionaries to this country, because they think that the atom bomb can only have been invented by savages and barbarians?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will not feel unduly hurt.

  AMERICAN STEEL DELIVERIES
  Mr. G. R. Strauss(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Supply what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take, in view of the holding up of licences for the export of steel bought under the agreement concluded with the United States authorities.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): As the House will appreciate, the situation arising from the steel strike in America is very uncertain. However, my latest information is that export licences have not been stopped. We are in touch with the United States Administration on this matter, and we are confident that in the disposal of available steel supplies they will keep our needs well in mind.
  Mr. Strauss: While we are glad to hear that for the second time this threatened embargo has not been put into operation, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind, in the representations he makes to the United States authorities, that the defence programme of the N.A.T.O. countries must be considered as a whole; and that any interference with or hold-up of the steel on which our defence programme depends would have just as serious consequences as the effect of holding up steel for delivery to the United States armament firms themselves?
  Mr. S. O. Davies: It may stop a war.
  Mr. Sandys: Any appreciable set-back in the deliveries of American steel upon which we are counting would have serious affects on our industry, but I am quite sure that the United States Administration are well aware of our position. We shall continue to keep in close touch with them.
  Mr. Jack Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would be a good thing if the finished steel were not brought from America but if arrangements were made to get the raw materials so that our workers could work full-time and produce proper steel?
  Mr. Sandys: I do not share the view of the hon. Member.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. C. R. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House the business for next week?
The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 5TH MAY—Second Reading:
Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money resolution.
TUESDAY, 6TH MAY—Committee stage:
Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 7TH MAY—Second Reading:
Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Bill.
Committee stage of the necessary Money resolution.
Committee and remaining stages:
Empire Settlement Bill.
New Towns Bill.
THURSDAY, 8TH MAY—Committee stage:
Finance Bill.
FRIDAY, 9TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
During the week it is hoped to consider the Motion to approve the Ships' Stores Charges Order.
Mr. Driberg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his attention has been called to the Motion on the Order Paper on the subject of collective punishment in Malaya, signed by 131 hon. Members on this side of the House, and to the two Amendments to it, signed by 138 hon. Members on the other side of the House? Since this means that nearly 270 hon. Members on both sides of the House want to discuss this subject on an early day—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—yes, they say so on the Order Paper, would he consider giving time for it?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. I cannot at present. It sounds to me as if it might well be a matter for a Supply Day, which is in the hands of the hon. Member's right hon. Friends.
Mr. Driberg: But since rather more hon. Members on that side of the House have signed the Amendments than signed the Motion, surely it is the responsibility of the Government, rather than of the Opposition, to find the time.
Mr. Beresford Craddock: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the possibility of giving an early day for the discussion of the Motion on Imperial Preference standing on the Order Paper in the name of many of my hon. Friends and myself; particularly in view of the keen interest shown in this matter by the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon?
Mr. Crookshank: That seems to me to be a subject which might come up on a Private Member's Motion day.
Mr. C. R. Hobson: Can the Leader of the House say when it is proposed to deal with the MacBrayne contract?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. On Monday, 12th May, if it is convenient to the House.
Mr. John Baird: When may we have the Second Reading of the Dentists Bill, which has passed through all its stages in another place?
Mr. Crookshank: We have enough business with financial affairs to deal with at this time, so that I cannot yet set a date to it.
Mr. Baird: As this is a most controversial Measure, would it not be better to drop the whole thing?
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake excavations to discover what has happened to the British Museum Bill?
Mr. Eric Fletcher: Can the Leader of the House tell us when we are to have a debate on foreign affairs?
Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. That, to some extent, rests with the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who may use a Supply Day for the purpose.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is the Leader of the House now able to say when the White Paper on the B.B.C. Charter will be available?
Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. We hope in about a fortnight.
Mr. Morrison: And the transport policy of the Government. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that will be ready?
Mr. Crookshank: I hope it will be available on Thursday of next week.
Captain Richard Pilkington: Regarding the Motion and Amendments on Malaya, is it not quite wrong to add together the number of hon. Members who have signed them? Do they not cancel themselves out?
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I desire to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order for the guidance of the House. You will remember that a little time ago three hon. Friends of mine and myself joined in a Motion which we put on the Order Paper in relation to an incident during an all-night Sitting. I have twice asked, I think, since then, the Leader of the House to provide time for it, and on both occasions he has said that he has not yet had time to consider it. By today I thought the right hon. Gentleman would perhaps have time to consider it, and I waited to see whether any reference was made to it by him, but none has been made. The position now is that no time is available next week for the consideration of this matter.
This creates very great difficulty, and I ask your advice and guidance, Mr. Speaker. It is, of course, essential to the conduct of the business of this House that the Ruling of the Chair shall be accepted unquestionably at the moment

1663
it is given, but that unquestioning acceptance has always been subject to the right which Private Members have, if they dissent from it or have questions concerning it, to put down an appropriate Motion. It would be a repudiation of the whole basis upon which our Parliamentary proceedings are conducted if the right to put down that Motion, which is a corollary of the duty to accept the decision of the Chair, should be completely nullified by failure to find time for such a Motion to be debated, when, in fact, it has been put down. This must be at least as embarrassing to you, Sir, as to the House of Commons itself.
There are two complications, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will be a little indulgent about this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because this is essentially a Private Member's point, and not a party point. The first complication is that, in the delay which has occurred, it is being repeatedly said in certain quarters that the action by you, Sir, which is questioned in the Motion, was taken only to give effect to a private arrangement made between the two Front Benches, of which the rest of the House knew nothing whatever, and that, I suggest, is a matter on which you might wish to make some observations at the appropriate time.
The second important complication is that it has also been suggested in certain quarters that, somehow or other, hon. Members organised in parties and meeting in secret might have their votes in some way committed on a matter affecting you, Sir, when discussions and debates which are held to commit them are taken in secret and in circumstances in which you, Sir, have no opportunity of making any observations at all.
Having regard to all these considerations, I should like your advice on the remedy open to a Private Member who has done the appropriate thing in putting down a Motion and now would like time in which to discuss it.
Mr. Speaker: I would help the hon. Member if I could, but I am in this difficulty. I am entirely in the hands of the House, and I do not see how I can intervene one way or the other. The Motion is on the Order Paper, and I am in the hands of the House.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: May we have a statement from the Leader of the House on this matter?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot ask for that.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the Leader of the House make a statement?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot ask for that. I think hon. Members had better consider the position.
Mr. Crookshank: May I be allowed to intervene? As far as I am personally concerned, this matter has been given very grave consideration. I recognise that it affects the House as a whole, the position of the hon. Member concerned, and, of course, the position of Mr. Speaker.
I did not think it was possible to afford time for this Motion now, because I had hoped that, perhaps, having put the Motion on the Order Paper, second thoughts might have occurred to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I thought so: I can think what I like, I hope. I had thought that, perhaps, on further consideration—as so often happens when we do things in a hurry; I do not say that we necessarily repent at leisure, but we sometimes change our minds afterwards—the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends might not persist in the matter.
I was waiting to see whether, having made their protest in that form, they would think that their interests and the dignity of the House and others in this small incident might best be served by letting, the matter drop. That was the thought passing through my mind. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me to make a statement to the House, I have made one, but nothing is final in these matters. I only hope that the hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman) may be agreeable to proceeding on the lines suggested.
Mr. E. Shinwell: While appreciating the difficulty in which the Leader of the House finds himself, quite unwittingly, may I ask if he does not agree that, if the hon. Member and his hon. Friends who have put down this Motion are not prepared to withdraw it, it is in the interests of the House, and particularly of Mr. Speaker, that the matter should be disposed of as quickly as possible?
Mr. S. Silverman: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, may I say to the Leader of the House that I appreciate to the full the spirit in which he made his observations just now, and fully understand why he made his statement in that way. But may I assure him that my hon. Friends and myself did not put down this Motion light-mindedly or frivolously at all? We have given the greatest possible consideration to it, and, whatever the ultimate course may be, we would like to submit that it is in the interests of the House, and certainly of the Chair, that a Motion, having been put down on the Order Paper, should not be removed in a somewhat clandestine way, but should be dealt with in the way which the House would like it to be dealt with, in open debate in which everyone has an equal right to take part.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot help the hon. Member further. I am in the hands of the House.
Mr. Leslie Hale: May I put this consideration, to you, Mr. Speaker? There is on the Order Paper a Motion of censure on the Chair. Has it not been the invariable practice that such Motions should be discussed at once, and certainly should not be allowed to remain on the Order Paper too long? If the Leader of the House takes the view that we cannot, by this Motion, discuss the whole question of the application of the Closure, many of us will be forced to add our signatures to the Motion in an effort to bring pressure on the right hon. Gentleman to do what he most certainly ought to do.
Mr. Crookshank: I have informed myself about the matter, and what the hon. Gentleman has said is not entirely right. The Motion does not have to be taken at once.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps hon. Members will leave the matter there. I am in an unusual difficulty in trying to help the House.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (U.K. DELEGATES)
The Prime Minister: I desire, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, to make a statement.
The Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe will meet at Strasbourg on 26th May, and I have appointed 18 delegates from the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The distribution of the appointments between the parties is the same as in the previous delegation, that is, nine Members of the Conservative Party, eight Members of the Labour Party and a representative of the Liberal Party.
The appointments of the Labour and Liberal representatives have, of course, been made on the basis of nominations by the Leaders of those parties.
The representatives from the Government benches are my hon. Friends the Members for Melton (Mr. Nutting), who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir), Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde), Cambridge (Mr. Hamilton Kerr), Pentlands (Lord John Hope), Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery), Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe), and the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir.
Mr. Shinwell: One of my right hon. Friends says "husband and wife."
The Prime Minister: I have never heard that that was considered to be a detrimental argument; indeed, precedents exist at this moment on both sides of the House for such an association in political matters. The list continues as follows:
From the Labour Party: the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), Blyth (Mr. Robens), Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley), Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon), and the hon. Gentlemen the Members for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling), Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), and Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas).
From the Liberal Party: the noble Lord, Lord Layton.
Substitutes are being appointed to act for the delegates when they are absent from Strasbourg.
Sir Herbert Williams: May I ask the Prime Minister whether these delegates will have any instructions, or will merely express their own personal views at Strasbourg?
The Prime Minister: The delegates will attend as they always have done, in a personal capacity. The opinions they express are their own, and not necessarily those of their party or of the Government of the day. Consequently, the recommendations of the Assembly are in no way binding and must be considered later by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.
Mr. Ernest Davies: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was attending Strasbourg—is also attending the Committee of Ministers, because in that case he will be attending in two capacities, both as a Minister to the Committee of Ministers and as a representative of this House to the Consultative Assembly?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has a ministerial capacity which does not depart from him in this case.
Mr. Frederick Lee: On a question of the statements made there being personal, has the Prime Minister considered the statements made by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on so many occasions, which now contravene Government policy?
The Prime Minister: I always bear these carefully in mind. I am glad to see how much more acceptable they now seem to be to the other side of the House than in the days when the former Government were in power.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended, considered.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

    Clause 1.—(CHARGES FOR CERTAIN DRUGS MEDICINES AND APPLIANCES.)
    3.53 p.m.
    Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, at the end, to insert:
    "drugs, medicines or appliances authorised to be supplied before the commencement of this Act, or in respect of."
    This Amendment has been put down in order to draw attention to a circular which has been issued by the Minister of Health to the hospital authorities instructing them to warn patients for whom appliances are being supplied that, in view of legislation now going through Parliament, they may, when those appliances are actually delivered, have to pay for them. We take the view that it is rather extraordinary that before this House has parted with a Bill and before Parliament has passed it into law, steps should be taken to inform people for whom appliances were thought to be necessary several weeks ago—in many cases, several months ago—that they will have to pay for them.
    This House has not yet approved the principle—or at least not the detail—that there should be a charge for appliances, and even if and when the House does that, the Bill will have to go to another place and receive the Royal Assent before it becomes law. These appliances very frequently take a long time to make even after the specialist at the hospital has decided that they are necessary for certain disabilities. It takes a considerable time to measure the patient, to make the appliance and then to fit it, and perhaps to alter it until it is entirely suitable. The manufacturers of these appliances are highly specialised people producing a made-to-measure article. In the nature of things, they cannot produce these appliances very rapidly, and because of that reason they have long waiting lists.
    In any case there are waiting lists at the hospitals, so that we have the position in which patients who may already have been waiting some weeks or months for

    1669
    an appliance considered to be absolutely necessary for their condition will not have it supplied until after this Bill may become an Act, and will then have to pay for it. We think it an unwarrantable presumption on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to assume that the Bill now before the House is going to become an Act and that, in so far as there is a deterrent effect in the levying of charges of this kind, he should try to produce that effect before the Bill becomes law. We believe that hardship may be inflicted by this procedure.
    I think that I have said sufficient to indicate the general lines of the argument, and I will now leave it to some of my hon. Friends to place before the House evidence in their possession in order that we may make progress in the discussion of the other Amendments which stand on the Order Paper in our names. I know that my hon. Friends will produce very interesting and valuable evidence in support of this Amendment.
    Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I wish to support this Amendment because there is very definite evidence that the hospitals have been contacting those people who will be receiving some sort of surgical or other appliance asking them to sign forms undertaking to make the payment laid down in the Bill, which has not yet become law.
    As no doubt the Minister of Health knows, there are a number of questions on the Order Paper from hon. Members representing different parts of the country commenting on this request to people to sign forms undertaking to make such a payment. Apart from the fact that people are resenting this and are finding that it is putting them in a very difficult position, I think it wrong that advance administrative arrangements should be made and that people should be asked to sign such forms.
    There is another point with reference to this matter. I do not know exactly what has happened in the matter, but only this weekend I heard of a case where the parents of a child of three-and-a-half years had been informed by the hospital in which the child had been that, owing to a very grave deficiency of calcium, it would never be able to grow a proper set of teeth. The child was sent to hospital and all its teeth were
    1670
    extracted. It was then sent home and soon afterwards was sent to one of the dental hospitals in Liverpool, where a complete set of false teeth was made for it. The child is only three-and-a-half years old, and I was informed that this was the smallest set of dentures ever made in the history of the dental profession.
    4.0 p.m.
    Last Friday when the father and mother appeared at the hospital to obtain the dentures, they were told they could not have them unless they made an immediate payment of £4 5s. They were unable to pay that sum and they asked to be allowed to make a weekly contribution because the child needed the appliance immediately. They were told they could not make any weekly payment and that, although the teeth were available in the department, they could not be supplied until payment of £4 5s. was made. The parents who are working-class people, had to go home and find some means of borrowing the money, and until yesterday I had the receipt for £4 5s. in my possession.
    It is obvious that something has happened in the hospital service to compel a dental department to insist upon immediate payment of that kind. I have since taken steps to see that a refund was made through the maternity and child welfare department. When I asked about this matter I was told that things were in such a difficult administrative state that the people concerned did not know exactly what was happening and that they had instructions to do certain things in relation to payments.
    These matters should be straightened out to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen. It causes great difficulty to people requiring these appliances, and any amount of evidence can be supplied to show that people are asked to sign certificates that, as soon as this Bill comes into operation, they will pay for these appliances.
    Mr. Hylton-Foster: Can the hon. Lady indicate under which Statute this charge was made?
    Mrs. Braddock: I could not say; but the charge was made and it should not have been made. This was a child of three and a half years. I understood that

    1671
    children of school age or below school age were exempt from payments of this kind. This is the first time that I have had any intimation or anybody has come to me to say that a request has been made for immediate payment in respect of a child. Obviously there is something wrong administratively which should be straightened out. The Minister should give a guarantee that no charge will be demanded in advance of this Bill becoming operative. As far as I understand the position it is quite unusual to ask for payment in advance of a Bill coming into force.
    Mr. Iain MacLeod: It is true that children's glasses were exempt. Children's dentures are obviously extremely rare and this case apparently was not so exempt. But the hon. Lady is clearly arguing, not for an amendment of this Bill, but for an amendment of the 1951 Act.
    Mrs. Braddock: No. The whole matter is being dealt with at the moment by running the previous Act into the present Bill. But what I was just saying was that the Minister should declare that nobody should be asked to sign in advance a statement undertaking to pay after the date when the Bill comes into operation. Anything that is needed between now and that date comes under the old Act which prescribes no charge, and we should not presuppose that all the Clauses of this Bill will be put into operation.
    Mr. George Jeger: I want to support the argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), in support of this Amendment. I want to refer to cases brought to my attention in my constituency in Goole, during the past weekend, when three people came to see me bearing notices making a request from the Bartholomew Hospital. The notices were headed, "Surgical Appliances," and were worded in this way:
    "This is to inform you that it is possible that, as a result of measures now under consideration by Parliament, you may be charged the sum of £3 for the surgical boots ordered for you. Would you therefore sign and return to the hospital the enclosed statement to show that yon understand the position."
    1672
    That reinforces the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange, that people are being asked to agree to pay, in anticipation of the Bill now before the House becoming an Act of Parliament. We on this side of the House believe that this Bill contains many measures which are harmful and mean and which should never be there at all. Once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, we have to accept its provisions, but surely it is going a long way to expect people to accept responsibility for payment before those payments have been approved by this House or by another place.
    I urge upon the Minister that he should mitigate hardships imposed upon people by this Bill by saying that nothing in it shall take effect until the Bill actually has been passed. In the cases I have quoted, the surgical boots were ordered last August, under the administration of a different Government, when there was no question of payment being made and in circumstances where it cannot be said that these three patients were anticipating that a charge would be levied on the boots and were therefore seeking to evade that charge. Of course they were not.
    Because of the delay, for which they have not been responsible, in making and fitting the boots to their satisfaction, they are being asked to agree to a payment under a Bill which has not yet become an Act of Parliament. I do not know whether it is legal to expect them to agree to that. I believe an hon. Member opposite was so moved by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange that even he questioned whether it was legal.
    Dr. H. Morgan: It is not legal.
    Mr. Jeger: Whether it is legal or not, it is imposing on the goodwill of the poor patients concerned to ask them to agree in anticipation, and it is mean. I advise the Minister not to lose what little goodwill he has in the country and to accept this Amendment and advice, actuated by a good deal of humanitarian feeling on both sides of the House. I ask him to say that no charge will be levied until the Bill becomes an Act.
    Mr. George Chetwynd: It seems to me that there are constitutional, legal and social issues involved

    1673
    here and that the Minister should give a full explanation of what is taking place. We are entitled to know on whose authority this kind of instruction has been sent to the people concerned. Has there been a central directive from the Minister in anticipation of the Bill becoming an Act? If there has, the Minister must believe that we are wasting our time here in deliberating on this Bill. There was an Amendment down to deal with this subject and no one could anticipate what the result of it would be. To send this note round a week or a fortnight, or whatever it was, before the Bill became an Act seems to be a grave constitutional impropriety.
    Secondly, there is the point of its legality. A contract has been entered into, and when people first ordered the boots the suppliers were acting on the understanding that they would receive payment from the Ministry and none would be made by the patient. Now it seems that they have to have a payment from the recipient as well, and if the recipient refuses or fails to take up the article when he is faced with a charge, it seems to me that there would be a case for a breach of contract between the maker and the Ministry to cover any cost involved.
    Thirdly, we have the important social point—that these patients undertook their action on the understanding that they would receive the appliances free of charge, whereas now they find that they must pay. What we want to know, and what we are entitled to know, is this: exactly how many of these four appliances have been ordered to date and not supplied? How long is the waiting list in each case? I understand that one of the major reasons why the charge for hearing aids was not proceeded with was that there is a long waiting list which cannot be worked off under, perhaps, one or two years.
    If it was right to drop charges in that case because people who had already ordered could not be exempted, then there is a very strong case, if the charges for appliances ordered in future cannot be dropped, why the Minister should accept the Amendment and relieve from payment those who have already applied and been examined. We should also like some assurance that there is no holdup in the immediate supply of these
    1674
    appliances owing to the fact that in a few weeks' time people will have to pay for them. There should be no delay of that kind. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. A. C. Manuel: I shall be very brief, but I think we should probe this position a little further. It is quite reprehensible that people should be asked to sign these contract forms, binding them to pay varying amounts in connection with the supply of certain appliances. As an hon. Member who previously was a member of a regional hospital board, I am certain that the regional board did not issue these instructions to the hospitals under their command on their own initiative. I am equally certain that the boards of management of the respective hospitals or groups of hospitals are not acting on their own initiative.
    I think the Minister should tell the House how this has happened and what directive has been issued from his Department anticipating an Act of Parliament. Or does he not believe any longer in democracy? Does he believe that directives should be issued anticipating what is going to happen in an Act of Parliament—issued at a time when the Measure is still a Bill before the House? Surely such action is entirely wrong. [Interruption.] I can believe that the hon. Gentleman would take that sort of Hitlerite action and anticipate legislation in order to get the cuts in the Health Service which he wants, but we certainly do not agree with that idea and we do not believe that it is democracy.
    I hope the Minister will follow the principle which last year's Act indicated quite clearly—that where treatment or appliances were authorised in hospitals before the Act came into force, there would be no charge. That was quite clear. In hospitals, where dentures were to be supplied but could not be supplied until after the Act came into force, they were nevertheless supplied free.
    Mr. Iain MacLeod rose—
    Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman will have a full opportunity to vote for this Amendment and to strengthen our hands. I hope the Minister will tell us how this mistake arose—because surely it is a mistake—and how this circular was sent to hospitals indicating to them that they

    1675
    should ask for payment to be contracted under a provision which will become operative only when the Bill becomes law.
    4.15 p.m.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): It might perhaps be convenient if I intervened now and explained the situation about this Amendment, but before I do so I should like to clear up a point raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who referred to a case in which a charge was made for a set of dentures for a child. That has nothing to do with the Amendment, which deals with charges under the first Clause. The first Clause has nothing to do with teeth. If, in spite of that, I may answer the hon. Lady, I would point out that any charges which are being levied for a set of dentures are being levied under the Act of 1951 and have nothing to do with what we are discussing today.
    Mrs. Braddock: What I was saying was that in this case, where the teeth were taken out in hospital and had to be replaced, there should not have been a charge on this child of three and a half years. I raised the matter because there must have been a mistake somewhere. In ordinary circumstances the parents would have been referred by the hospital to the maternity and child welfare department, who would have dealt with the matter, instead of a request being made for an immediate payment of £4 5s. I suggest that it arises from the issue of a new directive and that the matter should be cleared up.
    Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Lady's suggestion is ill-founded. There may or may not have been a mistake in this instance about making a charge; I cannot possibly know offhand; but whether there was or not, it has nothing in the world to do with what we are discussing here. I appreciate that the hon. Lady has made a point, and if there is anything to look into, I will look into it; but it has nothing to do with this Amendment or this Clause or, indeed, the Bill, because it all stems from the 1951 Act under which charges can be made for dentures.
    I come to the Amendment. Hon. Gentlemen have asked whether any circular was issued bringing these matters to
    1676
    the notice of hospital patients, and the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) made a great attack upon my views on democracy and upon the impropriety of my action, if any, in this matter. I can explain the situation perfectly clearly, and I am really rather surprised that hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies have brought the matter up.
    When I spoke on the Second Reading on 27th March, I said exactly what I was going to do and exactly what was in my mind. If I may be allowed to quote it, the House will see that I have done nothing contrary to what I said I was going to do. Whether that is right or wrong is another matter, but certainly I have done nothing unusual.
    "I want to be quite fair to the House. Although I have full power, and have had ever since we came into office, as did hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to impose the major charges under the 1949 Act, it is much more decent and proper, in the Parliamentary sense, so long as we are making amendments and extensions, to wait until the Bill has received the Royal Assent, if so that be.
    I see the right hon. Gentleman agreeing with that and I hope he will agree with me in this. I think it is only fair now for hospitals to warn people who attend to have appliances prescribed for them to say, This Bill is before Parliament and if it is passed you will have to pay a certain amount towards these appliances if you do not get them before the Bill is enacted. I think that that warning should be given and I hope the House will not think it improper."
    As I read it—and it is not within my recollection—I think I must have paused there because the next sentence says:
    "As there is no dissent, I hope the House will think it fair"—
    certainly there is nothing in the OFFICIAL REPORT in the way of interruptions. I said:
    "As there is no dissent, I hope the House will think it fair to do that as quickly as possible."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 857]
    That is what I said I was going to do—that it was only fair to warn people that the Bill was before the House and that one of the results of it might be that they would have to pay, and to send out the warning as soon as possible.
    Mr. Jeger: The point I attempted to make in my few remarks was that this request for payment was being made to patients who had already made their applications, had been measured, and were on the point of being fitted with

    1677
    their appliances. They were not new patients turning up at the hospital for the first time after the right hon. Gentleman had made his statement. If they were, I am prepared to concede that this request would be perfectly fair; but for old patients who had been having treatment for many months—in the cases I have cited, since last August—it is most unfair that they should come under the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman for the continuation of that treatment.
    Mr. Crookshank: I was not dealing with that point. I was trying to explain how the position arose. I thought people should be warned. If it had been done the other way round and nothing had been said until the particular day when the Regulation came in, so that nobody knew about it in advance, I am quite sure that people would have been very indignant if they had then been immediately required to pay.
    That is why we have asked that the people concerned should be made aware of the situation. There is no question of anticipating legislation. The hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central, said I was anticipating legislation, but I am not doing anything of the sort. I am not anticipating anything. I am giving a warning of what might happen. We have been discussing the Finance Bill. Does the hon. Member not realise that taxes are collected long before the House passes the Finance Act?
    Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas rose—
    Mr. Crookshank: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), is not taking exception to what I am saying about the warning?
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: No. I gather the right hon. Gentleman will not give way?
    Mr. Crookshank: The warning is nothing more than a warning. This is the notice which I suggested should be displayed:
    "A Bill has been introduced in Parliament which, if enacted, may result in certain appliances and repairs being made chargeable."
    That is the warning.
    Mrs. Braddock: They are asked to sign advance agreements.
    Mr. Crookshank: I wish the hon. Lady would allow me to make my speech by taking it in stages. First of all, I told the House I was going to do this, and nobody dissented at the time. I made reference to the matter during the Second Reading debate. The hospital authorities have given the warning that a Bill is before the House and that if it is passed certain charges may be payable. Then, to make quite sure that individuals realised what was going on, they were asked to sign a statement to show that they understood the position. It is perfectly clear. That is all they have been asked to do. It is even underlined in the circular. It is emphasised that none of the charges referred to will be payable unless the necessary Regulations come into operation.
    I do not think that the English language could be put more simply to explain what was the position. That is what the Government had in mind. We hope that the Bill will at some time become an Act and, under Regulations made, charges will become payable on a particular date.
    Mr. Manuel rose—
    Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman has made his speech. Let him contain himself. The Government anticipated that the Bill would be enacted. These are all suppositions which it is legitimate for a Government to make—that what the Bill says will be carried out, that Regulations will be introduced and, as a result, charges will be levied—but all that was some time ahead, after 27th March, and we thought it was right and proper to give an immediate warning, as soon as the Bill was introduced, that that might happen.
    Dr. Morgan: It was an irregular action.
    Mr. Crookshank: I should be interested to know where the hon. Member thinks it is irregular. He can protest against it if he likes, but I am perfectly sure that the ordinary people would prefer to have it done that way rather than to wait until the actual moment the Regulation was introduced and to be told: "As from today, without any warning at all, you have to pay." Other people may have different opinions, but that is the action I took and I warned the House in good time that that was what I was going to do. Nobody protested at the time in any way. All that is happening is that people are

    1679
    being asked to make quite sure that they understand the position—that if the charges come into effect before delivery is made of the appliances for which they are waiting, they will have to pay for them. That is the situation in brief.
    I hope that the House will not accept this other arrangement, which has the effect of making some administrative difficulties, not only in trying to track all the people who have ordered these appliances in the past, but discovering when they ordered them. In addition, let us not lose sight of the fact—and I am sorry to have to remind the House of this on the first Amendment on the Report stage—that one of the objects of this Bill is to try to obtain from the Health Service a contribution towards the improvement of our economic and financial situation.
    I say that every time because it is one of the important reasons for this Bill and any extra delay, such as would be involved by this Amendment, would pro tanto reduce the amount we hope to get by these efforts. For that reason, having explained how this circular arose, and having satisfied the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange, that her point has nothing to do with this—
    Mrs. Braddock: I knew that.
    Mr. Crookshank:—I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Manuel: I should like to make one point regarding this retrospective payment—because that is what it is. The Measure of last year did not operate in this way, and where a contract for an appliance had been made before the coming into force of the Act, the appliance was supplied free. There is nothing in this Bill to say that the payment will be retrospective. Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate where this Bill says that retrospective payment will be made for any appliance which was contracted for before the date on which the Act comes into force?
    Mr. Crookshank: There is nothing about retrospective payment. The payment will come into effect when the regulation comes into effect.
    Mr. Hector McNeil: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think again about this Amendment. It may be true that we did not object to his precise phrase on Second Reading. We were
    1680
    then arguing about the principle and were hoping that common sense and justice would prevail and that he would revoke the whole principle he was there advocating. The only objections he attempted to raise were, first, the administrative difficulties, and secondly, the cost.
    The administrative difficulties are not insuperable, as was pointed out by one of my hon. Friends in an intervention a second or two ago. We had a comparable problem to this and we faced it. I am not objecting in the least to the right hon. Gentleman making reasonable provision to warn the patients of these outdoor clinics what is going to happen; but I suggest that where people have entered into treatment and where agreement in principle—perhaps at the end of a surgical operation—has been made, he might, on the certificate of the consultant, take them inside his scheme.
    What is involved? Would the right hon. Gentleman make a guess as to what money would be involved if he gave these poor, distressed and incapacitated people another mite? Surely he is not asking the House to believe that the whole stability of the pound sterling and the economy of this country rest on the question whether he gives £10 million, £20 million, or £50 million?
    4.30 p.m.
    I have to advise my hon. Friends not to press this Amendment at this time, because we have very serious principles to discuss later and we are working under the Guillotine; but the right hon. Gentleman must understand how the House smarts at this little piece of pin-pricking. I do not ask him more than this. Will he reconsider the administrative arrangements which were made, and which did work, in relation to the provision of dental appliances?
    We are not open to abuse here; we have not got people queueing up for this treatment. We are here dealing with people whose treatment is prescribed, and whose appliances are prescribed on the decision of consultants—men of reputation and experience. There can be no possible abuse. Will he not give the House an undertaking that between now and when the Bill leaves the other place he will see whether reasonable administrative arrangements cannot be made so that there will be no retrospective charges?
    Mr. S. S. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the hospital authorities are not only giving information to patients that they may have to pay for their appliances if the Bill becomes an Act, but are also presenting patients with a certificate which the patients must sign to say that they will have to pay for the surgical appliances which will be provided?
    Some of these appliances were ordered long before the right hon. Gentleman's speech on 27th March, and because delivery has been delayed, not through any fault on the part of the patient but because of the manufacturers' delay, the patient will now have to pay. If the position were reversed and the charges were being made prior to 27th March, and if under the Bill no charges were to be made, would the Minister refund the money paid by patients because they were charged before 27th March?
    I have received several letters from people in my constituency. I have a Question on the Order Paper today which was not reached, so I have not yet received the reply, but I presume that I shall have a written reply later on. There is grave dissatisfaction among the people of Bristol at a charge of £3 for surgical boots, and I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter. This will not save him very much money, and I ask him to withdraw the charge he suggests making in this Bill.
    Mr. Iain MacLeod: As I understand it, three points have been put forward by hon. Members opposite in support of this Amendment. One was put forward by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). We need not go any further into that, except to say that I hope it is recorded in HANSARD that with great candour she said in an interjection a short time afterwards that she knew there was nothing in the point she raised.
    Mrs. Braddock: I explained the reason why I raised it.
    Mr. MacLeod: I understand fully why the point was raised, but it is common ground that there was nothing in it.
    The second point was raised by the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel), who used the most extraordin-
    1682
    ary language about the circular. "Hitlerite," I think, was his phrase.
    Mr. Manuel: That was about the hon. Gentleman himself.
    Mr. MacLeod: I do not mind that coming from the hon. Gentleman, if he chooses to use that word about me. Perhaps if he were to cast his eye, not towards this side of the House but a few steps further down, he would see sitting together, very uncomfortably, two people who were responsible a year ago for very similar sorts of considerations in regard to another Bill. Perhaps I might be allowed to quote from what the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) said, speaking about the circular on this year's Bill:
    "I must make it plain that I do not think it was necessarily irregular; I think it would be quite often the case that instructions might be sent out saying, in the event of an enactment taking place, that these administrative arrangements should be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 2889.]
    Mr. McNeil: We are talking of quite different things. The hon. Gentleman is usually so fair about these matters. I was conceding that it was obviously reasonable administration that the Minister of Health should consult about the machinery which he would have to employ and the method that would be chosen for use should the Bill become an Act. We are not talking of exactly comparable circumstances.
    Mr. MacLeod: I understand that. But I go a great deal further. It would have been criminally negligent of my right hon. Friend not to have sent out the same sort of circular as he did this time warning people that these charges were in contemplation by the House of Commons. That is the position, and that is the difference between the two sides of the House. To use the sort of adjectives that were used by hon. Members opposite about what is not only an ordinary administrative act
    Mr. Manuel: A retrospective act.
    Mr. MacLeod:—but an act that was essential to the ordinary workings of administration is not only taking language too far, but shows quite clearly that the Opposition are determined to pick on the most trivial, silly and niggling points

    1683
    to oppose this Bill and to support the Amendment, which I hope will be rejected.
    Mr. Barnett Janner: I wish to occupy the time of the House for only two or three minutes to point out one very important fact which the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), and the Minister have overlooked, which is that there was a contract in existence under the present Act whereby certain appliances had been ordered, and the patients had been measured and informed that the contract was in existence. The actual appliances are almost ready and may be supplied before this Bill comes into force, but nevertheless, letters were sent informing people that, although those arrangements had already been made, they might now be called upon to pay for those appliances and for any other commodity being supplied in accordance with the contract.
    I wish to bring the Minister's attention back to that point. In view of the promises made, people have allowed themselves to be measured, and have been led into the belief that they would receive these appliances without any payment. They have received letters from those who are making the appliances informing them that, in accordance with their order, which had been accepted, the appliances are almost ready. I appeal to the Minister. He still has time, even if this Amendment is not carried, to carry into effect the purport of the Amendment, and to grant what is a very reasonable request: that those who have already been led to believe that the appliances and the commodities which are being supplied to them would be supplied free shall have the right to receive them.
    If charges are to be imposed—although I do not agree that they should be—the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly in order in saying that from the time of the decision to impose the charges people must understand that if they entered into any new arrangement it could not be one which might not call for a charge to be made. But it would be monstrous to call upon those who had already entered into an arrangement, the goods being almost ready, to make a payment, and I hope the House will consider what is proposed by this Amendment to be reasonable.
    1684
    I had hoped that we would press this Amendment to a Division, but apparently there are differences of view about that in consequence of the time factor. Even if the Amendment is not pressed to a Division, I earnestly hope the Minister will see that this is not a frivolous point. It is not a sentimental point. It is a point of considerable substance and of material value to those who are suffering considerably and who have been led to believe that they will get what they are entitled to get free of charge.
    Mr. William Keenan: This is about the fiftieth time that I have attempted to speak on this Clause, and I was beginning to wonder if there was some reason why I had not been called.
    The Minister seems to assume that he is in a similar position to that of the Chancellor and that when he made an announcement on this Bill everything in that announcement was agreed to in the same way as when the Budget Resolutions were passed. Nobody could assent to that proposition. It is arrogant of the right hon. Gentleman to take that attitude in order to try to justify his administrative blot.
    I have listened to many speeches on this Clause, and, as has been said, we are dealing here with people, including inpatients in hospitals, who are among the poorest in the population, and that part of the population who, generally speaking, are unemployed, dependent upon publc assistance, or old-age pensioners, or those who are in receipt of National Assistance. This Clause demands that the people who are least able to pay should pay because they have the misfortune to be in hospital. The Minister has become so arrogant in this matter that he seems to think that he is in the same position as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and can do just as he likes.
    Mr. Tudor Watkins: I might have intervened with greater authority if I had been fortified with information to Questions 98 and 99 on today's Order Paper relating to the issue of forms to applicants for surgical appliances seeking an undertaking from them to pay charges under the National Health Service Bill. This is very important, because I think the Minister ought not to have sent these circulars to the hospital management committees.

    1685
    There is supposed to have been a precedent, but I maintain that the Minister ought to have informed applicants for surgical appliances that they could have them free if they were in receipt of National Assistance. It is contended that it will not be possible to find out how many people in that category require these appliances, but I suggest that hospital management committees have records containing this information. Therefore, there is no administrative difficulty at all. I have asked the Minister whether these forms could be withdrawn, but I have not yet had an answer to my question.
    A case has been made out to show that it is unfair that these people in need of these appliances should be asked to pay for them. Because they are in receipt of National Assistance and also because of lack of information on the form, many of them have said that they no longer require their appliances, since they are unable to pay for them. I suggest that the Minister should reconsider this matter and accept this Amendment.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Aneurin Bevan: I apologise to the House for not being present earlier to hear the Minister's statement; it was impossible for me to be here then. I did, however, hear the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), and it seemed to me to be a most astonishing statement. I do not think there is any precedent for this proposal at all. It is quite right for the Minister to make certain administrative preparations within his own Department because certain legislation is proposed and there is a likelihood that it will be carried into effect, but there is no precedent for that information reaching individual patients before Parliament has passed the legislation.
    The very fact that these patients are being informed—I am not quite certain to what extent Privilege is involved here—that, since certain legislation is being considered by Parliament, they will be called upon to pay, and the fact that they have to sign this undertaking, is evidence that the physical process of attending to their difficulties will already have started.
    That being so, I maintain that these are the very kind of persons to whom legislation ought not to be made retrospective. I am quite amazed at this procedure. I have written to the Minister.
    1686
    I have had many letters from different parts of the country from old people and people in various walks of life stating that they have been to the hospital and that the surgeon has told them that they will be called upon to pay something towards their treatment. Why?
    No one can suggest that that is administrative efficiency. It is administrative parsimony. I challenge the hon. Member for Enfield, West, on this point. There is nothing wrong in the Minister asking the hospital authorities to make the necessary administrative preparations for applying these charges in the event of Parliament deciding that they are to be imposed, but why should such administrative action go outside the Department itself and reach the patient when the House of Commons is still debating the matter?
    We are also assuming the complete docility of the other place. Have we had a guarantee that the other place will agree with what we send them? This is a most amazing business. After all, Parliament considers legislation of this sort in both Houses. It either starts in the other place and comes here, or starts here and goes to the other place. But here we have the Minister telling not only his own officials but citizens of the country that he is practically certain of the complete docility of the other place as well as of this House, and that the individuals must realise that these charges are going to be made.
    Mr. Arthur Colegate: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about precedents, he seems entirely to have forgotten that Sir Stafford Cripps, before the Budget was passed, repeatedly warned the citizens of this country of what he was going to do.
    Mr. Bevan: This is an entirely different matter. If certain legislation is carried, certain classes of citizens will have certain charges imposed upon them, but here we have not classes of citizens but the individual patient.
    Mr. Colegate: Sir Stafford Cripps warned two individuals; he warned Mr. Lord and Sir John Black by name.
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is seeking to put a poor man who is attending hospital and being measured for an appliance on the same basis as

    1687
    a proposed act to cheat the intention of Parliament. That was the case then. The two cases are not parallel at all. I understand, speaking from memory on the spur of the moment, that it was intended in that other case that certain forms of income should be taxed, and then it was thought that certain firms were going behind that by making payments of another kind to cheat the intention of Parliament. A person going along for a special kind of boot is not cheating Parliament. He is proceeding to exercise his normal legal rights. Here, however, we are hitting at him.
    I must say that of all the mean pieces of behaviour, this is about the limit. I challenge the Minister. I have made inquiries to try to find out whether there is any precedent for it, but I can think of no precedent for it at all. I think that for a sheer, downright dog-in-the-manger attitude, this surpasses anything. It is the sheer limit, and ought to make the Minister ashamed of himself.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It seems to me that the House is in danger of confusing two separate questions. The first question is whether the material date of the operation of these charges should be the date of supply or some anterior point such as that of prescription. That is one question. The second question is whether, if the date of supply is the material date, as it is as the Bill now stands, the Minister has acted rightly in the administrative arrangements which he has made. I want to address myself only to the second point, because it is perfectly clear to me that he would have been liable to severe blame if he had not made those arrangements.
    I want to read to the House the terms of a typical document which is being issued to patients for signature. The wording is this:
    "I wish to be supplied with"—
    and then there is a blank for the name of the appliance to be inserted—
    "and I understand"—
    the patient is signing to the effect that he understands; he is merely saying he understands—
    "that I will have to pay"—
    1688
    that is false English for "I shall have to pay"—
    "the Ministry of Health if charges are authorised by Act of Parliament."
    "I sign that I understand that, if an Act of Parliament is passed, then such and such effects will follow." That is what he is signing. If he had not had a document for signature, and later the charges were made, he could say, "I did not understand. You did not tell me. It was not made clear to me."
    Mr. Keenan: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman knows what he is saying and means what he is saying, but he is agreeing to retrospective paying. So is the patient, if he signs. It is not even as though the patient were signing after the passing of the Act of Parliament. He is signing something two or three months before the Measure is passed. Therefore, it will be retrospective payment, if the patient agrees to pay.
    Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman has reverted to the first of the two questions. The first question was whether charges should be imposed on persons who were measured for these appliances, or for whom they were prescribed, before the coming into force of the Bill. I am on a quite different point, a point which has been widely canvassed during this debate—which is why I can speak to it—namely, if charges are to be made from the date of supply, if the date of supply is to be the material date, should or should not my right hon. Friend have done what he has. I return to the point I had reached.
    It is common knowledge that people are constantly invited to take notice of the effect of legislation while it is passing through Parliament from the date of its first publication. If anyone can overcome the natural nausea which assails anyone reading the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, he will see that, throughout the Bill which became that Act, it was assumed that the citizens of the country in their transactions would take account of the provisions of that Measure. That left quite open the question whether the Bill would, in fact, reach the Statute Book at all, or whether it would reach it in the form in which the Bill was presented; but the citizens of the country were invited to take note, as they always have been, of what was going through this House of Commons.

    1689
    The persons affected by these charges are not people having legal advisers watching Parliament for them. They might have remained unaware of the consequences of what was being done. It was right and indispensable that it should be brought personally to their attention, under the guarantee of signature, how they would be affected if—and the word "if" is the material word—such and such legislation reached the Statute Book. Had my right hon. Friend not seen to it that that understanding was secured, he would have been open to and would have been subjected to great criticism.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "any services provided," and to insert:
    "(a) the supply of any drug, medicine or appliance."
    This is a drafting Amendment, in anticipation of the next Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after "hospital," to insert:
    (b) the supply of any drug or medicine for the treatment of venereal disease;
    (c)the supply of any appliance for a person who is under sixteen years of age or is undergoing full time instruction in a school within the meaning of the Education Act, 1944, or the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946; or
    (d) the replacement or repair of any appliance in consequence of a defect in the appliance as supplied.
    This Amendment carries out and accepts suggestions made on the Committee stage. It relates to the subsection which refers to items on which there will be no charge. The first paragraph, (b), provides that there should be no charge for the supply of drugs and medicines for the treatment of venereal disease. There was an Amendment on that subject down by hon. Gentlemen opposite which I should have accepted, subject to drafting, had it been reached; and the Parliamentary Secretary made it clear on 9th April that we were going to deal with this matter. The only question was whether it should be dealt with by the Regulations or whether it should be in the Bill.
    We came to the conclusion that this particular matter should be dealt with in
    1690
    the Bill, because we are signatories to the Brussels Agreement of 1924, under which we are under obligation to provide free treatment of venereal disease and any necessary drugs and medicines for the purpose for foreign merchant seamen; and because we were committed to that extent in this field it seemed wise to put it in the body of the Bill so that it should be quite clear to anybody interested that we were carrying out our obligations. That was the reason for deciding as we have on the question of Bill versus Regulation.
    The second point on which I should say, perhaps, a word, is the reason why venereal disease should be brought in and other diseases not specifically mentioned. Apart from the international effects of the Brussels Agreement, the reason is that, of course, this particular disease, since 1916, has been in a very special position, and is one of those in which the spread of infection can be prevented by prompt treatment by drugs; and for that reason it is distinguished from some of the other illnesses and diseases which were mentioned in the general debate which we had earlier on. That is the position about paragraph (b).
    Now, as to paragraph (c) about the children. There again, I think, there was an Amendment down. Anyhow, it was always the intention that the appliances here should be exempted, both as regards supply and repair, because in the case of children—of growing children—there are obviously rather different considerations from those which apply in the case of adults. It was always the intention that they should be exempted, and the question was whether we should do it by Regulation or by Bill. There was an Amendment down and, therefore, I gave the matter further consideration, and in view of the fact that we had also amended Clause 2 by bringing adults into the exemptions provided in that Clause, I thought it more tidy and right to put this in here. That is the explanation of paragraph (c).
    5.0 p.m.
    As to paragraph (d), there was again an Amendment put down, I think, by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), which was not moved, but with which I was ready to deal. I have, therefore, brought before the House this suggestion, that we should make this

    1691
    Amendment now, so that there can be no charge for either replacing or repairing an appliance in consequence of a defect in the appliance itself when supplied. As it is an Amendment which was suggested by the hon. Member for Tottenham, perhaps I ought to leave it to him to amplify any further point which he thinks ought to be within the knowledge of the House.
    This Amendment thus brings in three quite different matters, all of which, I think, in view of the Amendments on the Order Paper in previous discussions, will be acceptable to the House.
    Mr. McNeil: I shall leave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) any elaboration of paragraph (d) and, at a later stage, we shall have some elaboration to make on paragraph (b). That is not to say that neither I nor my hon. Friends do not greatly welcome these concessions which the Minister has offered. I intervene to plead with the Minister to go a little further than he has done in paragraph (c).
    The House will have noticed that some of my hon. Friends and I, at an earlier stage, had down an Amendment to which, I suppose, I must not make any reference since it was not called. The first Amendment on the Order Paper has not been called, and I am not grumbling about that. It would, however, be convenient for the House to consider now the principle which was embodied in that Amendment which was not called.
    That Amendment proposed to exempt children under the age of 16 from this shilling charge. It will be quite appropriate to discuss it now because there has been called, and the House is discussing, an Amendment under which the Government are doing exactly the same thing in relation to appliances as we propose to do in relation to drugs and medicine. So perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to say that as he has admitted the principle in relation to the supply of appliances, the provision of free dental treatment and the provision of free dental examination by these concessions, which are concessions to the conception that good hygiene habits are of great importance to the nation, that, similarly, drugs and medicine should be made available without charge of any kind at least to children under 16.
    1692
    The case obviously could be elaborated at some length. There is a most excellent compassionate case to be made. In our country, as in most other Western countries, we naturally tend to see that children and infants are the first to be relieved of any distress or pain. There is also a very good public health case to be made. If we are really permitting any barrier to be put between the mother and the doctor, then we are running the risk of spreading infection. The right hon. Gentleman cannot really believe, even if he is highly successful in the collection of his miserable shillings from these children, that there will be any saving to the nation if there is an increase of even 1 per cent. in the infectious hospital population in the year. It would be a complete waste in terms of national economy.
    It is, no doubt, very difficult for many of us to appreciate that there are women in this country, good, frugal housewives, who count their income in shillings, and whose income, when it comes to a Thursday or Friday, is confined exclusively to shillings. It is very difficult perhaps to believe that is so, but it is so. They "manage," as they say in my part of the world, and they manage with great pride and do not want any assistance but when it comes to Thursday or Friday, every shilling in the woman's purse is counted, earmarked and apportioned.
    When we get to the stage when a woman has to decide to call in a doctor, who is freely available, but knowing that he will prescribe and that she will have to find a shilling, it means literally—the right hon. Gentleman seems a little puzzled as to how this creeps in. I appreciate that it is difficult for him to understand everything that is happening in this House, but I have pointed out to the Chair, and the Chair has not disproved me, that since the Government Amendment deals in one case with making appliances available for children and, in another case, drugs and medicines being available to adults, it is scarcely irrelevant that drugs and medicines should be made available freely to children. That is what I am arguing.
    I know that it must be very unpleasant for the right hon. Gentleman. We do not want, in this distinguished House, to have to think of anything so unpleasant as a mother having to forgo a meal in order to find a shilling for a child's prescription.

    1693
    That is one of the subjects we have been discussing, and which I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to consider again before this Bill comes back from another place.
    I do not want to be sharp or angry about this business. We have objected to many of the provisions of the Bill, but there is none more mean, and none, I think, more short-sighted than this one, that we should exact a shilling for an infant's prescription.
    Mr. Iain MacLeod: It is not in the Bill.
    Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman is leaving himself wide open. Of course it is in the Bill. He forgets that we are suggesting a charge for a prescription for an infant or child or for anyone else from out-patients' department or consultant is in the Bill. The hon. Member for Enfield, West said that it was not in the Bill. He was referring to the general practitioner's prescription. The Minister told us that he is going to do that by Regulation, and it needs no stretch of imagination to believe that what he does in regard to prescriptions for out-patients' departments he will do under the Act in relation to the general practitioner. That is the end of the speech I wanted to make, and that is why I place the Amendment which was not called at the top of the paper.
    Mr. Frederick Messer: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in paragraph (b), after "disease," to insert "or tuberculosis."
    I should like first to express my appreciation of the Minister's action in accepting the Amendments, all of which were inspired by me. The right hon. Gentleman does not get many bouquets, but I am very glad to be in the position of expressing my gratitude to him. I feel sure that when I have finished by speech on tuberculosis, he will be as generous on this Amendment as he has been on the others.
    The Minister said that the reason that he has accepted the Amendment on venereal disease arises from the Convention of 1924, when we in company with 40 other nations agreed that we would treat each other's nationals quite free. Obviously, however, the reason for that international agreement was because it was recognised that venereal disease had a
    1694
    certain special position which did not apply to ordinary diseases. It stood in a class almost by itself. The reason that motivated that Convention can, perhaps, be used in connection with tuberculosis too.
    There are two diseases that might be said to be something more than merely a medical problem—they are social problems. What we did in reference to venereal disease was to attempt to protect the community. The same thing, surely, must be agreed in regard to tuberculosis. Respiratory tuberculosis is infective. It is not merely in the interests of the individual, but in the interests of the community, that we should take every step possible to minimise the number of those who contract it.
    I am bound to say that the steps which have been taken within recent years have been successful. We have seen a very big reduction in the mortality rates of tuberculosis. But although that is true, and it is very encouraging to see that within the period of the National Health Service the tuberculosis mortality rates have dropped by 2,151 in one year, which is 10 per cent., the morbidity figures do not give so much encouragement.
    At the beginning of 1949 there were 261,696 cases. At the end of 1949 that figure went up to 272,040 cases. It will be realised that we shall not be getting on top of this problem unless we continue doing what we have started: that is, to give every encouragement to those who might be suspected of having tuberculosis, to get early treatment.
    There are three questions which I might put to the Minister. Does he agree that it would be harmful to discourage patients to have early treatment? Does he agree that a charge for prescriptions is bound to have a deterrent affect? Thirdly, does he agree that the problem is one which affects the community and not the individual?
    Whatever may be the Minister's opinion, I feel certain that all those engaged in this service—all authorities, the National Association for the Prevention of Tuberculosis, the Tuberculosis Association and the medical staffs at chest clinics and hospitals—agree that the payment is likely to have a deterrent effect. One cannot measure just the extent of the deterrent, but the point is that we have spent an enormous amount of public money.

    1695
    5.15 p.m.
    We have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 45 to 50 miniature mass-radiography units. We are advertising and asking people to come and have an X-ray. If we discover that there is a shadow on the lung, they are sent to the chest clinic, where sputum tests and blood counts are taken. As the Ministry's report shows, we have now got the waiting lists down to a manageable proportion, and if the tests give a positive result we are able to admit patients at a very early stage. There is not a doctor in the House or anywhere else who would not agree that if one gets that lesion in its early stages, one has a very much better opportunity of preventing the patient from developing a chronic condition or from dying.
    I wonder whether we have yet grasped the magnitude of this problem? On the hoardings we read of 100 deaths a week on the roads. The drama and the tragedy of it seizes us, and organisations and associations get together to see what can be done to make the roads safer. But nobody seems to notice that there are 400 deaths a week from tuberculosis. That is not sensational, and it does not capture the headlines.
    There is here a double problem. There is, first, the human problem. I repeat that we are dealing not with the individual, but with the community; and every authority agrees that we cannot deal with the individual. When dealing with tuberculosis, we must regard the family as the unit; and we are going back when we now say that the treatment for tuberculosis shall not be free.
    That treatment has been free since 1936. Local authorities that were running their hospitals, whilst they assessed a patient or a patient's legally liable relative for ordinary cases, admitted T.B. cases free. Chest clinic treatment was free. But now, in 1952, we are putting the clock back and we are saying that tuberculosis cases must now pay for medicine.
    One of the reasons why the mortality figure has gone down is due to the discovery which has been made by our scientists. There are two drugs of comparatively recent discovery. One is streptomycin, and the other is para amyl salycic acid, which is better known as P.A.S. It is widely known—I am giving away no confidence—that the Minister
    1696
    has been approached and that it has been pointed out to him that it is necessary that these drugs should be prescribed.
    I say very little about streptomycin beyond the fact that it is a very expensive drug and is usually given by injection. In its early days, it was discovered that if one went beyond a course of about six weeks' treatment, the germ developed a resistance to streptomycin, and so if a patient did not respond within six weeks, the treatment was discontinued. But it was found that when the second drug—P.A.S.—was taken in conjunction with streptomycin, it prevented that resistance.
    The point is that if a T.B. patient goes to the doctor the doctor says, "I am sorry, but I can only prescribe P.A.S. in small quantities, the reason being that in solution it deteriorates so rapidly that it will not be very much use. Therefore, I must give it to you in small quantities at a time and you must come frequently as a patient." But every time the patient goes he must pay.
    The Minister has been approached and has sent an answer to the query by saying, "Oh, yes, that is true, but this drug can be prescribed in granulated or cachet form, and then it will not deteriorate." There is need for some wider knowledge on this subject, for it does not appear to be known that the drug in granulated or cachet form costs three times as much as any solution. The result is that the Minister tells a doctor to prescribe a drug that will cost so much that it would be cheaper if the prescription were free. We are going to get beyond the field of a 1s. prescription in this particular case.
    Every one of us who travels in a crowded tube train is running the risk of infection. Every one of us who has been in the company of someone who has been deterred from getting early treatment is in danger of infection. I want to appeal to the Minister to give greater consideration to this question in another place. There they have numbers of eminent doctors and specialists who can speak with authority on such matters. I have not yet met any of the tuberculosis experts that I have encountered in some of the finest sanatoria in the country, nor have I met any chest physician in the country, who have approved of payment on prescriptions for tuberculosis cases
    I have no desire to detain the House this afternoon, but there is a tragic side

    1697
    to this matter. This disease is peculiar. Those who suffer from it have a strange psychology. They have an optimistic outlook and they believe that they are the people who are going to be exceptions to the rule and are going to be cured. There is this danger that when they go to the chest clinic and get a prescription on which they will have to pay, they will not trouble to go and have the prescription made up because of their belief that they are going to get well and, therefore there is no necessity to pay the money. Even if we have got to economise somewhere else, I urge the Minister not to economise at the expense of what is the most tragic section of our community.
    In any ward of our tuberculosis establishments there are patients whom the doctors will describe as having to undergo a most difficult form of treatment, and who might have been saved had they had early treatment. A very important point which I should like to put is, why have we been able to reduce the waiting lists in hospitals? Because we have organised the service. Suspect cases at the chest clinics have been given initial treatment. They have been admitted to hospital where they have undergone the treatment known as artificial pneumothorax and pneumoperitoneum, and then they have been sent to their homes for a brief period.
    What do we suppose is going to be the attitude of the medical staffs in these hospitals when they know that when the patient is discharged to his home he will now be called upon to pay? They will keep such cases in hospital because there the prescriptions will be free, and that is going to block beds against somebody who might be getting the treatment.
    For all these reasons—and there are many others which can be advanced—I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to accept this Amendment. I am not attempting to make any party point on this. Some considerations rise above the party line, and even if I were to offend against my own party I would still speak as I am speaking and say that we are doing a great disservice not merely to the few people who suffer but to the community at large, for they will suffer if we do not take these steps. This Amendment surely can be supported on the grounds of humanity and more so on the grounds of materialistic economy,
    1698
    for every patient lying in a bed and so absent from the workshop is a loss to the productive capacity of this country. I hope that the Minister will see that of all the diseases and complaints of which we know there is one which stands out and this is that one.
    Dr. A. D. D. Broughton: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment
    My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), in so ably moving this Amendment appealing to the Government for free treatment for tuberculosis cases, has spoken in his usual way with a deep knowledge of the subject and with profound sincerity. The subject of the treatment of tuberculosis is one upon which I could speak at great length but for the fact that we are having to conduct our debate under the procedure of the Guillotine. The Guillotine will fall before very long, and in the meantime many of my hon. Friends will wish to speak. Also, we have many other subjects that require discussion. I shall, therefore, have to confine myself to a comparatively brief speech.
    The Minister of Health a few minutes ago proposed that the treatment of venereal disease shall be free. We agree with him that that should be so but, unless this Amendment is accepted, we are going to find ourselves in the ridiculous position where a person who deliberately leads an immoral life and contracts venereal disease is given free treatment and where a person who, through no fault of his own, has the misfortune to develop tuberculosis has to pay for the treatment.
    I am aware that the treatment of tuberculosis in hospitals and sanatoria will be free, but I am thinking of those thousands of people who are awaiting admission to sanatoria. It is not the case that many of these patients require a bottle of medicine which needs refilling only once a week. The drugs and the medicines which are given to patients suffering from tuberculosis are provided mostly for symptomatic treatment. The tuberculosis patient may have a number of symptoms, all of which require treatment in the form of drugs and medicines. It is by no means uncommon for a tuberculosis patient to require several bottles of medicine, several different medicines and several different kinds of tablets.

    1699
    5.30 p.m.
    It is no exaggeration to say that for a severe case of tuberculosis someone must go very frequently to the chemist's shop with a prescription for medicines or tablets. This charge of 1s. will be imposed upon tuberculosis patients with considerable frequency. As everybody knows, as these patients are incapacitated for work their income is low and they cannot afford the expense.
    There has been no abuse in the use of medicines and drugs by patients suffering from tuberculosis. I regard it as very wrong indeed that the Minister of Health should be trying to raise revenue by imposing this tax upon the drugs and medicines that are required by patients suffering from tuberculosis. We on this side shall support the Minister of Health in his proposal that patients suffering from venereal disease shall have free treatment. I appeal to him to support our Amendment allowing free treatment for patients suffering from tuberculosis.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: I very strongly support the Amendment. There is an increasing tendency in the medical profession to regard tuberculosis of the lung as just as infectious as venereal disease, and to say that unless it is generally so regarded it will never be eliminated. Some people go further and say that nearly all cases of tuberculosis are cases of infection in the earliest years of life, and that it may become quiescent and remain so until later in life. There is very strong support for this view.
    May I give a few points in evidence of this infectivity. The disease is five times as common in households in which there is an active case of tuberculosis. There are cases of school teachers who have infected one after another of the pupils in their class at school. My friend Dr. Seta Lumsden, Medical Officer of Health for Southend, has traced as many as 10 cases of direct infection from one individual. Some little time ago I had occasion to write about tuberculosis in one of the Sunday papers. I got a letter from a man saying that he was suffering from tuberculosis and that one after another his five children got the disease. The poor man did not realise it but he was, of course, the source of the infection.
    Therefore, we have to make sure that there is no barrier against obtaining the
    1700
    best possible treatment, if we want to eliminate the disease. If we want to prevent tuberculosis, we cannot separate prevention and cure. To prevent this disease, the first principle is to provide easy facilities for cure. This has been recognised in what are known as chest clinics. They were originally called clinics or dispensaries for the prevention of consumption. How did they prevent it? Merely by recognising early cases and treating them. So the way to deal with and prevent tuberculosis is to get it early and treat it. The real difficulty is getting it early, and we must provide every facility for this.
    I am attached to one of our hospitals—Hammersmith Hospital—in an administrative capacity. There we have what was called a dispensary for the prevention of tuberculosis, and is now called a chest clinic.
    Mr. Messer: I opened it.
    Mr. Hastings: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) has reminded me that he very kindly came down to open it for us. The medical officer in charge of the clinic is a very keen man who has worked out the history of many of his patients. He finds that the average time between the first development of symptoms and coming to his chest clinic is between four and five months. Already there is a long delay. The imposition of a charge for this treatment will make the delay even longer.
    I regard it as most unfair that whether a person will have to pay for the treatment or not may be merely a matter of chance. If an individual who develops tuberculosis happens to live in Stepney, he will be able within a few days to get into St. Georges-in-the-East Hospital, where there are tuberculosis wards, because there is practically no waiting list, and the treatment will cost him nothing. If he lives in some other part of the country, he may have to wait four or five months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or longer."] Yes, longer in some cases.
    All that time he will need treatment, and all that time, if this abominable Bill goes through, he will have to pay for it. It is not only a question of the individual concerned, but of the people with whom he lives and the public generally. If he receives treatment, for which he may have to pay, unfortunately, he gets at the same time valuable advice how to protect

    1701
    other people and prevent himself from becoming a public danger. He is given facilities, such as a sputum cup, and all that sort of thing, and disinfectant to disinfect his sputum. It is very strongly to the public advantage that every sufferer from tuberculosis should be encouraged to obtain treatment at the earliest possible moment. I therefore desire strongly to support the Amendment.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): The whole House listened to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) with the greatest possible respect, in view of the moderation and the great sincerity with which he put his points before us, and also to those other hon. Gentlemen, both members of the medical profession, who have given us the benefit of their experience and advice this afternoon.
    I want to remind the House of the essential difference which there would appear to be between the venereal diseases and tuberculosis, as referred to by my right hon. Friend when dealing with the original Amendment. Perhaps in their anxiety, those hon. Members who have spoken in support of this Amendment have in some measure exaggerated their case, because it is the fact that the treatment of tuberculosis is undertaken to far the greater extent either in hospitals or in clinics, and that the proportion who receive medicine which is prescribed, and will therefore be subject to the 1s. charge, is really a very small proportion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am stating my case, hon. Gentlemen may state their own. That is my impression.
    Mr. Bevan: If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to interrupt on that point, he said that a large proportion are treated in clinics or as outpatients. Will they therefore have drugs free?
    Commander Galbraith: As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, we are dealing only with prescriptions in out-patients departments. I was dealing with the general arguments which have been put forward in the course of this debate. I thought the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) gave the impression that those who are suffering from this disease will have to pay for treatment, whereas, as I have just said, it is only where there is a pre-
    1702
    scription for use in the home and not in the clinic. After all, those of us who are not experts on the subject are rather inclined to get this muddled. Surely treatment in the majority of cases means treatment either in hospitals or clinics.
    Mr. Hastings: Then am I right in asuming that when a patient in a chest clinic—some, but not all of which, are associated with hospitals—is ordered medicine, in future he will not have to pay for it? Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make that clear?
    Commander Galbraith: Where the treatment is given in the clinic, he will not have to pay for it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Where it is a case of getting a prescription, the shilling charge will be payable. [An HON. MEMBER: "If he is an out-patient."] I hope that is clear to the House. We have had a good many statements as to the great hardship which this would inflict on those who find themselves unable to meet the charge, but the Bill has made provision—
    Mr. Percy Shurmer: No.
    Commander Galbraith: I contend that it has. There is the provision there. The National Assistance Board is always available—
    Mr. Shurmer: But what is the position of a person drawing his Assistance Board money on a Monday if on a Friday he wants a prescription and has not the money to pay? Has he to wait over the week-end and get worse until he can afford to pay?
    Commander Galbraith: I rather think that in such a case application would be made to the Assistance Board prior to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes.
    An Hon. Member: In anticipation?
    Mr. Shurmer: There are hundreds of thousands of people like it.
    Commander Galbraith: It is perfectly open to people to take advantage of it. I have as much sympathy with tuberculosis—
    Mr. Jack Jones: Show it—
    5.45 p.m.
    Commander Galbraith:—as anyone in this House. I have shown my interest in it since I assumed the office which I hold—[An HON. MEMBER: "Sympathy is not enough"]—by visiting both clinics and hospitals. I intend to go on visiting them, because it is not only interesting but advisable that one should know everything possible about this disease. Yet I feel that the speeches may have over-emphasised the position, and I much regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Messer: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman sits down, may I ask him a question? First, I agree with him that the majority of cases are the chronic domiciliary ones and are not affected by this Bill, but that does not mean we ought not to do what we can for them. Second, it is not merely a question of hardship. I never made that point. My point was that it is a deterrent factor in the early cases. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the question I posed? Is it not a fact that every authority agrees that it is wrong to deter people from having early treatment and that if a prescription is imposed it will deter them and, therefore, is that not against the public interest?
    Commander Galbraith: When this Bill becomes an Act and the position is really understood by the public—[An HON. MEMBER: "You do not understand it now"]—I think it will be made clear, particularly at the clinics, that such a deterrent factor will not really exist.
    Mr. Marquand: The reply of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the case which has been put before him so sincerely, so movingly and with so much expert knowledge, is deplorably disappointing. When we on this side of the House occupied the seats opposite, we said that we wanted to mobilise all the resources of the nation in a war against tuberculosis. I had hoped that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have said this evening, "We want to continue that war and we will use every weapon, however small, in the fight." He has refused to do so. Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friends will decide not to pursue the discussion now, but to register their opinion of the refusal in the Division Lobby so that we can get on to other points of great importance which we want to discuss.
    Mr. C. J. M. Alport: I am certain that all those who have followed the steady growth of tuberculosis over the last 20 years and more will have listened with the greatest sympathy to the point raised by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer). As we have heard many times in this House that it is a scourge against which everyone in all parties wishes to take whatever measures are possible in order to end it. What we are really considering in this Amendment is a much wider problem than that of tuberculosis alone.
    After all, there is no special case, on a morbidity basis, for treating tuberculosis any differently from any of the other great killing diseases. If it were taken on a question of statistics, one might say that there was more reason for providing relief for those suffering from heart disease, which is a far greater killing disease than tuberculosis. As I see it, we are really considering whether tuberculosis, like venereal disease, because it is possible to communicate it to other people, deserves special treatment in the interests not merely of the patient but even more in the interests of those who have not so far been unfortunate enough to contract it.
    I should have thought that, if my right hon. Friend were to consider the point further, he should consider it on those grounds and not specially in respect of any particular communicable disease. But we have the evidence of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), when speaking in the debate on the 1949 Bill on an Amendment received from another place, about the impossibility of making any exceptions to the general application of the charges that he was supporting at that time. We should be clear that the principle of the charges has been approved, whether or not there has since been a change of mind on the part of hon. Members opposite, and also that there has since been no evidence to confute the statement of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that he could see no administrative way of making distinctions of this sort.
    One can take a particular example of a disease like venereal disease, which, after all, has a very special form of treatment, but, in dealing with a different problem such as communicable diseases generally, I believe that the principle

    1705
    raised by the right hon. Gentleman would apply. However, if my right hon. Friend is able to consider the point further—no doubt it is one which will be considered—I feel that, whatever arguments may be raised in favour of it, from the point of view of the evidence given by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale on a previous occasion one is unable to support the Amendment.
    Mr. Bevan: It is essential that I should answer that last point. The argument of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) is a simple one. He says that in 1949 I said that discrimination was difficult. Consequently I proceeded to make no charges whatsoever. In this case the hon. Member says, "Because discrimination is difficult, we will charge everybody." I should have thought that there was a slight difference between the two forms of approach.
    When moving the Second Reading of the Bill on that occasion, and during its Committee stage, I pointed out that I anticipated very considerable difficulty in framing Regulations, and I warned the House that that would probably be so. No one could have had stronger hints about administrative difficulty in applying the charges than I gave at that time. Therefore, we did not proceed.
    What the hon. Member and the Minister have not done today is to answer the very powerful case of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer). My hon. Friend said that the case for exempting venereal disease from charges is the same as that for exempting tuberculous patients—the social incidence of the disease. It is a curious fact that a disease which was in the first place contracted by a voluntary act is going to be exempted and one contracted as the result of an involuntary association is not. I do not believe that hon. Members can defend this on any platform in the country. It really is monstrous.
    If there is one disease, however, that it is administratively possible to separate from the others, it is this one, first, because, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is highly infectious, and secondly, because the susceptibility to the disease depends on the resistance factor of the patient.
    Commander Galbraith: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us of any course
    1706
    of treatment whatsoever which can possibly banish infection from T.B, in anything like the same period as infection from venereal disease can be banished?
    Mr. Bevan: That point is really not germane to what I am saying. The hon. and gallant Gentleman should address questions of that sort to members of the medical profession; it is not for me to answer that question. I am dealing with the medical consequences of certain legislation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that patients could have Assistance Board help in order to pay these charges. It is precisely people in that category, who have reached the income level which attracts assistance from the Assistance Board, whose resistance to infection is the lowest.
    Indeed, as unemployment rears its head in different parts of the country, the incidence of tuberculosis is likely to rise. One of the most heartening things I experienced at the Ministry of Health was to see the death rate of tuberculosis falling, and then—of course, hon. Members opposite made the most of it—notifications rising. But hon. Members opposite did not seem to be able to see the connection between the two. The death rate was falling because the notifications were increasing, and in the latter stages of the Labour Government the actual notifications themselves were falling.
    Mr. William Ross. Even in Scotland.
    Mr. Bevan: We were beating back the white scourge. We were defeating it.
    I say that it is administratively easier to separate tuberculosis from the pharmaceutical field just because it is easy to diagnose. Members of the medical profession are not exact scientists, and they sometimes issue very peculiar certificates, such as in the whole field of rheumatism. Fibrositis is sometimes certified as arthritis—I have seen that done very frequently—and all kinds of bronchial troubles are certified in a most peculiar fashion. The point about tuberculosis is that it is identifiable. As a result of modern diagnostic methods, there is no doubt at all whether a patient is suffering from tuberculosis or not.
    Dr. Morgan: Sometimes there is.
    Mr. Bevan: Do not let us raise all these marginal points, "… for the letter

    1707
    killeth, the Spirit giveth life." It is a fact that this group of patients can be identified, and no doctor will certify his patient as suffering from tuberculosis in order to get free medicine for him, if the Amendment is carried.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made no case at all. I hope that when this provision comes to be examined in another place, the eminent members of the medical profession there who have for many years, notwithstanding the political parties to which they may have belonged, conducted a sustained attack upon this disease will rebuke, reprimand, and chastise the Government for daring to resist so humanitarian an Amendment as this.
    Mr. Manuel: Some reply ought to be made to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He knows the position about tuberculosis in Scotland, and he knows the shortage of beds there. He knows that, because of the shortage of beds, many hundreds of Scottish tuberculosis sufferers who ought to be in hospital are being treated as out-patients. What in effect the Government are saying in the Bill is that these people have to continue paying.
    6.0 p.m.
    Commander Galbraith: A fair description was given by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer), who knows something about this, and has told the House that I am right in the suggestion that this is a very small proportion.
    Mr. Manuel: I want to repudiate that completely. Hundreds of patients who are not in-patients of hospitals are getting treatment and repeatedly having prescriptions issued for them for which they will have to pay.
    There is another facet of this problem of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be aware, if he is not. Owing to the shortage of beds and the many hundreds on the waiting lists in Scotland, in certain areas, deliberately as a principle, they are taking into hospitals as patients persons whom they think they can cure while the chronic tuberculosis patient is left at home. By this Measure we are saying that to the end of his life he has to keep paying, week in and week out, for the prescriptions given him by
    1708
    his family doctor to keep him alive. That is the position in Scotland, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman should know it.
    Most hon. Members know that treatment of this disease is a lengthy matter. Patients may be in hospital and sanatoria for 18 months or two years, and very often after the treatment there is follow-up treatment, pneumo-thorax refills, and people go regularly every fortnight or month to get those refills. They have still to be charged.
    Sir Edward Boyle: No.
    Mr. Manuel: They are out-patients. If there is to be repudiation of the statement that an out-patient having follow-up treatment has to pay, we should get the hon. and gallant Gentleman to answer, as he is dealing with the debate. In Scotland we shall regard very seriously the irresponsible speech we had from the Under-Secretary of State about tuberculosis patients.
    Commander Galbraith: I want to make it clear to the hon. Member that treatment at the clinic does not come into this matter at all, but it is only where a prescription is given to be taken away from the clinic that the charge is made. The hon. Member continues saying that patients will have to pay for treatment at a clinic; they will not.
    Mr. Manuel: I wish to underline the point that in Scotland we are peculiarly placed in this matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that we have many hundreds who cannot get into hospital because of shortage of beds and the family doctor, week in and week out, is treating that type of patient in the home. Many of the chronic cases are not being taken in at all, as they take in patients in whom it is thought a cure may be effected. Therefore, the person who is suffering chronically from tuberculosis is continuing at home and paying for prescriptions and will do so until he dies. It is in connection with that kind of case that relief should be given.
    Mr. Edward Short: Some time ago the Parliamentary Secretary gave an undertaking to this House that the Government would do all in their power to try to reduce the incidence of tuberculosis on Clyde-side, a movement which was started so

    1709
    successfully under my right hon. Friend. The incidence there is the highest of any in England and Wales and very nearly the highest in Scotland. How does the Minister square that undertaking given to me across the Floor of the House with the imposition of these charges, which
    will act as a tremendous deterrent to early diagnosis of the disease?
    Question put. "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 258 Noes, 278.

    Division No. 111.]

    AYES

    [6.5 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington. E.)

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Adams, Richard

    Follick, M.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Foot, M. M.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Forman, J. C.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

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

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Baird, J.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Balfour, A.

    Glanville, James

    Messer, F.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Bartley, P.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

    Monslow, W.

    Bence, C. R.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Moody, A. S.

    Benson, G.

    Grey, C. F.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Beswick, F.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Morley, R.

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

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

    Blackburn, F.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Moyle, A.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Boardman, H.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Murray, J. D.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hannan, W.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Hardy, E. A.

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

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Orbach, M.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hastings, S.

    Oswald, T.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Padley, W. E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

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

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

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

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Pannell, Charles

    Burke, W. A.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Holman, P.

    Parker, J.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Paton, J.

    Carmichael, J.

    Holt, A. F.

    Pearson, A.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Peart, T. F.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Poole, C. C.

    Clunie, J.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Porter, G.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Coldrick, W.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Collick, P. H.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Cook, T. F.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Rankin, John

    Cove, W. G.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Reeves, J.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Janner, B.

    Rhodes, H.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

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

    Richards, R.

    Daines, P.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Ross, William

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Royle, C.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Deer, G.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Keenan, W.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Short, E. W.

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

    Kinley, J.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Edelman, M.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Slater, J.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Snow, J. W.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Logan, D. G.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Ewart, R.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Fernyhough, E.

    McInnes, J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Field, W. J.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Steele, T.

    Finch, H. J.

    McLeavy, F.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Viant, S. P.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Wade, D. W.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Watkins, T. E.

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

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

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

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Weitzman, D.

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    West, D. G.

    Yates, V. F.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    White, Mrs. Eirens (E. Flint)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Tomney, F.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Wigg.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Donner, P. W.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

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

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kaberry, D.

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Drewe, C.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

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

    Fell, A.

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

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Fisher, Nigel

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

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Banks, Col. C.

    Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

    Linstead, H. N.

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

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

    Baxter, A. B.

    Fort, R.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Gage, C. H.

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Low, A. R. W.

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

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Gammans, L. D.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Bishop, F. P.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Black, C. W.

    Godber, J. B.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gower, H. R.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Braine, B. R.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

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

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

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

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Marples, A. E.

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

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Bullard, D. G.

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

    Maude, Angus

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Maudling, R.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

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

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hay, John

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Heath, Edward

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Channon, H.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Cole, Norman

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Colegate, W. A.

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Hopkinson, Henry

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Nutting, Anthony

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Oakshott, H. D.

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

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Odey, G. W.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

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

    Crouch, R. F.

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hurd, A. R.

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

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Osborne, C.

    Darling, Sir William, (Edinburgh, S.)

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

    Partridge, E.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Jennings, R.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    1712

    1713

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

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

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Smiles, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

    Tilney, John

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Turton, R. H.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

    Redmayne, E.

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

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Robertson, Sir David

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

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Wellwood, W.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Storey, S.

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Studholme, H. G.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Russell, R. S.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Wills, G.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Teeling, W.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Savory, Pref. Sir Douglas

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

    York, C.

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

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Scott, R. Donald

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

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

    Mr. Butcher and Mr. Vosper.

    Shepherd, William

    Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. James Simmons: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, to leave out from "appliance," to the end of line 6. The effect of this Amendment will be to leave out the words
    "in consequence of a defect in the appliance as supplied."
    So that as many Members as possible may take part in this debate I shall devote my attention to the question of surgical boots, about which I had considerable experience at the Ministry of Pensions. The charge for the replacement and repair of surgical appliances will fall very heavily on sick and crippled people. It will be a continual drain on their resources. Some indication of the magnitude of the problem can be gained from the figures for the past three years, which relate to civilian patients and not ex-Service disability claims. New boots, in 1949, numbered 20,711. This figure rose to 45,502 in 1950; and to 52,785 in 1951. Repairs have gone up from 11,000 in 1949 to 18,000 in 1950, and to 33,000 in 1951. Adaptations have gone up from 102,000 in 1949 to 186,000 in 1950 and to 204,000 in 1951.
    It will be seen, therefore, that there are an increasing number of people who will be affected by this charge. Have the Minister and his Department considered the position which will arise when this charge becomes operative? The person with the surgical boot will go on wearing it long after it has ceased to be effective and, consequently, the medical and surgical attention which he has received from the State will be nullified.
    1714
    I know from personal experience that an artificial limb may be worn for a certain time, and it then needs readjustment. The same applies to surgical boots. If an artificial limb is worn too long it becomes ineffective and serious repercussions on the general bodily condition follow. That is also the case regarding boots. The Ministry of Pensions were coping with this problem very well. When they took over responsibility as agents for the Ministry of Health, a very big effort was required at first to cope with the accumulated misery of so many people by supplying these appliances.
    This Bill will undoubtedly place an intolerable burden upon the already overworked staff of the Ministry of Pensions, and I think the Minister ought to consider this effect very carefully, because the Ministry of Pensions has done a very good job for his Department, and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to overburden the staff when they have done so well.
    I quote from the 25th Annual Report of the Ministry of Pensions for 1949–50, paragraph 107 of which states:
    "National Health Service patients whose disabilities are stabilised and who require renewal of their surgical footwear may now apply direct to the local offices of the Ministry instead of to the hospitals."
    So the scheme works, but, when a charge becomes applicable, what will happen? Will the Minister ask the Ministry of Pensions to be responsible for collecting that charge? Has he consulted the Ministry of Pensions to see whether it

    1715
    is administratively possible to collect the charge?
    If the Ministry of Pensions will not collect the charge, and the patients have to go back to the hospitals, as they did before the Ministry of Pensions made these remarkably smooth working arrangements for both Departments, has the Minister considered the position of the ex-Service man and the civilian, both of whom are needing surgical boots and both going to the offices of the Ministry at the same time, when one is charged and the other is not?
    Has he considered the jealousy and friction which this may cause? The civilian will say, with a certain amount of justification, "Why should I be called upon to pay for my surgical boot when a man suffering from the same disability and needing the same treatment is not being charged?" As an ex-Service man myself, I regard these disability cases in the battle of industry as just as deserving of the sympathy and respect of the community as those disabilities suffered by soldiers on the field of battle.
    This matter requires very careful investigation. I could go over a much wider field of appliances, but I have confined myself to this question of surgical boots because it is a subject which I know from fairly close experience. The Government are throwing a spanner into the work of the Ministry of Pensions, which has done such a good job for the past three or four years in assisting the Ministry of Health.
    I think it is a good thing that two Government Departments can co-operate together for the good of the people they serve, and I am sorry that the Conservative Party and Government are destroying the marvellous co-operation which we carried on, under a Labour Government, for three or four years, to serve the needs of disabled people.
    Mr. Tom Brown: I beg to second the Amendment.
    It has become clear, certainly to hon. Members on this side of the House who have attended these debates, and to the country at large, that the Bill now under discussion is a bad and mean Bill, and that, if the right hon. Gentleman does not accept this Amendment, its badness and meanness will be intensified.
    1716
    Perhaps I may be permitted to put a point of view for a class of workers among whom the incidence of accidents is greater than that in any other industry. I am not claiming that I should be allowed to speak because I represent a mining constituency, but I claim a right to say a word or two on the effect which this Bill will have on those unfortunate men in the mining and other industries who suffer accidents which compel them to wear appliances.
    I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman and officials of his Department can visualise the effect which the Bill will have upon those who have had the misfortune to meet with an accident in the pit. I do not think they can. I remember the right hon. Gentleman being at the Ministry of Mines. When I spoke on 8th April I said that he would recall the representations made to him at that time because of the high incidence of accidents in the industry, and that he had had to try in every conceivable way to bring down the number of those accidents to the lowest possible figure. Despite all the attempts which he made, and all that have been made since—and they are many—we still have a very high incidence of accidents in the mines, and will have until the end of time.
    On 8th April, before the Guillotine fell upon us, I quoted the case of a man who has to buy three appliances. Many men have to buy three appliances of one kind. They need one to wear when engaged in their occupation, one which is worn at home, and a third which is held in readiness for use when either of the others is in need of repair. Such a man will have to pay for three appliances.
    Since that debate on 8th April, I have found not one man within the field of the mining industry who has to buy three appliances, but one case where a man has to wear five appliances, and has to wear them all at once, because his body has been so broken and bruised by accidents that, in order that he may get out into the sunlight when the opportunity presents itself, he must be fastened up with five appliances.
    What is to be the position of that man, if he is on a low income, and is compelled to wear these five appliances? I sometimes wish that I possessed a fairy wand,

    1717
    by a wave of which I could transfer the right hon. Gentleman and some officials of his Department into the mining villages in the coalfields, where they would see for themselves crippled men who have been broken and bruised on the wheels of industry and are now compelled to wear appliances so that they may visit their friends or attend a social at their club. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the effect of this Bill upon that particular section of the community.
    My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment referred to the wonderful work done by the Ministry of Pensions and to the number of surgical boots issued. It is interesting to find in the Report of the Ministry of Pensions for 1949–50 the increase in the number of appliances which have been provided by the Ministry. It is surprising to find that the increase began immediately after the operation of the main Act. In 1949, 129,530 appliances were supplied by the Ministry of Pensions acting as agents for the Ministry of Health; in 1950, the number had gone up to 232,278; in 1951, it was 208,232.
    Practically every one of these appliances and adaptations have to be specially made to suit individual requirements, so far be it from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that there have been abuses. Every one of those requiring an appliance had to be examined by a highly qualified specialist before they got the appliances. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept our Amendment he will affect the lives of these people in a manner which he will regret until the end of time. I appeal to him to accept our Amendment so that these men, who have been broken and bruised in industry, shall not have the unhappy experience of having to pay for something due to an accident they sustained when getting the coal we so badly need.
    6.30 p.m.
    Oft-times in this House when we discuss humanitarian questions we take the liberty of quoting from the Old Book. There are some things in the Old Book which hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to read and practice. I recall reading in my younger days a passage about a prophet who was in difficulty with his people; he was frustrated and handicapped; he did not know which way to
    1718
    turn, and the record tells us that he went to the Lord, who advised him what to do.
    The Lord said, "If you are troubled about the conditions of your people, if you fail to understand what they require, sit where they are sitting, and then come back and make up your mind what to do." The Old Book continues to tell how he sat where they sat and how, having passed through the experiences of his people, he came back with an entirely different attitude and approach to the questions troubling him. If the right hon. Gentleman will take his Parliamentary Secretary with him and sit where these people are sitting, he will have no hesitation in accepting our Amendment when he comes back.
    Mr. Crookshank: We have heard two very eloquent and sincere speeches, as we always do from the two hon. Gentlemen, for which we respect them, particularly when they are dealing with sections of the community which they personally understand, the one as a result of his own personal sufferings and the other because of his long association with the people about whom he speaks. We all recognise that.
    Unfortunately, I find it very difficult to reconcile what they were saying on the larger issue with the very small point of their Amendment. I should like to explain that the reason I cannot accept their Amendment is not because I do not accept what they have said or admire the spirit in which they have offered their observations. They were really trying to go back to the whole issue of whether or not appliances should be charged for. In some of his remarks the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) overlooked the very small field of appliances with which we are intending to deal. However, he put over his points.
    Mr. Simmons: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not desire to misrepresent the meaning of our Amendment. It refers not to new appliances but to replacements and repairs.
    Mr. Crookshank: Exactly, but the speeches did not go into the Amendment very much, and I thought I would just explain why I did not think the Amendment was acceptable.
    Mr. T. Brown: Time does not permit us to go into it. The Guillotine is on.
    Mr. Crookshank: The time is at the hon. Gentleman's disposal until the end of the debate if he likes to continue on this Amendment.
    Let us understand where we are. My Amendment is intended to classify, in this rather tidier way, what is to be exempted from the charges and to make some additions to the list. The subsection begins by saying that no charge shall be made on these things, and says that there shall be no charge for the replacement or repair of any appliance when the replacement or repair is due to some defect in the appliance when supplied. That is to say, when it was initially a bad appliance. In that case they take back the appliance and say, "This is a bad one; the repair will be made, or it will be changed and replaced by another, and for that there will be no charge."
    The fundamental point of the whole Clause is that there shall be a charge for certain appliances. That is the point from which we start, and we merely say that if, unfortunately, the appliance supplied is found to be defective from the beginning, then it is replaced without charge. That had to be made clear in the Bill, and to that extent this Amendment is a drafting Amendment. Hon. Members opposite wish to extend that and to say that the non-payment of charge should apply not only when replacing or repairing an initially defective appliance but in all cases.
    For example, if the appliance were defective because of misuse or lack of proper care by the patient and had to be repaired or replaced, according to the Bill that would be the same as a new appliance, and would, therefore, be subject to a charge. Again, if, in due course, the appliance wears out and has to be replaced, according to the Bill and our Amendment the new appliance would be subject to a charge in the same way as the original. But under the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, while an originally supplied pair of surgical boots would be charged for, in the case of repair or replacement there would never again be a charge for those boots. That is the effect of it, as was quite clear from their speeches.
    Mr. T. Brown: Suppose that after the appliance has been made, according to the measurements and recommendations of the highly qualified specialist, the
    1720
    broken part of the body to which the appliance has to be applied changes and the appliance has to go back—not because the appliance is a misfit, but because the body has taken a turn for the worse. What would be the position in a case like that?
    Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the body. We are talking about feet. Do not let us be confused. At the moment I am talking about surgical boots.
    The hon. Gentleman's Amendment would mean that if once a charge is made for a pair of surgical boots they would be repaired and replaced for the rest of the man's life without there ever being a charge. Well, that is not our view of what should be charged, any more than it was the view of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to either spectacles or dentures, which, under the 1951 Act, continue to be charged for when renewed or replaced. We are doing exactly the same thing as they did in the last Act with regard to spectacles and dentures. We are now doing it with regard to wigs, surgical boots, abdominal belts and elastic stockings, and that is all there is to it.
    Now that I have explained what the Amendment means, I do not think that, on consideration, the House will think it a reasonable proposition, although I am sure we are all agreed that if the defect is an initial defect when the appliance is supplied there should not be a second charge for a replacement.
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has concentrated his reply on surgical boots, but our Amendment refers to appliances generally. He has not referred to abdominal belts and other appliances which these men have to use. If I may say so, I speak with a great deal of experience with dealing with this type of case. What is to be the position of men who have to wear appliances other than surgical boots? Will the Minister reply to that?
    Mr. Crookshank: Exactly the same applies. The Amendment covers the whole field we have in mind.
    Mr. McNeil: I wonder whether the Minister would not agree that he is straining his case very much. No one in this House will believe that a man who

    1721
    is compelled to make another payment for a set of dentures is comparable to the kind of man my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) described, who depends for his uprightness and ability to move on surgical appliances. We have reached a stage in this matter where we are begging for crumbs.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: Even if the right hon. Member makes play with dentures, surely there is no great difference between a half-blind man who needs glasses and the person who needs surgical boots?
    Mr. McNeil: I am willing to accept that point, but the half-blind person will be provided for under another Act. I agree that if a man has a serious defect of vision it is a hardship. The Minister raised the question of dentures. I am not making a large-scale matter of this or trying to make any political capital. I am pleading for consideration for a small group of most unfortunate people.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows that he makes no concession in the Amendment. If there is a contract between the State and the individual and the State completely fails to fulfil its part of the contract—that is, to supply a sound piece of apparatus—then there is cause for redress in the civil courts and the right hon. Gentleman makes plain that in that case he does not intend to ask for a charge for repair or replacement. As he says, this is a tiny matter. What is the cost? We have been at a disadvantage in discussing all these things because we have been sticking a pin to find information. We have no real figures. Would the Minister tell us what he guesses it will cost? Let us have a little compassion for the type of people for whom my hon. Friends plead.
    Mr. T. Brown: I must put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. Like my hon. Friends, I am not satisfied with the reply.
    Mr. Speaker: I should like to point out that we are on Report and we cannot have unlimited contributions from the same hon. Member. If he wishes to ask a question, I hope that in doing so he will confine himself to it.
    Mr. T. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister has refused to accept this
    1722
    Amendment, will he co-operate with the Ministry of National Insurance to put into operation Section 75 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, which will help us?
    Dr. Horace King: It would be tedious repetition if I were to say that the Minister's reply to the discussion on this Amendment has been disappointing. In reply to what he said, I merely want to say that nobody supporting this Amendment was anxious to protect those who abuse any surgical appliances they may have in operation. If the Minister would only say that he would look at that part of the Amendment and himself devise an Amendment to give us what we want, we should be very happy indeed.
    I want to speak about surgical boots for two reasons. The first is that the cost of repairing surgical boots is constant and is a far more onerous burden than is the repair of any other appliance for which a charge is to be made. The other reason is that many hon. Members have already come into real contact with the effect of charges for repairs for surgical boots proposed in this Bill.
    6.45 p.m.
    Last weekend the husband of a cripple came to see me. He had received one of the disgusting circulars issued under the authorisation of the Minster of Health, pointing out that in future his wife would have to pay 7s. 6d. every time her surgical boots were repaired and asking her to sign at the bottom of the circular to show that she had understood what she had read. I consider that to be insult added to injury, and it was in that spirit that the husband took the circular.
    On making inquiries about this case, I find there is already uncertainty among all the people who have to handle repairs to surgical boots and collect the money. A surgical boot manufacturer tells me that the scheme is in an "infernal mess," if I may paraphrase his more simple and homely English. He has already tackled the Ministry of Pensions, who are grappling with the problem of collecting money for boot repairs when they should be doing something far more important. The manufacturer tells me that the schedules are inadequate and do not cover many of the repairs which have to be made. Although the Chancellor said that nobody would have to pay more than

    1723
    half the cost of repairs, the manufacturer says that some will have to pay as much as five-eighths.
    The boot repairer has no directive to collect the money and the local branch of the Ministry of Pensions has no directive. If the surgical boots have to be repaired, they have to be sent by the repairer to a regional central office to be checked and have then to be sent back to an agent or branch office. This means postage and a waste of time which is very serious. Application for the boots will have to be made at the local branch. We are dealing with cripples who are often very poor people, and this means expense in transport.
    The crippled wife of the man who came to see me at the weekend has to have her surgical boots repaired every five weeks. Therefore, this imposes a tax of 7s. 6d. a week on a working man merely because he is unfortunate enough to have a crippled wife. Yesterday we were discussing the Petrol Duty and talking about the last straw that breaks the camel's back. Charges of this kind will indeed be the last straw in many working-class homes.
    But the serious point I want to put on repairs is that when people have to pay £3 for surgical boots, they will do what many people did in the years before we had the free National Health Service—they will buy one pair of surgical boots. They will have to wait at home while that pair is being repaired before they can go out again. There are constituents of mine who had to do that. The imposition of this charge and the delay caused to these people by linking repairing with the collecting of the money will constitute a very severe handicap.
    How will the Minister collect the money for repairs from the cripples? Will repaired boots be handled by the Ministry of Pensions nationally, regionally or locally? Will the boot repairer collect the money, or will the Ministry of Pensions do so, or will a crippled collector be appointed? Whichever Department has to collect the money, I estimate that the cost of administering this part of the scheme will offset a lot of the little gain that the Minister hopes to get. I urge him to remove a little of the meanness of the Bill by accepting the Amendment or promising to look at the matter further.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: I should like to make clear the point of my remark just now when I spoke quickly about half-blind people. I meant not someone dealt with under the Act but somebody with seriously defective vision. My interjection represented what the Minister had said earlier, that the principle involved in the payment on secondary occasions when boots need to be re-made because of some physical change is no different from the principle applied by the Labour Government in respect of dentures and spectacles.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Alport: During our discussions this afternoon, many allusions have been made to the meanness of the Bill and various demands have been made about amending it. In view of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) at the beginning of the discussion, this is an opportunity to ask exactly where the Opposition stand on the matter.
    On many occasions we have tried to ensure that this type of legislation is as fair and equitable as a Parliamentary Statute can be. Why is it that these objections and adjectives have appeared for the first time during the course of the Bill? Why is it that, all of a sudden, the attitude of the party opposite has changed from what it was last year and three years ago?
    How does the right hon. Gentleman take up the attitude which he adopted when he referred to an Amendment which was not called because it was out of order? How is he able to make such remarks and still claim any form of continuity with the attitude of the Labour Government in the last two Parliaments? During the remaining discussions on this subject and in future, it will be important to know whether the Labour Party entirely repudiate the principles which they supported in 1949 and 1951.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be speaking to the Amendment to the Amendment, which we have just disposed of. There is nothing in the Minister's Amendment to justify the argument he is putting.
    Mr. Alport: I was merely following the argument made by the right hon. Member for Greenock earlier. As the point

    1725
    that he made was allowed, I thought it would be possible for me to take it up now that we have disposed of the two Amendments to the Minister's Amendment and are now considering the Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not so. When he made those remarks, the right hon. Member for Greenock was speaking to another Amendment which is not before the House.
    Mr. Alport: The right hon. Gentleman made those allusions and argued that point at some length while you were out of the Chamber, and I felt it was right that one should be able to answer the point that he made, because it seemed to be of substance in regard to the general subject which we are discussing.
    Mr. Speaker: I should explain that, first of all, the Amendment by the Minister was called, and immediately after that the House proceeded to deal with the two Amendments to the Minister's Amendment.
    Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. The first speech by the right hon. Member for Greenock was made on the main question concerning the Minister's Amendment and before either of the Amendments to his Amendment was moved.
    Mr. Alport: It is to that point that I am trying to direct the attention of the House.
    The issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman seems to be clear. I want to know whether it is now the intention of his party to repudiate their policy of previous years. It would help us in discussing the Amendment if we knew where the Labour Party stand. Is it true, as is becoming rapidly apparent to us, that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has won and that he is now able to impress on the rest of his party his policy which repudiates the action taken on two occasions by the Labour Government? If that is the case, we can be quite clear—we ought to have it made clear at this point—that the official leadership of the Socialist Party is on the bandwagon of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale.
    Mr. McNeil: I do not want to pursue the point at all—
    Dr. Morgan: I should not answer it.
    Mr. McNeil: —because I had some difficulty in following the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport).
    Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken already.
    Mr. McNeil: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Might I, with the leave of the House, have indulgence to utter two sentences? If the hon. Member for Colchester is talking about the 1951 Act, it did not apply to these things. If he is talking about the 1949 Act, that was a temporary provision, and if he wants to follow that we shall be glad of his support.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 1, line 14, leave out "the case of such other persons," and insert "such other cases."
    In line 15 leave out first "The," and insert "Any."—[Mr. Crookshank.]

    Clause 2.—(CHARGES FOR DENTAL TREATMENT.)
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 2, line 8, after "of," to insert "appliances other than."
    This Amendment is not really of very great importance, but I think I should explain the effect of it. The wording in the Bill is "the repair of prescribed appliances" and the Amendment will make it read:
    "the repair of appliances other than prescribed appliances."
    The effect of this Amendment is to turn the thing round. As the Bill is drafted, what the Minister would prescribe would be appliances for the repair of which a charge would not be made. Under this Amendment he would prescribe those for the repair of which a charge would be made. I think that, on the whole, the new suggestion is better than the old one.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. John Baird: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, to leave out from "be," to "where," in line 16, and to insert:
    "one tenth of the current authorised fee in excess of one pound where such authorised fee exceeds one pound. Provided always that—

    (a) No charge shall be made in respect of services for which the current authorised fee does not exceed one pound, and

    (b)."

    1727
    The object of this Amendment is to change the method of making dental charges. Instead of the present method of making an overall charge for the first £1 worth of dental treatment, the first £1 worth would be free and a percentage charge would be made for all treatment costing over £1. We are now nearing the end of the discussion on this Bill, and I wish to protest that, while we have had a fairly adequate discussion on Clause 1, in which hon. Members on this side of the House were able to make very valuable points and teach the Minister something about his Bill, and while we have not got anything like what we want, we have got something, with regard to the dental aspect we have got almost nothing at all. I wish to register that protest in moving this Amendment.
    It is my opinion—and we have already discussed this for some short time—that this method of levying dental charges is one which was drafted in haste. The only other reason I can think of for the adoption of this method of levying the charge is that the proposal did not come from the Ministry of Health but from the Treasury. I am wondering if this is another example of the kind of thing referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan)—Treasury planning. Is this another example of the Treasury coming along, making a calculation on paper and saying to the Ministry of Health, "Let everyone pay £1 for the first £1 worth of treatment and we will get so much money" and the Ministry of Health, ignoring the advice of their dental advisers, accepting this without realising, from a professional point of view, the dire consequences of this method of making a charge.
    If a charge is to be made—and I deny that a charge is necessary; we on this side of the House do not want any charges at all—the type of charge which the Minister is imposing will deter a patient from making regular visits to the dentist. It will penalise patients in pain and it will lend itself to all types of abuse. We had an Amendment on these lines on the Committee stage, but it was not called. There was a certain amount of discussion on this point, and the Minister of Health argued against this proposal. He said:
    1728
    "It is a fact that if the Amendment were adopted the greater part of the estimated savings—and they are considerable, for they are estimated at £6 million during a full year—would be lost, and it is one of the objects of this Bill to secure those savings."
    We want to be reasonable in this Amendment. The proposal is that after the first £1 worth, which would be free, there should be a 10 per cent. charge. The Minister's argument is that a 10 per cent. charge for treatment costing over £1 would not bring in the estimated revenue. I am willing to withdraw my Amendment if he will give an undertaking that he will draft another Amendment to make a percentage charge which will bring in the same amount.
    I am not putting this forward from a narrow political aspect but from the point of view of encouraging people to come along for dental treatment. I think it is better to have a percentage charge to bring in the required amount of money than to adopt the method which is proposed in the Bill. What else does the Minister say? He goes on to argue against this charge in these words:
    "Patients would tend, human nature being what it is—I am not blaming anyone—to have treatment costing up to £1 and then they would stop. They would go again another time and have treatment up to nearly £1 and then stop. … It has surely always been the object of dentistry to persuade patients to make themselves fit dentally."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 818–9.]
    His suggestion is that if our method of imposing the charge were adopted the patient would go along and have £1 worth of treatment, then stop for a while and then go back again. It is true that there might be some abuses. There are abuses of all Acts. But I suggest that for everyone who would abuse a charge made under the method I propose—and there would be some—thousands and thousands of patients would not go along for conservative treatment if the Minister's method is adopted.
    There is no doubt as to which is the better way of conserving the teeth of the people of this country; it is the way suggested by this Amendment, put forward from this side of the House, and having the support of the dental profession. I think this method is a sensible one. It is obvious that the method put forward by the Minister was drafted in haste, without any consultation with the dental authorities.

    1729
    The other argument against our method was put forward by the bright young things of the Tory Central Office who sit on the third bench opposite. Their argument is that the method prescribed in the Bill will be a deterrent, which is necessary because we have not enough dentists, and in this way we would encourage dentists to leave the public service and go into the school dental service. That argument does not bear looking at.
    The hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) put forward this point in his speech the other night, when he said that there was a tremendous influx of dentists into the school dental service. He also estimated that, in order to have an efficient school dental service, we must have between 2,000 and 3,000 dentists. The number of dentists we have today is a full-time equivalent of 712. The number of dentists who have gone into the school dental service since the last charge was imposed is a full-time equivalent of 22.8.
    How long would we have to go on making other charges in order to get the figure up to the establishment which the hon. Member admits is necessary for an efficient school dental service? The fact is that a lot of rubbish has been talked about this in the debates on this Bill. It is simply a red herring drawn across the path to justify these charges. We have had a lot of talk about these charges being necessary to get an efficient school dental service. There has been talk about the poor children not getting treatment; but the Government have introduced a Bill, which has gone through all its stages in the other place and is due to be discussed here soon, which will provide for dental ancillaries to give inferior dental treatment to school children.
    Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing that Bill at the moment.
    Mr. Baird: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker; I shall not develop that point any further.
    The hon. Member for Wolverhampton. South-West (Mr. Powell), said the other night that it was obvious that, as a result of these charges, dentists were going into the school dental service, and he based his argument on the fact that the estimates for the school dental service had been rising. I tried once of twice
    1730
    to intervene when he was speaking in these debates, but he would never give way. He has not the courage to face me on the public platform and discuss the suggestions he makes on the Floor of this House. The reason there has been an increase in the estimates for the school dental service is that the Labour Government increased salaries for dentists in order to attract them into the service.
    Mr. Iain MacLeod: The major evidence before the House at the moment is the Scottish evidence. The Scottish scales of the Whitley Council came into operation in February, 1951. If the hon. Gentleman cares to consult the Scottish Report—I have not got it with me at the moment—he will find that there was no influx at all as the result of the improved Whitley Council scales, and that the entire increase took place after July, 1951, when the charges were imposed.
    Mr. Baird: There has been no influx at all into the school dental service in Scotland, England or Wales.
    Mr. Ross: It is rather a pity that the hon. Member for Enfield, West, has not the Scottish Report with him, because he would find that the first reason given for the increase, which was, I think, from 94 to about 104, is the higher salary due to the increased Whitley Council scales.
    Mr. MacLeod: The hon. Member has read only one page.
    Mr. Powell rose—
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot have three or four people on their feet at the same time.
    Mr. Baird: Does the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West wish to raise a point?
    Mr. Powell: I happen to have the Report here. The paragraph in question says:
    "The negotiations of the Dental Whitley Council resulted in February, 1951, in the publication of the Council's recommendations for the remuneration and general conditions of service of full-time dental officers employed by local authorities. Although there was little appreciable increase in the total number of dental officers by 31st July, 1951, a number of new appointments were made dating from the beginning of the present school year and by December. 1951, the total number of

    1731
    dentists (including the whole-time equivalent of part-time appointments) had increased from 94 at the beginning of the year to 104 at December, 1951."
    That is a 10 per cent. increase in six months directly following upon the first imposition of the charges.
    Mr. Baird: I hope that in future the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, will be more courteous than he has been in the past and will give way to me as I have given way to him tonight. His quotation does not meet the point at all. My argument is simply that there has been no influx into the school dental service at all.
    Mr. Powell: There has been a 10 per cent. increase.
    Mr. Baird: It is nothing like that. For England, Scotland and Wales the increase is equivalent to 22 out of 900. There is no justification for the argument that the charges will build up on efficient school dental service. I hope the Tories will drop that argument which is completely false. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said that since the Health Act came into operation the health of teeth had deteriorated. That is completely untrue. I am glad that the Minister has exempted children. They are now being treated in the surgeries of the ordinary dental practitioner to a much greater extent than before. Every day I have children brought to my surgery by their mothers, and I think it is much better that they should come to the family dentist in this way.
    Mr. MacLeod: With great respect—
    Mr. Baird: I am not going to give way to the hon. Member again.
    7.15 p.m.
    At the present time we in the dental profession are facing revolutionary changes. Up to a short time ago we accepted the fact that there was no such thing as conservative dentistry for the great mass of the people, but, as a result of a free Health Service, we are building up a teeth consciousness among the people. As a practising dentist, I have seen a great improvement in people's teeth over the last 25 years and a marked improvement over the last three or four years, and even before that. There are
    1732
    other developments going on. For instance, the Dental Commission in America are considering the question of fluorides.
    I submit that if the Minister imposes any charges at all he will undermine the health of the people's teeth because he is going the very worst way about it. I say to him as a professional man—and I think I am speaking for the great majority of my professional brethren—that if charges have to be imposed he should accept our point of view and introduce a proportionate charge which will not penalise the sensible patient who goes to his dentist for six-monthly appointments.
    Mr. Arthur Holt: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I wish to draw the attention of the House to some figures which have not so far been quoted and which, I think, cast some light on the argument whether the Act of last year actually had some effect in getting people into the dental clinics or in moving them on to more conservative dental treatment. On 13th March this year, I asked the Minister of Health the number of dentures supplied to patients under the National Health Service, and the cost to the State during the period 1st January, 1951, to 20th May, 1951, and 21st May, 1951, to 31st December, 1951.
    The interesting thing about this increase is that in the first period up to 20th May there were under the National Health Scheme 1,800,000 dentures supplied at an estimated cost to the State of £7,500,000, and that for the remainder of the year, from 21st May to 31st December, 2,300,000 at an estimated cost of £9 million. If hon. Members with mathematical facilities will do a little sum they will see that nearly all the dentures supplied in the last half of the year were apparently supplied free of charge as, otherwise, I calculate that the cost would have been £9,500,000. The charges imposed last year are only now affecting the dental profession. Many dentists, particularly in working class areas are now finding things a little more difficult and are not quite so busy as they were.
    Whatever else is said about this charge, it is ill-timed. As the Chancellor said in one of his earlier statements relating to this Bill, the purpose of the charge is not only financial but is to bring supply more into line with demand. This point

    1733
    has been overlooked. If no charge had been made this year we should have found in a few months that the situation was a great deal better than hon. Members might expect as regards the conservation of teeth generally and, in particular, children's teeth—although I do not suggest that when the full effect of last year's Act comes into force it will cause a large increase in dentists going to the dental clinics.
    I think, however, that the imposition of this full charge on top of the charges effected last year may create a different situation from that which hon. Members opposite expect. For that reason I say that it would have been far better to have left it out, and if the right hon. Gentleman would at this last stage accept this Amendment it would be a great improvement.
    Commander Galbraith: This Amendment proposes a method of charging which would completely and absolutely destroy the savings which it is intended should be made under this Clause. Let me remind hon. Members opposite, particularly in view of what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), said, that we on this side of the House do not like charges any more than they do, and that these charges are forced upon us by the financial situation which the late Government left behind them. That is the sole reason for their introduction.
    Mr. Baird rose—
    Commander Galbraith: No, I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman has had a good run for his money.
    Mr. Baird: But the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just offered a challenge.
    Commander Galbraith: Let me explain to the House what the effect of this Amendment would be. The estimated saving resulting from the proposals in the Bill is somewhere in the region of £6½ million. So far as we can ascertain, the probable saving which would result if this Amendment were accepted would be in the region of £500,000, so that, in fact, this is a completely and utterly wrecking Amendment.
    Mr. Baird: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give way now? I do not wish to engender heat. I said specifically
    1734
    that I was willing to withdraw my Amendment and allow the Government to make any proportionate charge they like in respect of treatment costing over £1.
    Commander Galbraith: There is no system of that kind which would exclude the first £1 and add a percentage afterwards which could possibly produce the amount of money which has to be saved in this connection. One could have a charge running up to 100 per cent. for everything over £1. At the moment everybody up to the age of 21 should have his teeth in good, if not perfect, condition. It seems wholly exaggerated to say that persons over 21 are not in a position to go to the dentist once every six months, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, suggested was a reasonable course to take—and, indeed, it is one which we hope people will follow. After all, the earnings of young men of 21 today should surely be sufficient to enable them to meet any charge of that kind.
    Mr. Manuel: There is one factor which we have to remember. Today, many young men are undergoing National Service. When they come out they take up apprenticeships at the age of 21, and in many cases they are earning very little. It is not so easy as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests for these youngsters to pay for dental attention.
    Commander Galbraith: I have every sympathy with them if it is not so easy, but, honestly, I cannot appreciate the point. I do not understand how, even on apprentice wages, a young man is not able to visit his dentist once every six months. I simply do not believe it.
    Dr. Morgan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has no imagination at all.
    Commander Galbraith: If one looks at the figures and statistics one cannot swallow that suggestion. There is another point in connection with this Amendment. It would favour those who only require a small treatment while it would adversely affect those requiring treatment on a large scale. It is an inducement to people to have only partial and not whole treatment.
    The question of the school dental service has been raised. We are told that in Scotland the number of those employed

    1735
    in that service has increased from 94 to 104. That is an improvement, and I am sure the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, is glad of it. But I can tell him of a greater improvement. The figures, as I understand, up to 31st March this year show that there were 121–115 employed and six having been appointed who have not yet taken up their appointments. But surely there is agreement in the House that today we have not got a dental service which is capable of dealing efficiently with all dental treatment required by people of every age in the country. Surely that is accepted.
    Mr. Baird: No.
    Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman is the only person whom I have ever heard deny it.
    Mr. Baird rose—
    Commander Galbraith: I am not going to give way again. The hon. Gentleman is very good at making speeches and then getting up and making a whole lot of supplementary speeches later.
    The whole point is that until we have a national service of that kind there must be priority classes, and we must do everything we can to see that these priority classes receive the greatest measure of attention. We have provided for that. In fact, we provide for a priority service meeting exactly the same requirements which were put forward by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) when he was Minister of Health. We have provided a service for children, adolescents and nursing mothers. These are the priority classes which, I am sure every hon. Member would agree, should have the best and greatest possible treatment.
    I think the House must agree that this Amendment defeats itself from the very start, particularly in view of the figures which I quoted relating to the diminution in saving. I do not think that there is one Member—even the most optimistic of Members—who would expect the Government to accept a wrecking Amendment of this nature.
    Mr. McNeil: I do not want to complain, but from the very beginning of this debate this afternoon I have tried to
    1736
    discover a way of making little improvements to the Bill here and there. I think I may fairly say that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has made no contribution to that at all.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), made a reasonable proposal. Perhaps it is not a perfect proposal, but it is certainly reasonable. He said, "From my professional experience I tell the House that this is a bad method of tackling this matter from the point of view of dental health and hygiene." He is entitled to expect an answer. Hon. Members in all parts of the House repeatedly bring their specialist experience to bear on many problems.
    My hon. Friend said, "I do not agree with charging, but I am willing to withdraw my Amendment if the Government will propose some other way of getting the amount which they say they require, but it should not be done in a fashion which will destroy those good dental habits which this Government, following recent examples, has taken such pains to build up." All the hon. and gallant Gentleman said is, "I do not understand why anyone should find it difficult to find the fees to go to a dentist every six months."
    7.30 p.m.
    Commander Galbraith: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government have advisers as well as Members of this House. We take advice in many places. The right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well, and if he had been listening to me he would have heard that the suggestion made by his hon. Friend was utterly impracticable.
    Mr. McNeil: I am quite well aware that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has advisers, but I have never heard it suggested before in the House that because there are advisers outside the House those inside the House with specialist experience and skill should not be listened to. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's case was that he could not believe that anyone should have any difficulty in finding the money to go twice a year to the dentist. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's case was, once more, that it was the economics of the country that demanded this Bill.

    1737
    He has frequently put himself on record as being unable to appreciate these points. I have a cutting here that I did not mean to use, but I think I had better put it on record because it explains a good deal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's approach to this health problem—and it is a health problem, although he seems not to appreciate it. This is a cutting from a Scottish newspaper of 28th February, reporting what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said at a meeting of the Pollok Unionist Association:
    "There is far too much loafing going on in this country today, and we all know it."
    That is the frame of mind that the hon. and gallant Gentleman brings to these problems. That is the reason why he is unable to give any quiet examination of the constructive suggestions offered by my hon. Friend. This is not for him a problem relating to the health of the people. It is an opportunity for him to score backwoods Tory points.
    I am sorry that the Minister of Health has not promised even to look again at this matter. After all, he has gone some way to accepting the very point of view offered by my hon. Friend. He has said that it is important that we should catch up this backlog of bad dental health and the consequences of bad dental health. "I am willing to exempt; up to 21 I am willing to give free examinations," says the right hon. Gentleman. Will he not accept his own logic and admit that this is an unfortunate method? Will he not look for some other method of finding the same sum, without breaking these health habits? This is not a wrecking Amendment. It is a genuine attempt to meet the difficulty, and I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would examine it in that way.
    Mr. Manuel: Just a brief point in connection with Scotland, because I think we have to get this on the record about the school dental service in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield. West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) gives the impression that the school dental service in Scotland is meeting the needs of the position, and that the number of dentists is sufficient to give a reasonable service. In the Scottish Report it is amply demonstrated that there is just no practical service at all. It says that the Borough of Aberdeen has 27,942 schoolchildren on the register, and two dentists
    1738
    to look after them; the number of children actually inspected by those two dental officers is 3,081 out of the total of 27,000 and more. Glasgow, with 172,382 children on the register has only 19 dental officers, and only some 38,000 of the children are inspected.
    Obviously, parents—and I want to stress this, as on the last occasion—are interested in dental hygiene. What is happening is that parents are directing their children to the family dentist. If they do not do so there can be no inspection, treatment, or dental work done for the schoolchildren. I do not think that that can be denied, and I want to challenge the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West. Does he not agree that the proper thing to do in circumstances like these is to use the National Health Service? What is to happen under the Bill? If people have to pay up to £1 for conservative treatment many families will not just be able to manage it. The Minister is laughing.
    Mr. Crookshank: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I was laughing at. The hon. Gentleman has quoted figures for a period during which his right hon. Friends were in office.
    Mr. Manuel: I made this quite clear on the last occasion. I am not disagreeing with that observation of the right hon. Gentleman at all. That is perfectly true. What I was saying was that, whether we like it or not, children have to go to the family dentist if their teeth are to be preserved. Therefore, we ought not to apply this charge.
    Mr. Iain MacLeod: I think there is one thing which should be said, because, apart from the point about the responsibility in time which my right hon. Friend has just made, I really cannot believe that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has not seen the fallacy which torpedoes his entire argument.
    Mr. Manuel: Let us hear it.
    Mr. MacLeod: Certainly. I am delighted to explain it. The hon. Gentleman was quoting details of the examinations in a school year when there were, at the most, 94 dentists in the whole of Scotland. I put before the House today figures which show that there was an increase of 10 per cent. Agreed?
    Mr. Manuel: 104.
    Mr. MacLeod: Did not the hon. Member hear my hon. and gallant Friend just now from the Box saying that the figure is now 121; that the figure has gone from 94 to 121 in that time? That is very nearly an increase of 30 per cent. Does the hon. Member not realise how very much better the teeth of the children in Scotland are to be looked after this year as a result of the 30 per cent. improvement announced today from that Box by my hon. and gallant Friend?
    The figures given by the hon. Member, of examinations a year ago, are absolutely irrelevant. They were examinations carried out not only under Socialism but by 94 dentists. There are now at least 121, and if this trend continues there will be a great deal more in a few weeks and a few months, and the dental health of the children of Scotland will be a great deal better in the future than it has been in the past.
    Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), complained that we had not spent enough time in discussing Clause 2. I must say I thought his complaint would have carried more conviction if he had shown on the previous occasion that he paid any attention at all to the facts adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), and by the Minister. I am bound to say that he will have to do very much better than he has done tonight before he will be invited to a public debate in my constituency or in that of any other hon. Member listening here.
    I do not want to detain the House for more than a minute, but I think that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, presented us with a very misleading picture when he said, "I am quite ready to withdraw this Amendment if the Minister wishes to substitute a higher percentage which will yield him the estimated Revenue." I would say this to the hon. Member. Many people have to have very expensive treatment now, and if a percentage could be found which would bring in anything like the same amount of money as the Bill itself proposes it would bear very heavily indeed on a small number of people who are really in need.
    I can understand anyone saying that they dislike the charges and do not think them necessary. I said on the Second Reading of the Bill that I thought they
    1740
    were necessary, and I stand by that. But it is no good thinking that there is a feasible third alternative to the proposals that are put before the House. I think that the right hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) vaguely suggested that there was a third alternative which my right hon. Friend could suggest which would avoid the disadvantages of our proposals and yet bring in a comparable amount of money. I believe that he was suggesting something for which there is no foundation in fact.
    Mr. Ross: I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) that what the Government are doing is not a good thing, and that the way they are doing it is, as the Minister himself admits, not a good way.
    Mr. Crookshank: I did not.
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is doing the wrong thing, in the wrong way, at the wrong time. I think that the Front Bench opposite have an amazing facility for doing the wrong thing and then putting both feet in and choosing the worst possible of all the ways of doing it.
    It is astonishing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who is one of the joint tripartite Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, should, of all people, come to the Box and argue this case. One of the outstanding facts about dental expenditure in Scotland since the general scheme was brought in is that the money spent on dentures, in the year before last, was over 60 per cent. of the amount spent in dental services generally. Why were we spending that amount of money in Scotland? Because in the past the Scottish people had been in need of dental treatment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke about his not being able to understand why people could not afford to go to the dentists regularly. The fact is that people in industrial areas could not afford to go to their dentists regularly. Malnutrition and poverty in the past created the need for dentures.
    In the past five years, and particularly since the Health Service came in, providing a general dental service, we have had good nutrition. That is stated in the Scottish Report in case any hon. Gentleman would like to oppose my statement. In addition, we have the introduction of regular dental habits by which

    1741
    people are going to their dentists and getting their teeth dealt with at the right time.
    7.45 p.m.
    I think that the point made about the school dental services is a little irrelevant. I have always thought so, and I said so on the Committee stage. The point has been made about there being 104 dentists—or 121 when the appointments are made—to deal with the whole of the Scottish school children. In the Secretary of State's own constituency, Moray and Nairn, the number of dentists dealing with schoolchildren is 0.3. One dentist is giving less than one-third of his time to school dentistry for the whole of Moray and Nairn. We have to judge on the facts before us.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman is supposing that the school dental service alone is up. The general dental service in Scotland is also going up. I think that the number was 1,251 against 1,250. I do not know the latest figures. I think that it is important that if the school children are no longer going to the general dental service to be dealt with, that now, more than ever, the Scottish dentists should be able to deal with conservation work; but they are not to get the chance. The Government are now going to come in between these dentists and the work they should be doing. The Front Bench opposite has the idea that people in Scotland have plenty of money to go to the dentists every six months.
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Secretary of State's assistant, when speaking to his own Conservatives, looks at the Scottish people and says, "There are far too many who are loafers; far too many getting help who do not really need help." The people who are loafers will still be covered under this Bill. What have the Government done during the past three months to help the people over 21, the young folks of 23 and 24 who are just getting married, to make their money go further?
    Never was it less truthful to say that people had plenty of money to go to the dentists. The position is getting worse every day. People will need dentures in future because conservation treatment is being denied them by the Front Bench opposite. That is the reason for that 60 per cent. expenditure in 1950. I leave the facts there, but they are shocking from
    1742
    the Scottish point of view. We were just beginning to get dental health, when along come the "Stuarts," with three able assistants, plus one from the House of Lords, and Scottish dental progress is negatived and we start travelling back along the hard road of Toryism.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In page 2, line 26, leave out "or," and insert:
    (4) No charge shall be made under this section.—[Mr. Crookshank.]
    Mr. Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, at the end, to insert:
    "if (in any such case) a declaration to that effect is made by or on behalf of that person in such form and manner as may be prescribed."
    This Amendment deals with cases on the dental side where there are exemptions, which we discussed on the Committee stage. This Amendment seeks to provide that a declaration should be made either by the person or on behalf of the person claiming the free service in a manner which may be prescribed. Our intention is to have a very simple process. Obviously, the person coming for treatment would have to give his name, address, age and number.
    Mr. Manuel: The identity card number.
    Mr. Crookshank: We have abolished that; the National Health Service number. We are not talking about identity cards; we are talking about the evidence of identity which the claimants for the free service are to give.
    For example, in the case of an expectant mother I imagine that it would be necessary to make a declaration as to when the confinement is expected, and in the case of the mother who has borne a child within the previous 12 months, as to the date of the birth. It is proposed to make it as simple as possible to identify the person, and leave it at that I do not think that we can ask for less. I think that it is right to put this in the Bill, and I hope the House will agree with me.
    Mr. Baird: A large number of dentists already have a very complicated form to fill in for ordinary treatment. I quite understand that there must be some declaration, but I appeal to the Minister to use his influence to see that the form to be used is made as simple as possible.

    1743
    My hon. Friend raised a point which the Minister seemed to think was frivolous, but will a mother have to state whether she is married or unmarried, and things like that?
    The Minister is quite wrong, because, in the dental service a patient has to produce his identity card number. This is already causing a great deal of trouble. People were advised to thrown away their identity cards but cannot get dental treatment without their identity card number.
    Mr. Crookshank: I said that the form would require only elementary information, name and address, date of birth, and so on, and that the question of motherhood—legitimacy or illegitimacy—would not arise. The expected date of confinement is necessary to show whether the woman is an expectant mother.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Powell: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out from the beginning, to "as," in line 38.
    This is a paving Amendment to the next Amendment, in line 39. Perhaps, therefore, I might deal with the two at the same time. I am greatly encouraged to see the addition of my right hon. Friend's name to those appearing on the Amendment and I am led to hope that it may be inserted in the Bill.
    The purpose of the Amendment is to deal with two unintended results which the Clause, if not amended, would have. First, it deals with cases where a dental practitioner visits the patient in his home. In most cases the dentist earns an additional fee for the visit. Unless that fee is placed outside the definition of "current authorised fee," the result would be that the patient would have to pay that visiting fee in addition to whatever else he has to pay under the Clause, unless the amount he has to pay thereunder is £1 or more. Therefore, to avoid this additional unintended charge upon a patient, it is proposed to exclude the fee for visiting a patient from the definition of "current authorised fee."
    The second type of case which is covered are those where more expensive appliances or treatment than is provided under the National Health Service, are given under the system which is known as "grant in aid" by means of Section 44 of the 1946 Act. Unless the payments
    1744
    which a patient makes under that section were also excluded from the definition of "current authorised fee," he would be exempted by the Clause, or would usually be exempted in most cases, from the payment of that additional sum.
    It cannot be the intention that patients who had to pay previously under Section 44 of the principal Act should cease to have to pay by reason of the Clause. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the Amendment and thereby exclude the two types of fee specified from the definition of "current authorised fee" in subsection (4).
    Mr. Iain MacLeod: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I want to add only a sentence or two in supporting the Amendments, because I think that their point is quite clear to the House and is a genuine one. Obviously, we should not put any difficulties in the way of a dental practitioner visiting a patient, as sometimes is necessary, if bleeding or anything else occurs.
    It also is important that if we do not make it as easy as possible for a person to call a dentist in these circumstances, when a dentist probably ought to be called, and if such a fee was entailed, it might well be that extra and unfair and unnecessary work might be put on the local doctor who, if a fee had to be charged to the dentist who attended, might conceivably be summoned in his place.
    Mr. Crookshank: It will be no surprise to the House to hear that I am prepared to accept the Amendment, because I put my name to it, but I thought that in the circumstances, as my hon. Friends had thought of the point for the Committee stage and as the Amendment had reappeared and was selected, it was only courteous—I should do the same had it been from the other side of the House—to let my hon. Friend move it. I put my name to it because, under the procedure by which we work under the time-table, that is the only way to secure that Amendments which we all want to see inserted can be inserted if time does not allow of debate.
    I think that it is a good Amendment and that it meets the point. Both of my hon. Friends have explained it quite adequately, and I hope that the House will agree with them and with me.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 39, at end, add:
    "but does not include—

    (a)any fee authorised as aforesaid in respect of a visit to a patient by a practitioner;

    (b)any fee or part of a fee payable by the patient in pursuance of regulations made under section forty-four of the National Health Service Act, 1946, or section forty-five of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947."—[Mr. Crookshank]

    Clause 5.—(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS.)
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, after "1951,"to insert "and this Act."
    The Amendment is not of the greatest possible importance but it is wise that the House should insert it at this stage. It will be remembered that on the Committee stage we had a question about bridges as contrasted with dentures. There had been apparently at an earlier stage, since the 1951 Act, a question whether a bridge was a denture. Everybody thought that the word "denture" covered the two cases, but there was some legal dubiety and, therefore, earlier on we inserted the word "bridge". Now we have to make quite clear that it applies throughout the Bill for all purposes.
    The effect, therefore, of the Amendment is that "denture" in Clause 2 (3) will include a bridge; and accordingly charges will be payable for the addition of teeth to bridges. It is not much more than a drafting Amendment to this part of the Bill, because we have dealt with the problem elsewhere. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North-East (Mr. Baird) looks worried, but this is nothing but a clarifying Amendment. I hope, therefore, that it will be accepted.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6.—(EVASION OF CHARGES.)
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out from "exceeding," to "and," in line 11 and to insert "twenty pounds."
    The purpose of the Amendment will be obvious to the House. I do not want to keep the House for any length of time, particularly as we are so late in our allotted time. I am advised that if the intention of the Minister and the Government is to ensure recovery of the charges which they propose to levy the procedure
    1746
    for doing this already exists, that on., could proceed in a normal civil fashion and that, if a debtor failed to make payment, normal redress could be obtained.
    I do not think the Minister will argue that the intention of the subsection is to make that provision. Probably he will argue that this is introduced as a deterrent. I want to make two short points about that. First, I am aware that this is the actual wording which appeared in the National Insurance Acts, but it is not really a good parallel. Whichever Government had been dealing with the National Insurance Acts would have had to take some steps to ensure that a fairly substantial penalty was available to deal with people who fraudulently misrepresented their position and obtained, for example, a pension to which they were not entitled, one which they might draw for weeks or years.
    But that is not the case here. We are talking about a poor person who wishes to obtain a prescription and says, "This is my Assistance book," thereby seeking to escape the charge of 1s. for the medicine or drug that he needs. This is not someone really robbing the Exchequer. It may be a girl saying she is 21 when she is actually 21 years and three months old. It may be a woman who says that she had her baby in the last 12 months when she really had it 18 months earlier. I suggest most strongly that this penalty Clause is out of all proportion to the type of offence contemplated.
    Secondly, the Minister may say that these are just maximum penalties and that the courts will be moved by the dimension of the offence. I am sure that is true, but I am sure that it is equally true that looking at a Clause which says that the penalty shall be a tine of £100 or three months' imprisonment, the court must feel that the offence was evidently thought to be a serious one. If the court goes a quarter of the way towards the maximum, it will still be a very severe penalty.
    The Minister has not found it necessary to be at all yielding up to date, except to his hon. Friends. I suggest that ours in an eminently reasonable Amendment in suggesting that a maximum fine of £20 would be sufficient to cover the situation. This is almost the last place where the Minister can show

    1747
    any compassion towards the patients and any mercy towards us. Here he might reasonably have followed his recent example and put his name to the Amendment, and I hope that he will accept it.
    Mr. Crookshank: As the right hon. Gentleman's last words called attention to the fact that my name had not been added to the Amendment, it will not surprise him when he hears from me that I do not advise the House to accept it. [Interruption.] In spite of the clicking noises being made by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner)—[HON. MEMBERS: "And others."]—this is the common form in all cases where there is a question of false statements and false representations being made for the purpose of evading payment of a charge.
    It was used in every similar Act by our predecessors. In Section 52 (1) of the National Assistance Act, 1948, the penalty was for anyone knowingly making a false statement for the pupose of claiming benefit under Parts II or III of the Act, which related respectively to assistance in cash or in kind. If the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends found it necessary to introduce that in accordance with precedent—I am not suggesting that they invented it—they thought the precedent must be followed because false representations might bring some advantage to which a person was not entitled.
    Mr. McNeil: They might have been extensive sums.
    Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. The type of person applying under the National Assistance Act is not likely to get very extensive sums. The provision to which I have referred was particularly in relation to assistance in cash and kind and to accommodation provided by local authorities, and I do not think there was a chance of extensive sums being involved.
    Whether the sums are large or not, this Clause is the common form with which to deal with cases where there may be false representation. For that reason we have put it in the Bill, and for that reason I ask the House to accept it. The righ hon. Gentleman has already pointed out that these are only maxima. One
    1748
    could anticipate that the fines would be very much less. That has proved to be so in the case of Acts introduced by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1948, 1950 and 1951 when similar words were used.
    As I understand that the right hon. Gentleman would like some little time for a Third Reading debate, perhaps the Opposition will not press the matter further now so that we may get on with the business; but I am in their hands.
    Mr. McNeil: If I may have permission to speak again, I cannot do otherwise than advise my hon. Friends to press this Amendment to a Division. The right hon. Gentleman's attitude is quite surprisingly hard and rather pitiless.
    Mr. Simmons: I am absolutely amazed. This is the most disgusting thing that has happened during these proceedings. It is Tory repression at its very worst. It is a savage attack upon the ordinary people of this country. The Opposition ought to go into the Lobby and protest against it, and also protest against it up and down the country.
    This is not in any way comparable with the penalties imposed in other Acts of Parliament which have been quoted. As regards the Ministry of Pensions, in the case of people who defrauded the public over a period of years there might have been such an argument as this, but in this instance the 1s. prescription is all that is involved. Here we have an Amendment suggesting a reduction in the fine to £20 and the abolition of imprisonment, and yet hon. Members opposite, through the Minister, oppose it.
    I wish to utter my most emphatic and sincere protest against the absolute heartlessness of hon. Members opposite in regard to the welfare of a class which I am proud to represent in the House. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will laugh on the other side of their faces before long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Never mind about order.
    Mr. Powell: I hope I shall not be going outside the rules of order if I say that in the few remarks which he made the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) was placing himself in danger under the provisions of the Clause. At one stage he said that this deals only

    1749
    with the 1s. prescription. That is not so. It deals with very considerable sums and with what may be recurrent sums. There is an item of £4 5s. under Clause 2, and charges which may be incurred under Clause 1. It seems to me that the charges which can be imposed under this Bill are entirely on a par as regards magnitude with the sums payable under the National Assistance Act, and that
    therefore the precedent of that Act should be followed.
    Mr. Simmons: You are a cold-blooded lot.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 266: Noes, 246.

    Division No. 112.]

    AYES

    [8.11 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

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

    Drayson, G. B.

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

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Drewe, C.

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Lindsay, Martin

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Duthle, W. S.

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

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Erroll, F. J.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

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

    Fell, A.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

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

    Fisher, Nigel

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Banks, Col. C.

    Fort, R.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Baxter, A. B.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lansdale)

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Gage, C. H.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Gammans, L. D.

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

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

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Godber, J. B.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Black, C. W.

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Gower, H. R.

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Marples, A. E.

    Braine, B. R.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Maude, Angus

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

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Maudling, R.

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

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

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

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Madlicott, Brig. F.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Mellor, Sir John

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

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

    Molson, A. H. E.

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

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

    Bullard, D. G.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Hay, John

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Nicholls, Harmer

    Butcher, H. W.

    Heath, Edward

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Channon, H.

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Cole, Norman

    Hopkinson, Henry

    Odey, G. W.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

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

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Osborne, C.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Partridge, E.

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

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

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

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

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Jennings, R.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Kaberry, D.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Donner, P. W.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Redmayne, E.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Robertson, Sir David

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

    Vosper, D. F.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Roper, Sir Harold

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

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Russell, R. S.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Storey, S.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Wellwood, W.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

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

    Teeling, W.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Scott, R. Donald

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

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Wills, G.

    Shepherd, William

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

    Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    York, C.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Tilney, John

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Turton, R. H.

    Mr. Studholme and

    Mr. Richard Thompson.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

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

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Adams, Richard

    Edelman, M.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Johnson, Douglas (Paisley)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Baird, J.

    Ewart, R.

    Keenan, W.

    Balfour, A.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Field, W. J.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Bartley, P.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Kinley, J.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Finch, H. J.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Bence, C. R.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Follick, M.

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Benson, G.

    Forman, J. C.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Beswick, F.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Lindgren, C. S.

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

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Logan, D. G.

    Blackburn, F.

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

    McGhee, H. G.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Gibson, C. W.

    McInnes, J.

    Boardman, H.

    Glanville, James

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Gooch, E. G.

    McLeavy, F.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Grey, C. F.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Messer, F.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hannan, W.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Monslow, W.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Moody, A. S.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.

    Clunie, J.

    Hastings, S.

    Morley, R.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Coldrick, W.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

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

    Collick, P. H.

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

    Moyle, A.

    Cook, T. F.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hobson, C. R.

    Murray, J. D.

    Cove, W. G.

    Holman, P.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Holmes, Horaoe (Hemsworth)

    O'Brien, T.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Holt, A. F.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Oliver, G. H.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Orbach, M.

    Daines, P.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Oswald, T.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Padley, W. E.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pannell, Charles

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Deer, G.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Parker, J.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Paton, J.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Pearson, A.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Janner, B.

    Peart, T. F.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

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

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    1752

    1753

    Poole, C. C.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Wade, D. W.

    Porter, G.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Watkins, T. E.

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Slater, J.

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

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Weitzman, D.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Snow, J. W.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Sparks, J. A.

    West, D. G.

    Rankin, John

    Steele, T.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Reeves, J.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Willey, Octavlus (Cleveland)

    Richards, R.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Roberts, Goranwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Ross, William

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

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

    Royle, C.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Tomney, F.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Yates, V. F.

    Short, E. W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Usborne, H. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Viant, S. P.

    Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Wigg.

    Clause 7.—(SUPPLEMENTARY AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS.)
    Mr. Baird: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, to leave out paragraph (b).
    I shall detain the House only for a short time as this Amendment has been put down only in order to seek an explanation. The position, as I see it, is that today, before this Measure comes into operation, if anyone in poor circumstances, in receipt of National Assistance, should require emergency dental treatment, and goes to the dentist and has that treatment carried out, it is done under the dental service. By the terms of the Bill a charge is being made. The National Assistance patient will go to the dentist, who will treat him or her outside the Health Scheme, and charge any fee he wishes up to £1. The patient can recover that charge from the National Assistance Board.
    If that is the position, it seems to me to be completely wrong because, while the charges under the National Health Service are limited to 7s. 6d. for emergency treatment, the dentist will, under the Bill, be able to charge a Public Assistance patient up to 19s. 6d. for the same treatment and recover that amount from the National Assistance Board. If that is so, something should be done to put the matter right. This Amendment is put down to secure an explanation from the Minister of what this provision really means.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Crookshank: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), is quite correct. Under the
    1754
    present law, if emergency work was done by private arrangement with the dentist, the National Assistance Board could not make a grant. This provision in the Bill is to make quite sure they can meet the charge if, in the case of a National Assistance patient, the dentist says, "I want a small sum for doing this work," and does not do it under the National Health Service. I dare say that might happen in many other cases in order to save the dentist trouble. We want to make it clear that if he does that—although it is rather unlikely—the National Assistance patient can recover the charge from the Board. That is the purpose of this paragraph.
    Mr. Baird: But this will happen every day in every dentist's practice. In the case of anyone in receipt of Public Assistance requiring teeth to be extracted, the dentist will be able to charge up to £1 and recover the amount from the National Assistance Board. There should be some limit to the amount which the dentist is allowed to charge a patient. I am trying to save the right hon. Gentleman from getting into a mess.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member cannot make a second speech.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: In that case, may I put the point once more to the right hon. Gentleman, as I think he has missed the point put by my right hon. Friend? It was that, in the circumstances envisaged, the dentist could charge anything up to £1, whereas in the ordinary way he might charge less than 10s. To that extent the dentist might, if he is so minded, be getting far more than

    1755
    is his due, and the Public Assistance Board will be paying more than it should. What safeguard have the Government provided to prevent that kind of thing from happening?
    Mr. Awbery: Are we to understand that there is no scale of charges, that the dentist can charge what he likes and that there is no inquiry, in that kind of work, as to what has been done?
    Mr. Crookshank: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I would say that the point I had in mind was to make quite clear that if anyone receives private treatment and is a recipient of National Assistance there should be no question whether the charge should be paid by the National Assistance Board. If there is a possibility of any kind of leakage I will look at the matter again; but I do not like to make the assumption for the purposes of the argument that the dentists are necessarily going to overcharge National Assistance patients because they can get more than the proper charge from the National Assistance Board. It is a profession, an honourable profession, and I am not prepared to make that assumption about any professional people.
    As, however, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), who is a member of that profession, has expressed the opinion that there may be something in the point he is making, I shall make it my business to look at it, making it quite clear that it is his suggestion. I am not casting any aspersions or suggesting that any dentist is likely to do this thing, but the hon. Member has told me that there is a possible loophole, and it is my business to see that there are no loopholes.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, to leave out from "instrument," to the end of line 15, and to insert:
    "and no statutory instrument shall be made under and in pursuance of this Act unless it has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
    During the course of the debates on this Bill the right hon. Gentleman has made many promises about what he will or will not put in the Regulations he proposes to draft under the powers given to him under the Bill, but he has given us very few guarantees in the Bill itself.
    1756
    The possibility is open either to himself or his successors to make remarkable changes—for example, the levying of a charge on other appliances on which there is to be no charge and for which the right hon. Gentleman says he has no intention of charging—and these changes can be made under the terms of the Bill by the making of Regulations.
    It is true that if regulations are made this House would, under the proviso contained in the Bill, have the right to pray against them. That, however, as we all know, never gives the House of Commons a full opportunity to discuss thoroughly and publicly, as we should like to do, any important change. Prayers are apt to come before the House late at night or early in the morning, after other business, and to receive little notice in the Press.
    Yet here we are dealing with the National Health Service, to which 95 per cent. of our citizens resort and in which probably an even greater percentage of our citizens are vitally and keenly interested. If important changes should be made in future by means of regulations, those regulations should be brought before the House, explained and an affirmative resolution should be sought from this House and in the other place.
    It is surely right that if important changes, indeed any change, are to be made under this Bill in the National Health Service, the public and Parliament should be made fully aware of them and Parliament should be given the opportunity formally to approve them. It will cost the right hon. Gentleman nothing to agree to this Amendment. I hope that he will feel that what is proposed is a right and proper practice to pursue where the National Health Service is concerned.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Janner: It is a pity there is so little time left for the Third Reading. I wish that hon. Members would realise that this is an extremely important matter. I call upon hon. Members opposite to carry out the policy they consistently adopted in the last six years of urging that Regulations should be made by the method suggested in the Amendment They cannot get out of that. In all the debates we had there was not one single occasion, so far as I can remember, on which they did not urge the principle that we must not have this kind of

    1757
    legislation unless the House was in the position to be able to discuss it fully.
    On some occasions I did not agree with them. But this is a Bill which deals with charges which many hon. Members will want to examine carefully. Their own constituents are involved. There may be changes which will affect the charges themselves, or the likelihood of the charges being of any value. I submit that if ever there was a Bill which required the possibility of the Regulations made under it to be examined this is the Bill.
    We have had Prayers time after time from hon. Members opposite who constantly said it was their duty to move Prayers for annulment. We know the ineffective manner in which such Prayers are considered, because they are brought forward at times when little interest is taken in them. These matters are of such importance that they should be dealt with when the House has the opportunity of considering the proposals and of giving the benefit of their constituency and professional experiences to the Minister.
    I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Secretary would be delighted to hear the views of hon. Members, if not from this side of the House, at least from their side. I appeal to him to concede us this point, because this is a case in which the lives of men and women are affected. The health of the community is something which has to be safeguarded and which may be impaired owing to the inadvertence or lack of knowledge on the part of the Minister or his advisers, and the assistance we can give him is something of value.
    Mr. Crookshank: The argument as to whether in any particular case Regulations should be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure is one which comes up with great frequency and is argued very fervently on one side or the other. There is really no end to that argument. I feel that one ought to look at each case as it comes up; that we should not necessarily be bound by precedent, but should try to see what is the commonsense answer.
    If we apply that test to this Amendment, there is no doubt that it should not be carried. Look at what happens. Under the Act of 1949, power was taken
    1758
    by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to impose a charge on the prescriptions made by general practitioners. In that case they have said, to quote the words of the hon. Gentleman, that the proper practice to pursue is the negative procedure. He asks us here to put in the affirmative procedure. The great bulk of the prescriptions charged are on the general practitioner side. Here the charge is merely on the hospital out-patient.
    What a queer result it would be if the general practitioner charge was, under the Act of 1949, to be dealt with on a Prayer for annulment, whereas the much smaller section, the charge in outpatients departments, could be dealt with under the Affirmative Resolution by a Bill passed by this Government. I am sure that that cannot appeal to the logic of hon. Members opposite. It is ridiculous to envisage a situation in which, say, seven-eighths of a subject is discussed and argued in this House under one kind of procedure and one-eighth—if that is the right proportion—under another.
    That knocks the bottom out of the argument straight away, quite irrespective of the question which is the better way. We have the Act of 1949 which was introduced and passed by hon. Members opposite, and of which presumably they approved. In the same way—
    Mr. Janner: And which the right hon. Gentleman opposed.
    Mr. Crookshank: I am not discussing that. I am talking about what the situation is now, not what it might have been. I do not know what all the excitement is being engendered about. I am dealing with what the situation is now—
    Mr. Janner: The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly argue this way now, when he has a chance to remedy the situation. How can he argue in this way now?
    Mr. Crookshank: Anyway, I am arguing this way now, and in the situation in which we have the 1949 Act on the Statute Book it seems to me a sensible way of doing it, in view of the fact that that Act covers a far wider field than we do here.
    That is my answer to the hon. Member. He may not like it. But in the same way

    1759
    the Act of 1951 had the Negative procedure in the case of the charges for dentures and spectacles and, therefore, here again any Regulations which may arise dealing with the dentists' side should be dealt with in the same way. But to take the hon. Gentleman perhaps a little more seriously than when he was pulling my leg just now—
    Mr. Janner: I was not pulling the hon. Gentleman's leg.
    Mr. Crookshank: Well, he hides—I was trying to think of the line—
    "Behind a frowning providence
    He hides a smiling face."
    We must judge these things as they come up in the different circumstances. I do not mean by that the political circumstances of one side or the other. I think that what has been done in the past in a particular field is relevant when we are amending and extending legislation in that same field, but it would be perfectly ridiculous to have one set of Regulations dealing with the same topic under the negative procedure and another set under the affirmative procedure.
    I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman, after having had his "dig" at those of us on these benches, will now allow us to get on.
    Amendment negatived.
    8.41 p.m.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    I should like to make plain, on behalf of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, that we did not introduce this Measure, as was so frequently suggested by hon. Members of the Opposition, for the sheer delight of taking the National Health Service to pieces, but because we had to take a realistic view of the country's present financial difficulties, and had to face up, as hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite had to face up last year and the previous year, to the self-same problems of rising expenditure and rising costs and not least to the fact that the original Health Service Estimates were wildly out, and that the bills which the nation was called upon to pay proved to be more than double the original Estimates.
    1760
    We on this side of the House do not like making cuts, and hon. Members opposite know very well in their hearts, even if they refuse to credit us with any human kindness, that no Government would lightly introduce politically unpopular Measures unless they were convinced that it was absolutely essential as a contribution to the greater over-all needs of the nation.
    All my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side deeply regret the necessity for this Measure, but we are called upon to cure the financial fever of our predecessors. Our discussions during the earlier stages of this Bill, and in the Committee stage particularly, tended to range over a very wide field indeed, and many of the speeches were based more on conjecture and what might be than upon what my right hon. Friend stated quite plainly in the Second Reading debate to be our intention. I think, therefore, that it might be helpful at this stage if I were to remind hon. Members of the main ingredients of the Bill, for the simple reason that even this afternoon we have heard hon. Members opposite referring to appliances upon which they were inferring that there would be a charge when, in point of fact, no charge would be imposed.
    The Government having decided to implement the 1949 Act in respect of the 1s. 0d. prescription charge, for the same reasons and dictated by the same premises of financial need as were outlined by hon. Members opposite when that particular Measure was before the House, have introduced this tidying-up Measure in order that there should be no anomaly between patients obtaining prescriptions from their general medical practitioners and taking them to chemists, and other patients going to the out-patient and dispensing departments of hospitals. We do not consider that people who are receiving medicines from hospitals should be advantageously treated as compared with those who may take their general medical practitioner's prescription to a chemist. Such an anomaly would cause increased pressure on the out-patient departments of hospitals by people seeking to evade the 1s. 0d. charge.
    We were pressed on the Committee stage to make exemptions from these payments for various classes and for various

    1761
    types of ailments and patients. Those who need drugs or medicines in respect of venereal disease have been exempted by an Amendment put forward by my right hon. Friend and agreed to by the House this afternoon. In this instance, the group of patients are clearly defined, and the centres where they are treated are easily and well known. We are also bound by an international obligation under the Brussels Agreement.
    Beyond this specific exemption, we do not feel that we can make exemptions for specific ailments since, if exemptions were made according to the nature of the ailment, each individual group exempted would make it increasingly difficult for hospitals to administer the scheme.
    We have therefore felt that the only other exemptions from the hospital prescription charge with which we are dealing in this Bill must be on a basis of need. Two such groups will be exempted in the Regulations; those already drawing National Assistance benefit and war pensioners in respect of their disabilities. Where there is hardship beyond these two groups, the National Assistance Board will be empowered to help. We believe it is fairer that the uniform assessment of the National Assistance Board should operate on a basis of need rather than that specific ailments should be singled out for exemption.
    Mr. George Porter: Is the hon. Lady in a position to say what machinery will be created to enable that section of the population to which she is now referring to get their 1s. back?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think that has been previously explained. If persons in need not already in receipt of National Assistance feel that they have a case which they can present to the National Assistance Board, they would take their prescription, receipt or if it were a case of an appliance supplied through a hospital, they would adopt the same method as is now followed in the case of teeth and spectacles. They would sign the appropriate form, obtained from the hospital and then take it to the National Assistance Board, who could then make a refund by cheque in the case of an appliance or by cash in the case of a prescription.
    Clause 1 also gives us power to make charges for appliances. During the Committee stage of the Bill and again this
    1762
    afternoon, there were many eloquent speeches inferring that we were intending to place a charge on every type and kind of appliance. This, as hon. Members know, is not so, and I think it only fair to reiterate the statement made by my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading that we propose to make charges on four specific items.
    We are proposing to make a charge for the supply and repair of surgical boots and shoes. The £3 charge is a fairly average price for a pair of ordinary boots or shoes which a patient would otherwise buy and is one-third of the cost of a pair of surgical boots. The charges for repair are also proportions of the actual cost. We propose further to make a charge of £1 for surgical belts, which is approximately between one-third and one-sixth of the actual cost to the National Health Service. So far as women are concerned, this belt frequently takes the place of a generally worn garment by which they endeavour to conceal their inches and hold up their stockings, and to many this £1 will be far less than they would pay for the non-surgical garment. The many special spinal, leg and abdominal appliances which have been mentioned in this debate will bear no charge at all.
    We propose to make a charge of £2 10s. for wigs, which is one-fifth of their cost. I think it is fair to point out that those who wear wigs are not called upon to pay normal charges for having their hair cut and dressed. One cannot estimate precisely the expenditure because as hon. Members will know their need varies according to the paucity or luxury of their crop of hair, but it would not be difficult to spend £2 10s. a year. I believe that if hon. Members went regularly to the shop downstairs they would find they would certainly spend that sum.
    A charge of 5s. to 10s. will be made for elastic stockings according to length, and those charges vary between half and one-fifth of the actual cost, which I do not think can fairly be considered excessive. So in many cases we shall not be asking patients to incur expenditure beyond that which ordinary members of the public will have to pay. We are determined to safeguard people against faulty or defective appliances and so we have written into this Bill, in an Amendment which has been accepted by the House today, a provision for the return of any faulty appliances.
    Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Lady prepared to give an undertaking that the items to which she is now referring are the only items on which charges are to be made and that if an attempt is made to introduce other charges, she will oppose them?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: This Bill covers only these charges. The hon. Member knows that, apart from Regulations based upon this Bill, any further Regulations will have to be brought before the House, and any Government of the day that committed themselves for all time to circumstances which they could not predict would be both unwise and unworthy of holding office.
    My right hon. Friend has also established that we shall make no charge at all for appliances for children under 16 or for those who are receiving full-time education. This, too, has been written into the amended Bill.
    As so many right hon. Members and hon. Members opposite waxed wrathful and some indeed abusive at my expense a fortnight ago when I made a slip and erroneously referred to this item as being in the Bill instead of to be provided in the Regulations, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the former Home Secretary will exonerate me from the near-criminal charge he made against me and regard the comments I then made as prophetic.
    Clause 2 of the Bill deals with proposals for charges in the dental service. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), the former Minister, when dealing with the 1951 Measure, pointed out that when considering how to keep the Health Service within the ceiling which the Government of that day considered essential it would have been possible to have reduced expenditure in other kinds of ways. He gave as an example that it would have been possible to cut the hospital service, but he obviously felt, as we now do, that people who are in need of dental treatment, although they may be in some temporary pain, cannot be compared with those who require in-patient treatment in hospitals, and, generally speaking, people who seek dental treatment are in regular employment.
    1764
    We agree with him that it would be wrong to reduce the hospital service. In 1951 the expenditure was £285 million—£25 million over the previous year's expenditure, or £15½ million over the previous Estimate. This financial year we expect to spend £306 million, which is an increase of £21 million over last year's Estimate on the hospital service. Most of the increased expenditure is due to higher costs, but there have also been increased hospital facilities—over 8,300 more beds, and during 1951 3,800 more full-time nurses and midwives and 775 more part-time nurses and midwives.
    It is estimated that the general dental services, which do not include hospital dentistry and the special priority service run by the local authorities for school children, expectant mothers and young children, will still cost about £27 million a year, including Scotland. Given that there must be some limit—and hon. Members opposite have accepted in the past that there must be some limit—this seemed to be the service in which savings could best be made; not only are the patients generally active and able to share the burden of their treatment with the Exchequer, but we hope that the way that we have made these charges will increase the attention given to the priority classes of children, adolescents and expectant mothers whose needs are accepted and recognised on both sides of the House.
    To this end, during the passage of this Bill we have done our best to lessen the effect of the charges where there seemed special reason for doing so as, for example, in these priority classes. The exemption from charges for certain priority classes has been extended by an Amendment to those under 21, and it has been decided not to charge for the initial examination and report. We hope that this will encourage people to go to their dentists regularly so that dental decay can be located and stopped in the early stages. We are anxious that no deterrent should be put in the way of adolescents who, as hon. Members have been quick to point out, are particularly susceptible to dental caries. In addition, a number of minor improvements have been made since the Bill was first introduce. One of these provides that treatment for bleeding from whatever cause shall be exempt from any charge

    1765
    One item which did not draw quite as wide a debate as other parts of the Bill was that concerning day nurseries. May I make it clear that the Bill does not oblige local authorities to make any specified charges for attendance at day nurseries. What it does is to give them power to make reasonable charges having regard to the patients' means and subject to the approval of the Minister. Up till now they have been able to charge the cost of meals, with the result—and hon. Members opposite know very well that it is true—that with increasing costs many local authorities have found it necessary to close down large numbers of their day nurseries.
    It has been suggested that these charges are going to make it necessary for those mothers who need to put their children in nurseries, either through being divorced, unmarried or deserted, or who for other reasons are the sole supporters of their families, to take their children away. I am sure that this is not so. I believe that the reverse will be the effect, because even now, with limited charges, local authorities lower or cut out altogether from their charges in cases of special financial hardship where they do not believe the income is sufficient to meet the ordinary standard charge which they impose upon other users of the nurseries. I am sure this measure will not be used against such cases. On the contrary I think the power to make charges proportionate to the very heavy costs may very well benefit all users of the day nurseries.
    One of the reasons that local authorities are deciding to limit the number of nursery places has been the very heavy cost on the ratepayer. The county of Kent was cited by two hon. Members opposite, but neither of them mentioned that the cost per child per day last year was 14s. 10d. and that the amount recovered from the parent was 2s. I believe that by this provision allowing a greater charge it will be possible for borderline cases—which at the moment are being refused because local authorities are so limiting their places—to be accepted when it is possible to pay a larger proportion of the overall charge. On this I was glad to have the support of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) whose experience on the London County Council in these matters is very
    1766
    extensive indeed. Local authorities cannot go on providing places in an unlimited fashion unless they have some scope to recover, where it is fair and proper to recover, a little more in their charges.
    The genuine social cases for whom any rate of payment would be a hardship will be treated as sympathetically as ever. This Measure has the support of the local authority associations, who have wanted it in order to enable them to allow those people who use nurseries and could perfectly well pay more than 7s. 6d. or 10s., or whatever the charge is, to pay a slightly higher charge. I do not believe that we can justify preferential subsidies for families who are not those of extreme social need whose incomes may be substantially greater than those of some of the ratepayers who are paying for the nurseries.
    This year we are proposing to spend on the National Health Service approximately the same sum as was spent last year but, mainly because of rising costs, we have had to consider where we could save money in order to keep within the level of expenditure established by previous Governments in easier times and to make that expenditure reasonable in relation to our general economic situation. The charges imposed by the Labour Government for dentures and spectacles were estimated to save about £25 million. Our proposals are estimated to save around £20 million.
    If the incidence of charges in the Health Service is to be opposed all along the line by hon. Members opposite, will the Opposition say whether they now repudiate all charges, including their own? If so, what would they tax to make up the deficit in the Estimates? If they can offer no alternative sources of revenue other than taxation, are they prepared to allow the expenditure on this Service to rise without limit of any kind?
    9.3 p.m.
    Mr. Hastings: There are many counts on which, had time permitted, I should have liked to state my opposition to this Bill. I shall deal with only one in the short time for which I want to detain the House. It is that I regard this Bill as an attack upon the health of children. In its legislation this House has always been inclined to put the children first. That has been especially so in relation to health. We had legislation in connection

    1767
    with the inspection and treatment of school children before Lloyd George's great Bill providing National Health Insurance.
    I can see some argument—though I do not agree with it—for making some effort necessary before an adult can secure treatment, because an adult ought to know the value of early medical treatment, but with children it is an entirely different matter. They cannot realise the importance of symptoms and the need for the early treatment of disease. Children think only for the moment. In many cases, and perhaps quite rightly, they have a rooted objection to doctors, and that rooted objection, particularly evident when they are ill, makes it difficult for their parents to take them to the doctor or hospital. It is difficult to get children to hospital where treatment is necessary, and I suggest that such difficulty may be somewhat increased by even the small fee which has to be paid when they get to hospital.
    I do not want to detain the House in showing how, especially in the case of children, early treatment is essential, but I should like to give one or two examples. A child may have a discharge from his nose and it may be nasal diphtheria—I had it myself and I know something about it. If that child is taken to hospital early in the illness and is given anti-toxin, he will probably rapidly recover, but if he is left for four or five days, then in such cases there may be a 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. mortality.
    A child may get a pain in the abdomen, and whether it is through eating sour apples or appendicitis the parents may not know. If he is taken to hospital and the appendicitis is recognised, and his appendix is removed in time, he will very quickly get well. If, on the other hand, he is left until an appendix abscess forms, then, at best, recovery will be slow and convalescence prolonged.
    When he was Minister of Education, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer brought before Parliament an admirable Bill, which imposed on local authorities the duty of making such arrangements—and here I quote from the 1944 Education Act:
    "… as are necessary for securing that comprehensive facilities for free medical treatment are available to them."
    1768
    And by "them" is meant the children. Local authorities provide clinics for minor ailments and for other conditions, and also provide medicaments and nutrients and dressings. But if something more serious is recognised and the child has to be taken to hospital and treated as an out-patient, a fee will have to be paid if this Bill becomes law. It seems to me a disaster that we should now be proposing to go back on the beneficent provisions of the Education Act, 1944, and to make a charge for the treatment of children.
    9.9 p.m.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: Although I have not spoken during the preceding stages, except for a couple of brief interjections, I think hon. Members opposite will agree that at least I have shared their vigils fairly constantly by day and night during the consideration of the Bill. Before I pass to the main burden of my short speech this evening, I want to make three points for the consideration of the Minister.
    When the Bill was first published, I admit that my personal sympathies were rather in favour of the exemption of groups of selected people, such as old-age pensioners, as was done in the original Act of 1949. I have been completely convinced by listening throughout the debate that a far better and fairer way of meeting cases of hardship is by meeting all classes in need through National Assistance. I am more than ever convinced in that respect since the National Assistance scales were raised; but I hope the Minister will pay particular attention to the marginal cases which may well arise, which may be just over the limit given in the Regulations when they are made. I further hope that many people now entitled to National Assistance will be able to get the benefit from the exemptions in this Bill, and will note that it is available and ready and welcome for them to take advantage of.
    Second, I should like to mention the question of the chronic sick. I feel, here again, that Regulations should be made to make sure that those who need medical prescriptions most, the permanently and genuinely chronically sick, can get a number of prescriptions on one certificate, so that they do not have to go again and again to pay shillings.

    1769
    Third, I am not quite clear about the date at which appliances ordered before this Bill comes in. On charging, I confess I am not quite clear from the interchanges that have taken place today what the position is, but I do feel that there is a case for not charging for appliances ordered before the Bill was published, and I do think that there is a distinction there, as compared with those ordered since. In this country we are presumed to know the law, and if appliances have been ordered since the publication of the Bill, that is another matter; nevertheless, there is a case for saving those who ordered their appliances before the Bill was published.
    Apparently, I have gained a certain amount of concord from the benches opposite, but I am afraid that I am going to effect a change of atmosphere now, at least so far as some hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned. Whereas I have heard many extremely sincere and sympathetic speeches from the other side of the Chamber, yet, during my short stay in this House, apart from those genuine speeches, I have seldom if ever heard more hypocritical and synthetic passion emanating from people responsible for putting almost exactly similar Measures into effect when they were in office.
    Mr. Speaker: I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the word "hypocritical" is not a Parliamentary expression.
    Mr. Bennett: I plead in excuse my inexperience, and I redouble the use of the word "synthetic," and I withdraw the use of the word "hypocritical." I have heard a number of excuses made again and again about the question of the system of charges in the 1949 Act—about how, although admittedly the Act was passed in this House through the instance of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, yet it was never put into effect; but the whole burden of their speeches has not been about whether it was administratively possible to put into effect or not, but of a moral issue. They have called us mean, contemptible, hard hearted, and so on. Yet, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) failed to put it into effect administratively or not has nothing to do with the moral issue. If anything, indeed, the
    1770
    failure to put that Act into effect must be attributed to Ministerial ineptitude.
    We have heard a great deal today of how a future Labour Government—if such a misfortune were to come upon us that we were to have one—would repeal this Measure. I should particularly like to have some authoritative speaker from the opposite side of the House tell us authoritatively exactly which Measure they would repeal—this or their own Measures of 1949 and 1951 or all of them? We are always being pressed for answers on the spot. Perhaps, some right hon. Gentleman opposite can answer this on the spot. Or perhaps we cannot he told by the Opposition?
    I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale is not here, for I want to refer to him. I should certainly have told him, in accordance with the usual courtesy of hon. Members, that I was going to refer to him, but that I thought it reasonable to believe that, after all the passion he has engendered during the course of this Bill, he would have been present here at the Third Reading. In my referring to the right hon. Gentleman, hon. Gentlemen opposite may think that, in view of my present new position in the House, I am overbold in being, if not a Jack the Giant-Killer, at least a jack-the-giant attacker, but, nevertheless, I venture to assert that the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale is the worst of all of hon. Members opposite.
    The right hon. Gentleman himself spoke in favour of a 1s. prescription charge, of a broad extent to which we have made only a small addition, comparatively with the rest. He himself, in his time, accepted the whole theory of a ceiling for the National Health Service. He was a member of the Cabinet and shared collective responsibility in 1951 when the late Sir Stafford Cripps spoke about this ceiling. I do not wish to take up the time of hon. Members opposite, but, if I am challenged, I have here no less an authority than the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), himself, who succeeded him at the Ministry of Health, and who, on 24th April, 1951, alluded specifically to the fact that the theory of a ceiling was accepted in 1951, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale was a Member of the Cabinet and did

    1771
    then share collective Cabinet responsibility. I could proceed further by showing those details in HANSARD.
    Above all, we have heard again and again from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale the most abusive terms about our conduct which altogether ignores his own part of having played a very similar role in the past. I say, with all sincerity, that when I was a candidate before entering this House I once had the temerity, and received a certain amount of publicity for it, of saying that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale was a "utility Lloyd George." Since entering this House, I now realise that I was then insulting both the utility scheme and the late lamented distinguished Liberal statesman.
    9.17 p.m.
    Mr. Marquand: I think that I ought to begin by thanking the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary for the tribute she paid to the extension of the National Health Service during the time that I and my right hon. Friend, who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, were responsible for it. I was glad, indeed, to hear the latest figures of the increase in the number of beds and nurses which took place in the Service during the time for which we were responsible.
    I may also perhaps congratulate the hon. Lady for the careful and accurate way in which she expounded the contents of the Bill. She did so—I do not wish to be unpleasant at all—with greater knowledge tonight than she has exhibited once or twice during the course of our other proceedings. I was glad that she went through it so accurately, standing at the side of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, who may also be supposed to know something about the Bill now that he has listened to her exposition of it.
    It is true—I wish to continue to be fair—that some improvements have been made in the Bill during the course of its passage through the House. They are all minor improvements. There has been, for example, the raising of the age of exemption of charge for dental treatment from 16 to 21, and one or two other similar Amendments to which the hon. Lady alluded, which we welcomed and accepted. It remains true, however, that all the positive proposals and intentions
    1772
    of the chief Clauses of the Bill remain thoroughly objectionable.
    The Minister of Health and his friends have not sought to defend their Measure on the grounds that it is carrying out their election policy to provide a better service for the same money. They have made no attempt to do that. They did originally, in the early stages of the Bill, make a half-hearted and very lukewarm suggestion that the Bill might prevent certain abuses which were alleged to have occurred in the National Health Service, but they very quickly came off that argument. When they were asked to produce positive evidence, they completely failed to do so and they withdrew their other suggestion that the consultants and assistants of the general hospital service were guilty of abusing the general Health Service.
    On the whole the defence has been, and it has been repeated tonight by the hon. Lady and by the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett), that, "We do not like the Bill. It is no pleasure whatever to us to do this, but we need to save the money." But far more than the money that to be saved by the Bill is being distributed in bonus gifts to income taxpayers.
    When the hon. Lady asked us where we would find the money, there is the answer. It was completely unnecessary in these circumstances to have made so generous gifts to those who pay Income Tax and to have sought to make savings of this kind at the expense of the sick, of chronic sufferers from distressing maladies and diseases, and of the disabled and afflicted.
    Clause 1 imposes charges on the supply through the hospital services of drugs, medicines and appliances.
    Mr. Iain MacLeod: The right hon. Gentleman said that, faced with this decision, he would have found the money from, say, the rich or from Income Tax, or wherever you like. That is for the first time an official statement from the Opposition Front Bench that the conception of a ceiling on the National Health Service has gone. May we have that confirmed, because it is of the first importance?
    Mr. Speaker: The discussion is becoming a little disorderly. We are limited on Third Reading to what is in the Bill.
    Mr. Marquand: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.] I advise hon. Members opposite to enjoy their laughter while they may. Without wishing to abuse the rules of order, it may be possible to indicate an answer even to that question within the framework of the Bill. As I was about to say, Clause 1 imposes charges on the supply through the hospitals of drugs, medicines and appliances.
    It is true, no doubt, that some people who obtain drugs, medicines and appliances through the hospital services can afford to pay something towards their cost, but it is quite untrue to suggest, as, I think, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland attempted to do, that the vast majority of the people obtaining these appliances through the hospital service can afford to pay for them. The majority cannot afford to pay. They need these things because they are sick or disabled, and because they are sick or disabled their earning power is impaired. There is naturally found among these people a much higher proportion of utterly poor people than obtains in the population at large.
    These charges are utterly unfair, because they fall, and fall repeatedly, with peculiar severity on retirement pensioners, on war pensioners, on widows drawing pensions, upon parents of large families, the parents of ailing, diseased and crippled children, upon the chronically sick, and upon large numbers of classes. It was scarcely possible to listen this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) without feeling horrified at the effects that the charges were bound to have upon some of the most unfortunate classes in the community.
    Clause 2 imposes a charge for dental treatment. As I have said before, this is a cardinal error, flying in the face of all the advice given to successive Governments by successive commissions of experts who have examined the subject. I have quoted before from the report which was signed by the noble Lord who is still, I think, the head of the National Liberal Party. I will not repeat that quotation. Let me go even further back, to the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance as long ago as 1926. Lord Waverley and the late Sir Andrew Duncan were both members of that Royal Commission,
    1774
    and the conclusion to which the Commission came was this:
    "The evidence as a whole leaves no doubt in our minds that any system of public medical services cannot be regarded as complete until it includes the provision of adequate dental treatment in a generally available form."
    It was from that and the subsequent recommendation that the decision was taken to establish a comprehensive dental service as part of the National Health Service. Some risk was thereby taken, because the number of dentists was not sufficient for our total needs, but, looking back, I am certain that it was better to take that risk at that time than to run the risk of waiting again for some unknown period before a recommendation made as long ago as 1926 could be implemented.
    It took a long time to bring this about, and now it has been thrown away by the decision embodied in the Clause. I hardly know which of the Clauses to call the worst, but, at any rate, this Clause has received no defence of any merit during our proceedings. No one has sought to say that it is better to charge in the early stages of dental decay than to charge at later stages. Nobody has attempted to controvert the argument that this gives an incentive for neglecting the nation's teeth.
    As a result of introducing an administratively cumbersome scheme to effect savings in the National Health Service by making charges, the right hon. Gentleman has for the first time in the history of the National Health Service introduced penalties for false statements. There was no need for this before, because there were no charges in respect of which there could be false statements.
    A short time ago we voted against that charge, not so much because we quarrelled about the size of the penalty—though we certainly thought it very severe—but because we wanted to demonstrate our detestation of a system of charges which has resulted in the introduction into the National Health Service of this blemish upon the whole system. The sooner it disappears the better.
    I have left any reference to Clause 3 to the end of the few remarks which I thought it reasonable to address to the House at this late stage in our proceedings, when so little time is left. I said

    1775
    earlier in our debates that, though there were many objectionable features in the Bill, the most objectionable of all was the deliberate introduction of an amendment to the 1951 Bill which removes the provision that it should come to an end in 1954.
    On two occasions we have attempted to persuade the Minister of the evil of that decision. We put down two Amendments—we debated them both—endeavouring to persuade him to insert in the Bill a terminal date, but he has absolutely refused to do so. That raises a fundamental cleavage of opinion between us.
    We believe that this difference of opinion between us and the refusal of the Minister to contemplate our proposals that this Bill, like our Act of 1951, should come to an end in 1954, dramatically illustrate the contrasting attitudes of the two sides of the House towards the ideal of a comprehensive National Health Service.
    We introduced those charges in the Bill of 1951 because of Budget difficulties during the period of re-armament. We did not intend them to be permanent; I said so when I introduced the Bill. So we put a time limit to them in the Bill, a time limit that we sought to extend to this Bill also. We regret deeply that the Minister has refused to insert a similar time limit in this Bill. We deplore his action in removing the time limit from our Act. We adhere to our opinion that there should be a time limit to the operation of the charges which we imposed. We hold that there should be a time limit to the charges imposed by this Bill.
    We hold precisely the same opinion about the prescription charges which may be imposed under the 1949 Act. That Act was justified in part at the time by the existence of certain abuses in prescribing. We are satisfied that administrative measures already taken, which I described to the House on a previous occasion, such as the work of the Joint Committee on Prescribing, the regional service of prescribing and the like, have substantially reduced, if not removed, any abuses of prescribing and that any further abuses which may exist can be removed by similar administrative action, if taken vigorously in the future.
    1776
    So, looking at all these Measures together, the 1949 Act, the 1951 Act and this Bill of 1952, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I say that when we are returned to power we shall take steps, as soon as Parliamentary opportunity permits, to bring all these charges—charges for drugs, medicines, appliances, dentures, dental treatment and spectacles—to an end.
    Since his first burst of enthusiasm at the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Health has shown no pride in his Bill. Many of his own supporters have spoken as if they were ashamed of it. But apparently, he is determined to force it through with the aid of his majority. He will be unable to defend it in the country. When the time comes for the country to pass its verdict on the Bill, it will get rid of the Government and the Bill together. When that verdict has been rendered, we shall take advantage of the opportunity as I have indicated tonight is our firm intention.
    9.34 p.m.
    Mr. Powell: No one who had listened to the last speech, indeed no one who had attended the whole of the proceedings upon this Bill, would imagine, unless he had knowledge of the facts, upon what a degree of general agreement rest the main propositions on which this Bill is based. There is a very significant and symbolical sentence towards the end of the Bill which no attempt has been made to amend. It is in Clause 9:
    "This Act … and the National Health Service Acts may be cited together as the National Health Service Acts 1946 to 1952:"
    These Acts form a connected and to a certain extent a logical whole. They are the product of Governments of both colours and of the views of Members in all parts of the House. Since they seem to have slipped the memory of hon. Members opposite, what are the basic grounds upon which this Bill rests?
    During the almost four years in which the National Health Service has been in operation, defects in it as it affects the public have revealed themselves not to one party but to all who are in any way concerned with that Service. Amongst those defects one which stands out is the excessive pressure both upon general practitioners and upon the out-patient departments of our hospitals. That fact,

    1777
    the existence of that excessive pressure, is not seriously denied by anyone who has knowledge of the facts.
    It was reported upon last Session by this House's own Committee on Estimates, and in order to—
    Mr. E. Fernyhough rose—
    Mr. Powell: If the hon. Member will permit me, I am about to substantiate that fact by calling one of the cloud of witnesses by whom I am encompassed in this matter, namely, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). He said:
    "if we could in some way reduce the queues at the surgeries … it would be a good thing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c. 2263.]
    He recognised that this pressure did constitute one of the problems and one of the challenges to the success of this Service.
    Mr. McNeil: The hon. Member will surely admit to the House, if he finishes it, that the quotation which he has just read referred to general practitioners, whereas this Bill is dealing with those people who are directed to the consultants and out-patient departments. It is quite a fallacious comparison and verges on the dishonest.
    Mr. Powell: The consideration I have mentioned is on two grounds strictly relevant. The first is that Clause 1 of the Bill is necessitated, if for no other reason, by the impossibility of implementing the 1949 Act if we did not also provide by Clause 1 of this Bill that the patient cannot obtain free from the out-patient department what he must pay for on a doctor's prescription.
    The second ground is that the queues at the surgery and at the out-patient department are to a large extent, part of the same queue. Both are from the same reservoir of need for medical attention. So much for one of the major problems which has emerged in the last four years.
    I turn to another one, the virtual breakdown which had occurred, and was admitted, in the school dental service. The danger of the attack which was developing upon the dental health of the nation at its earliest and most vital stage was recognised, again by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale in his speech when introducing the principal Act in 1946, when he specifically alluded to the
    1778
    necessity of securing priority for schoolchildren and for nursing and expectant mothers.
    So we are, in all parts of the House, in agreement as to the existence of these problems and their seriousness. The idea that they can be assuaged and dealt with by the imposition, within the framework of the Service, of certain charges is not peculiar to this side of the House. Indeed the imposition of charges was justified from the other side of the House both in 1949 and 1951 by precisely these considerations. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), was saying that he would be interested to see the effect upon the school dental service of the charges he was imposing in that Bill. Two years ago or more the Leader of the Opposition was relating the charges then proposed to the queues at the surgery.
    There is common ground in believing that the imposition of moderate charges in the right places is the proper way of dealing with the problem at this stage of the evolution of the Service.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I am shocked.
    Mr. Powell: If the hon. Gentleman is shocked, his reactions are extremely slow, because the occasion for being shocked occurred over two years ago. So I say there is nothing in the principle of this Bill which departs from views held and put into practice on both sides of the House.
    Indeed, within the original Act, the Act of 1946, although we refer to it broadly and generally as providing a free medical service, there is provision for charges being levied by local health authorities for the provision of health services. The idea of an absolutely free provision of all services within the Bill is not only heretical, and contrary to the facts, but it is a most damaging misconception.
    It is by no means inconsistent with the view that I have just put forward to draw attention to the grave financial necessities not only of the nation but of the National Health Service. Tonight this brief debate has been memorable if for no other reason, than because it has marked the victory of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale over his own Front Bench. For the first time tonight the right hon. Member for Middles-

    1779
    brough, East threw overboard the contention to which he has hitherto held fast that there had to be a limit upon the amount of money voted for the National Health Service. Only at this stage has he given way and thrown overboard his reputation for responsibility in these matters.
    We have been reminded many times in the course of these debates that an additional bill—a bill which must be paid—has been served on the National Health Service in the last few months to the amount of £10 million a year.
    Mr. James Carmichael: On a point of order. Are we dealing with the Third Reading of this Bill, or are we discussing a sum of money allocated recently in a report?
    Mr. Speaker: We are discussing the Third Reading of the Bill, and again I remind the House that on Third Reading the House is confined to the contents of the Bill. At the same time, it is difficult to prevent answers to observations which have been made from one side of the House to the other, and the only remedy is for both sides of the House to adhere strictly to the rules of order.
    Mr. Powell: I am contending for the principle on which the Bill is based, and which, until 20 minutes ago, was common ground between the two Front Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—the principle that there must be a limit to the total amount of money that can be voted for this Service.
    Mr. Marquand: I do not want to take up the hon. Gentleman's time, but he must, if he wants to be fair, remember that nobody ever said that any particular ceiling was to last for all time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) in 1951 said that this was a ceiling for the time being, and those were his words.
    Mr. Powell: It would have been perfectly easy for the right hon. Gentleman in criticising this Bill, and it would have been the most potent and complete criticism, to deny from the outset that the ceiling ought to be maintained. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He has left it until this eleventh hour to make that recantation.
    Mr. McNeil rose—
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor of the House does not give way, the right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
    Mr. Powell: The argument has been put forward that the money which is required for the expansion of other parts of the Service could be found by economies within the Service itself. That was argued on Second Reading at length both by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East, and by other hon. Members.
    I do not contend that there is no room for administrative economy in the whole scope of the National Health Service. Indeed, the progressive administrative reform of that Service, not in two or three years but over a generation, is one of the great tasks for those who are alive today. But the administrative economies could not have been obtained in the space of time within which they were necessary. If he thought that by these administrative economies he could save £20 million or £25 million, why, then, did the right hon. Gentleman a year ago have to come to the House with a Bill to impose charges? The party opposite were in power up to six months ago. Why were not these economies of £20 million then made?
    I do not really believe that, apart from a minority of the party on the benches opposite, anyone seriously holds the view that a limit has not got to be kept to the total expenditure upon the National Health Service. I also believe it is generally recognised that, if we are to have expansion in those branches of the Service where it is most urgent—and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has referred to expansion in the hospital service—then that money has got to be found by other means within the Service. No other practicable method of securing it and of securing that expansion within the Service has been put forward or suggested during the whole course of the debate on this Bill.
    I want to end with another point upon which there has been substantial agreement between both sides of the House. It is not only on that side of the House that the hardships attendant upon sickness, and those which may arise from the operation of a previous National Health Service Bill and this one are recognised. Every hon. Member has a personal experience of the working of the National

    1781
    Health Service as it affects the lives of our people. There is basic agreement upon the method by which that problem is dealt with in this Bill The relief of hardship, of financial hardship, where it can be shown to exist, as the result of previous legislation or this legislation, has been provided in the same way by the late Government as by this Government.
    The right hon. Gentleman came to this House a year ago to invoke the National Assistance Board as the means of dealing with charges for prescriptions where patients could not afford to pay for them. A year ago the right hon. Gentleman used the National Assistance Board as the means of refunding the cost of dentures and spectacles where that exceeded the reasonable means of the patient. There is broad agreement again
    between both sides of the House upon this matter, and so, despite all our debates and all our Guillotines, this is substantially, as indeed anything affecting the vitals of the National Health Service ought to be, an agreed Measure.
    It being Nine Minutes to Ten o'Clock (consideration of the Bill having been entered upon at nine minutes to Four o'clock), Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [23 rd April] to put forthwith the Question necessary to bring to a conclusion the proceedings on the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 266.

    Division No. 113.]

    AYES

    [9.52 p.m

    Aitken, W. T.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

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

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

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Hay, John

    Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

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

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Anstruther-Gay, Major, W. J.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Arbuthnot, John

    Crouch, R. F.

    Heath, Edward

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

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

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hopkinson, Henry

    Banks, Col. C.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Donner, P. W.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Drayson, G. B.

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Drewe, C.

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

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

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

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Erroll, F. J.

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

    Black, C. W.

    Fell, A.

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

    Jennings, R.

    Braine, B. R.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Fort, R.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

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

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Kaberry, D.

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

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Gage, C. H.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Bullus, Wing Cmdr. E. E.

    George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

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

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Godber, J. B.

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

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

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Gower, H. R.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Graham, Sir Fergus

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

    Channon, H.

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Atbans)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Longden, Gilbert (Hefts, S.W.)

    Cole, Norman

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Low, A. R. W.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Partridge, E.

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. D.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Storey, S.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

    Pete, Brig. C. H. M.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Pitman, I. J.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.

    Teeling, W.

    Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Profumo, J. D.

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

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Redmayne, E.

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

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Marples, A. E.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Tilney, John

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Maude, Angus

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Turton, F. H.

    Maudling, R.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Vane, W. M. F.

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

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Vosper, D. F.

    Mellor, Sir John

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Russell, R. S.

    Wakefield, Sir Woven (Marylebone)

    Monokton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

    Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

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

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Scott, R. Donald

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Wellwood, W.

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Shepherd, William

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

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

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Williams, Gerald (Tunbridge)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Wills, G..

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Odey, G. W.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Wood, Hon. R.

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

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    York, C.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Brigadier Mackeson and

    Osborne, C.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Mr. Butcher.

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Follick, M.

    Adams, Richard

    Clunie, J.

    Forman, J. C.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Cooks, F. S.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Coldrick, W.

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Collick, P. H.

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

    Awbery, S. S.

    Cook, T. F.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Glanville, James

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Cove, W. G.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Baird, J.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Balfour, A.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

    Bartley, P.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Daines, P.

    Grey, C. F.

    Bence, C. R.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Benson, G.

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Beswick, F.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

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

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Calne Valley)

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Blackburn, F.

    Deer, G.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hannan, W.

    Boardman, H.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Bowden, H. W.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Bowles, F. G.

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

    Hastings, S.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Edelman, M.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Holman, P.

    Burke, W. A.

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Holt, A. F.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Evans, Stanley (Wodnesbury)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Ewart, R.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Carmichael, J.

    Field, W. J.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Champion, A. J.

    Finch, H. J.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    1784

    1785

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    O'Brien, T.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Orbach, M.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Janner, B.

    Oswald, T.

    Sylvester, G. O.

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

    Padley, W. E.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

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

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Pannell, Charles

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Parker, J.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Paton, J.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Peart, T. F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Tomney, F.

    Keenan, W.

    Poole, C. C.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Porter, G.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Usborne, H. C.

    Kinley, J.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Wade, D. W.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Rankin, John

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

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Reeves, J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Raid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Logan, D. G.

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Rhodes, H.

    West, D. G.

    McInnes, J.

    Richards, R.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    McLeavy, F.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Wigg, George

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Wilcook, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Ross, William

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Royle, C.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Manuel, A. C.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Short, E. W.

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Messer, F.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

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

    Mikardo, Ian

    Silverman, Julius (Erdinglon)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Winterbottem, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Monslow, W.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Winterbottom, Riohard (Brightside)

    Moody, A. S.

    Slater, J.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Morgan, Dr. H.. B. W.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke S.)

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Morley, R.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Yates, V. F.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Snow, J. W.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

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

    Serensen, R. W.

    Moyle, A.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mulley, F. W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

    Murray, J. D.

    Steele, T.

    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  UTILITY SCHEME (REVOCATION)
  10.2 p.m.
  Mr. John Edwards: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Utility Goods (Revocation) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 489), dated 11th March, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be annulled.
  I think that it might be convenient if this Prayer were taken at the same time as the other Prayer relating to utility goods—
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Utility Goods (Maximum Prices) (Revocation) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 490), dated 11th March, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be annulled.
  1786
  Would you agree to that suggestion, Mr. Speaker?
  Mr. Speaker: I think it would be a convenient course if the House were to agree to take these Prayers together, and then, when we reach them, the second two Prayers also.
  Mr. Edwards: I should like to address a few words mainly on the first of the Statutory Instruments, leaving it to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) to say more about the second. On 13th March the President of the Board of Trade announced his acceptance of the Douglas plan. The following Monday, on 17th March, 118 Utility Orders were revoked. These two Statutory Instruments against which we are praying tonight I think may be said to be the chief instruments concerned in this wholesale revocation. The Board of Trade Journal, in the issue

  1787
  following the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, I thought rather euphemistically referred to this as a revision of the Utility scheme. In fact, of course, from the date of the revocation of these Orders, 17th March, Utility in textiles and clothing was for all practical purposes dead.
  In the Budget debate we were necessarily preoccupied with a large number of other matters, and even when we were considering the question of the utility scheme the discussion necessarily dealt very much with Purchase Tax and with the new D scheme. I do not myself want to deal with that aspect of the matter at all. I am concerned with quality, standards of production and manufacture. I want to elicit if I can from the right hon. Gentleman more than he had to say in the Budget debate about this important matter.
  I listened with very great interest to the right hon. Gentleman on 13th March, not only to what he had to say, but to the way in which he dealt with his subject. What interested me very much was that on that occasion, anyway, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to show no sign of any historical sense. If that occasion is indicative of the fact that he lacks any historical sense, doubtless that quality will stand him increasingly in good stead the longer he stays in office. I say that because, having given us one or two quotations from the Douglas Report, he then dismissed the Utility scheme to oblivion, except in relation to furniture, In that case he said, "I will reprieve furniture for the time being, but not for long."
  I think that is a fundamentally wrong attitude to take, for I believe that the Utility scheme, from the time it was started in 1941, played a valuable and indispensable part. Although its efficacy as a quality control varied—though I would not subscribe to the sweeping condemnation contained in the Douglas Report—even the most superficial examination of the figures of deliveries will show that over a vast part of this field, right up to the end, the Utility scheme was guaranteeing standards.
  I would agree with the 1947 Report of the Heavy Clothing Working Party and say that the improvement in the average quality of clothing production has been in large measure due to the enforcement
  1788
  of utility standards. Nevertheless, the Utility scheme was open to criticism. I have not spent some 12 months at the Board of Trade without knowing all the difficulties connected with the scheme; but I would say, speaking very seriously, that I believe the right hon. Gentleman was wrong to abandon the Utility scheme in textiles and clothing without first having provided something that in a real sense would take its place, in so far as it was a means of quality control.
  It is wrong to suggest, as I thought the President did, that the Government can contract out of measures to protect the consumer. One of the things he said was:
  "I believe that the best safeguard is the standard of the manufacturers and workers in this industry working in a competitive system and seeking to meet the demands of the consumers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1585.]
  Obviously, we would all place a good deal of reliance on those things, but I think we need more than that. We must have more than that if we are to protect the consumer. When the right hon. Gentleman said that the public will be the deciders in the matter, I think he was crediting the ordinary buyer with a degree of omniscience that the buyer does not in fact possess, particularly when we consider the class in the community that the Utility scheme was designed primarily to protect.
  I should like to bother the House for a minute or two with two quotations which, I think, illustrate what I mean and which show a different attitude of mind from that shown by the right hon. Gentleman. It will be recollected that there were established in 1946 a number of working parties. One of those was the Light Clothing Working Party, and this is what that body had to say on this very issue, looking at it and anticipating the day when S.I. 489 would be introduced:
  "If the Utility Scheme is withdrawn, unless some general system of standards has been brought into operation in the meantime, standards similar to these under the Utility Scheme should be promulgated and enforced."
  Here was the unanimous view of the Light Clothing Working Party, saying, "We must have something like Utility and, unless we have some standards in some other way, if Utility goes we must bring forward some protection for the consumer."

  1789
  Take the Heavy Clothing Working Party, with its positive proposals which came nearer to what the right hon. Gentleman has proposed:
  "It is possible that unless these or similar regulations are retained when normal competition returns and the Utility Scheme is withdrawn, inferior garments may be produced either because they are made from inferior or unsuitable materials … or because the making up itself has been scamped."
  The same Report says:
  "Past experience has shown that in a state of unrestricted competition, particularly in time of economic depression, some manufacturers used to cut down the quality both of the materials they used and of the work put into the making of garments in order to undersell their competitors or to meet a demand made upon them for lower priced goods. This was not good for industry; it was even less good for the distributor or the consumer, who was tempted by cheap prices to buy articles which were of poor quality and in some cases practically worthless."
  I am sure we all agree, and I am sure we all agree, too, that that kind of behaviour would not apply to the majority; but if only a few people begin it, then the effect on manufacturers is demoralising.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman what has happened since he made his speech on 13th March. He will recollect that he said:
  "In particular, the cotton industry have told me that, they propose within a few weeks to deal in this way with the most popular specifications, which cover a wide range of cotton cloths and household textiles up to about 75 per cent. of the trade in those particular types."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c, 1586.]
  I shall be interested if the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what has happened. He said "within a few weeks." That is nearly two months ago—something like seven weeks—and there were a number of other things which he forecast in his speech. I have the greatest respect for the British Standards Institution and a high personal regard for the director with whom I worked when I was at the Board of Trade, but I must say that even if I add up all the things which the Minister proposed, and even assuming that one day they are all put into operation—I think they will take years—even then the right hon. Gentleman's proposals do not add up to anything which remotely can be described, in his own words, as a "new and much simpler Utility scheme." It is a misuse of the word "Utility" to say that what he proposed, even when it
  1790
  is in full operation, is a "new and much simpler Utility scheme."
  We think it was wrong of the right hon. Gentleman to take the step which he took, to issue this Order—and I am talking about the first Order, No. 489—and to revoke all these various safeguards which existed to a greater or lesser extent, without having first done all that was necessary to put something in their place. The public are entitled to protection. I believe they are entitled to protection from any people, few though they may be, the unscrupulous people, who produce the worthless goods or the rubbish; and if what people tell me is correct, and if such evidence which has come my way is to be believed, I must say that, for one reason or another, there are already signs of deterioration in quality and standards.
  I have seen it myself in cloth, and I have already been shown examples of it in garments by reputable people; and I beg the right hon. Gentleman, even if he cannot now re-instate the system of protection for the consumer, that at least he will press on with all his vigour to establish these other systems in which he puts his faith and which, although I do not regard them as adequate, would certainly be better than nothing.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Rhodes: I beg to second the Motion.
  I shall concentrate more on the second of the two Prayers, and I, too, shall be as brief as I possibly can. I do not think that the President of the Board of Trade can really please himself about the question of quality now, because, as I said in the Budget debate, I really believe that the Board of Trade has sold its birthright to the Treasury in the matter of being able to say what shall be done with the products of a consumer goods industry which was previously under its control. In the few minutes I propose to speak, I shall try to show why that is.
  When we have price control there can be two situations; one in a war, when raw materials and labour are short, and the second, in a post-war, peace-time situation when the buyers are prepared to pay any sort of fancy price for the goods they want. In the first case, in the case of war, the physical controls are obviously necessary on account of the shortage of labour and on account of the shortage

  1791
  of materials. Comparatively, a war-time control is a very easy one, because people accept sacrifices, and they are satisfied with making do. There is also no pull from exports. If with such control we have a swingeing tax on goods outside control and of the same sort, the discipline is complete. In peace-time labour is returning and materials are more plentiful and exports are more profitable—very profitable—and shelves and wardrobes throughout the country are empty and people have plenty to buy.
  There are certain principles common to both cases. Price control is needed; if price control is needed, definition is needed; if definition is needed, specification is needed; and the tighter the price control is the tighter specification must be. Above all, we must have production control at all stages in such circumstances. All this goes on swingingly so long as goods are bought red hot from the factories, but let some intervention come, such as the balance of payments question—let that come into the picture—and the Government of the day want the highest prices they can get for exports, and that is when the trouble begins for, if the sky is the limit in exports, we automatically get two classes of goods, one for home, and one for export, and then we run into trouble, because foreign Governments accuse us of subsidising the home market at their expense.
  The result is temporisation. The external situation may be such that we must have all we can get for our exports. "All right," it is said, "take off the production price control." Then we find producer prices go up, export prices go up, and those at the finishing end are squeezed against the ceiling. There comes the cry, therefore, for specification. If exports have to be maintained, flexibility is brought in. As soon as this occurs, instead of the Utility scheme being the most important element in the set up and keeping the Purchase Tax going, the Purchase Tax keeps the Utility scheme going.
  That was the only discipline that we had. If Purchase Tax had been higher, we should have been able to impose even more discipline, because there is a tremendous reluctance to pay unnecessarily 33⅓per cent. or 66⅔per cent. That was
  1792
  one of the strongest weapons we had at the Board of Trade, after production control went off, to keep some discipline in prices.
  If, while this is going on, the Government of the day makes arrangements with foreign countries for goods to come in without any other taxes except the ordinary import duties, we are accused of not keeping our obligations under agreements, such as the general agreements on tariff trade. At the same time, the seasonal goods are coming in. If exports falter a bit, we have a demand for even more flexibility. I say that it is not necessary to keep price control on in a buyers' market. We are agreed on that. I said it in the Budget debate. It goes by the board. But when we consider all the things in the terms of reference given to the Douglas Committee, there was precious little which alluded to the interests of the consumer. In most cases he came last.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) in his contention that there should have been some scheme ready to be brought in as soon as the Douglas scheme was adopted, so that the consumer could be protected. I am going to give another reason why a scheme relating to quality standard marks or specifications should have been continued. It is this: If the President of the Board of Trade and the other Ministers will study the history of the cotton industry just before the war, and particularly the debates on the Cotton Re-organisation Bill, which was brought in in 1939, they will see that there was a demand for a price control of a different sort altogether—and that price control was a minimum price control below which the spinners and the manufacturers could not sell because otherwise the capital was being drained out of the industry.
  I ask the President of the Board of Trade this question: Supposing in the coming months—and this is possible because the situation is very serious—that we need to bring in something of that sort again, and minimum prices are going to be a help to the producer in Lancashire, on what is he going to build if he scraps the whole of the specifications under the old Utility scheme? Do not let us forget that the Douglas Com-

  1793
  mittee overplayed the question of goods coming on to the market to specification.
  If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures for 1951 and I stand to be corrected—he will see that in the Utility field of the deliveries last year something upwards of 400 million square yards came into the home market. I contend that no more than 20 per cent. of that 400 million square yards was outside specifications allowed under the old utility scheme. That means to say, considering the flexibility that came in in the early part of the year, that there was a strong desire on the part of manufacturers, spinners, producers and everybody else, and by the general public, to support the specifications that we ran for so long under the Utility scheme.
  I beg the right hon. Gentleman to consider that angle, to see that something is done in a way in which will be obvious to the public that the consumer's interests are being looked after. There are the questions of fastness of dyes, of colour, wearability and the rest, as can be seen in any of the schedules where the specifications were laid down.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to get down to this, so that he can have something on which he can build if the time comes in the cotton industry when he needs a framework by which he can put into operation a scheme for minimum prices. I think he will find, if he looks into the matter closely, that he can have no better means than of allying it to some of the specifications in the old Utility scheme.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Motion have put up a very reasonable case, and in a most reasonable manner, but I think that they shed too many tears for the old Utility scheme. The House must face up to the reality that that scheme has outlived its usefulness. It was, in its later days certainly, a very poor protector of quality, but where it was a protector of quality in the field of the furniture industry, the Government have, I think, taken the right view in retaining it.
  The suggestion made by both of the hon. Members opposite, that very shoddy goods would be launched suddenly upon an unsuspecting community,
  1794
  is not borne out too readily by the facts. It is possible in most textiles, at any rate, to see whether the goods are bad. It is true that in furniture it is quite easy to conceal a perfectly awful frame by some, perhaps, quite acceptable upholstery, but in most textile goods the value is more or less apparent to the eye and to the touch. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. There is not so much danger as hon. Members make out.
  The whole question of shoddy goods has been grossly overrated. When one considers the kind of suit that the 50s. tailors made before the war, one realises what was done in the "bad old days," when there was some sort of freedom for industry. The 50s. suit before the war was a marvellous job, and was done without any attempt on the part of the Government to safeguard quality or to protect the public.
  I do not think there is any urgency such as the two hon. Members opposite make out. I do not for one moment think there is any great danger that suddenly there will be a rush of substandard goods. For one thing, the Utility scheme has been in operation for about 10 years. It cannot be without its permanent effect upon the industry. People who have been accustomed to making these specifications have, probably, proved them to be of some value, and will go on making them. I do not think there is any prospect whatever of a serious deterioration. The danger we see coming, if it is not here now, is not because of the absence of a utility scheme, but of the existence of a D line which in itself is an invitation to debasement. That, of course, is an entirely different argument which we cannot pursue this evening.
  It is important to bear in mind what is fair to industry and, in general, that debasement arises not due to a utility scheme but to an entirely different factor in the industry. I think there is a real necessity for safeguards, and if we can establish, as I think my right hon. Friend is endeavouring to establish, safeguards in respect of colour and other factors, this is going to be to the public good. The Government can play a useful role. But a person who goes shopping is not quite such a fool as some hon. Members think. Women, particularly, look at their purchases very carefully I know, because

  1795
  I have tried to sell them things from time to time.
  Whilst I agree that there is a need for as many safeguards as we can possibly put in, especially by the B.S.I. and other organisation, we should not under-estimate the value of freedom. It is true that we have to honour our international obligations, and the Utility scheme has really meant a tariff of about 40 per cent. over which our foreign competitors had to jump.
  Mr. Rhodes: There is no need to put it into the Douglas Report at all just before action was taken, because in November they removed all need for any consideration of our international obligations by the import restriction.
  Mr. Shepherd: I do not think that is really a very valid point. It does not affect the long-term position or the moral position. I think there was a real necessity, on moral grounds, to say it was unfair to put an additional tariff of something like 40 per cent. on other people's goods.
  I believe that on the whole, and I think this was the thought of the hon. Member who moved the Prayer, the Government have done the right thing, although perhaps we are not satisfied with certain other aspects of the matter, but we should not shed too many tears over the Utility scheme.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I should like to welcome the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) back to our debates on Utility questions, because we have heard from him many times in the past on this subject. I felt that one or two of his arguments were extremely far fetched, particularly the one that, as we had had the Utility scheme for 10 years, therefore we could let it go now because it must obviously have left its mark on the industry. In other words, if a thing is a good thing we can let it go because it has left its mark. I hope he will not carry that argument too far, or we shall have him one day suggesting that because we have had the Factory Acts for about 120 years we do not need to legislate to protect children against forced labour in the mills.
  Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me. The hon.
  1796
  Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) said that my right hon. Friend was in trouble because the matter had not been dealt with in a few weeks about which he apparently gave some promise, and I used the argument to show that there was not the immediate urgency that had been suggested.
  Mr. Wilson: If there was anything in that argument, we would say that there was no urgency to get rid of the Utility scheme which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest in the two contributions he made in the House, in January and again in March.
  I should like to address my remarks particularly to the President of the Board of Trade. I congratulate him tonight on the fact that we have a full Board of Trade team here on the Front Bench, which is a very good thing in any Government. It does show the importance that the Board of Trade, at any rate, attach to the subject, even if, perhaps, they have done the wrong thing about it.
  I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to introduce the argument about international obligations, as did the hon. Member for Cheadle. Of course, we all recognise the strength of the argument, but it is relevant only to a discussion of Purchase Tax, not to a discussion of the Utility scheme itself. If it is argued that the Utility scheme can exist only if we have Purchase Tax to enforce it, then it is difficult to divorce the two. I presume that we shall be debating Purchase Tax and the D scheme, probably at length, in the next week or two, because my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends and I have put down a considerable number of Amendments to enable the Government to fulfil the Chancellor of the Exchequer's undertaking to have a very full discussion of individual D levels.
  To my mind, it is possible and highly desirable to have a Utility scheme that still fulfils our international obligations. We have had for many years the example of children's clothing, where there was no taxation to discriminate between the Utility and non-Utility, yet a very satisfactory proportion of Utility production was maintained by the trade. That was not always true in footwear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) will remember from the action he took last year.

  1797
  We on this side believe that the Utility scheme, with all its faults and difficulties—no one was more conscious of these than I and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne—did provide a real protection to the consumer and to the housewife and mother when she went shopping. I know there were relaxations in that scheme; they were forced on us by the necessities of the export trade; but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, that the Douglas Committee greatly exaggerated the importance of the flexible cloth.
  The general comment in Lanes about the Douglas Report, apart from its comments on the D scheme and taxation levels—especially in trade union circles, from which I have had considerable information—has been to the effect that the Report over-emphasised the weakening of the Utility scheme, due to the introduction of these flexible specifications. It also greatly exaggerated the decline in the Utility proportion. The period referred to, last spring, was a period when there was a considerable sale of frustrated exports on the home market, and that temporarily reduced the Utility proportion. Our biggest danger was in the spring of 1950, when there was a real danger of a famine in Utility production and when we had an argument from the Front Bench opposite about the need for Lancashire to maintain Utility production.
  At that time I announced—and it may have given some confidence to Lancashire to maintain Utility production—that so long as the Labour Government was in power we were going to maintain the Utility scheme, with such amendments or modifications as might be necessary from time to time.
  The President of the Board of Trade has quite fairly recognised the need for some protection of the consumer, and he devoted a great part of his speech on 13th March to that subject. He referred to what he hoped was going to be done through B.S.I., the Cotton Board, merchandised marks provisions, and so on.
  I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) said earlier and ask the President of the Board of Trade to say what
  1798
  has happened since that speech of 13th March. Particularly I should like him to say what sanctions are going to be applied to ensure that these marks and the other provisions will really give an assurance of quality. I would also ask him—I hope he will come clean with us about this—what proportion of the total textile production he thinks is going to come within the scope of the provisions he is trying to work out through B.S.I. and elsewhere. Does he really hope we are going to get something like 70 to 80 per cent. of the total clothing textile covered by this sort of scheme?
  I want to support what has been said from this side of the House. We are facing a real danger of a dumping of shoddy goods on the home market. That is going to be all the more dangerous at a time when poverty in the country is on the increase. People with only a shilling or two in their purses cannot protect themselves against shoddy production to anything like the extent that can those who have rather more money to spend. With the general financial policy of the Government—it would be out of order for me to go into that now—with the growth of unemployment, with the financial squeeze going on in the country, and with higher prices, and so on, there is going to be less money available for textiles and clothing, and, therefore, a real temptation to buy the shoddy goods which some manufacturers—I believe only a small minority—will want to dump on the home market.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member that the consumer can always protect himself or even quite often protect himself. I doubt if the hon. Gentleman himself, with his long experience of the textile trade and allied industries, if he were to go into a shop would be able by fingering a piece of material to say whether, for instance, it would guarantee him a reasonable fastness to light, what its abrasive qualities were or what its shrinkage qualities would be. Therefore, I think it is very optimistic to assume that the general public can do that and very optimistic to assume that competition is going to provide the answer.
  It is certainly true that the D scheme, which we are not debating tonight, is going to lead and is already leading to a debasement of quality. I do not just say that on my own responsibility. It is the view of leading authorities in the

  1799
  textile and clothing trades and it has been widely commented on in such journals as the "Manchester Guardian," which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has a very detailed knowledge of this subject. Therefore, at a time when we must expect debasement of quality and when the Government are, in fact—not deliberately, of course—promoting debasement of quality by their D scheme, it is vital that if the old Utility scheme is to go something powerful and effective should be put in its place.
  If the President of the Board of Trade cannot assure us that he really means business and that something is really happening about a scheme to replace the old Utility scheme, then he will have inflicted very grave damage on the housewives and consumers of this country by the Orders we are praying against tonight. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some reassurance which so far we have not been able to get either from his speeches or from the actions reported from his Department.
  10.44 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I welcome the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite have put down these Prayers, although the time is nearly running out, because it gives us an opportunity of saying just a word about the old Utility scheme before we part with it. As we are parting with it, may I just say that while there are many criticisms that could be made of it—I am going to make one or two in a moment, and the Douglas Report made many more—I do not think anybody should forget that at the time it was introduced and for the purposes for which it was introduced in war-time, it served those purposes very well and enabled many people to get good quality materials at a reasonable price, and nothing that I say here would detract from that.
  But, at the same time, one has to recognise that if these Prayers were carried the effect would be to annul the Orders which abolish the Utility specifications and the whole complex structure of price control which went with them. And I rather doubt whether hon. and right hon. Members in their hearts really exactly want to do that this evening. Whatever arguments can be adduced—and I have
  1800
  no doubt that in a few weeks' time plenty of arguments will be adduced—about the levels of the D scheme and rates of tax and all the rest of it, anybody who looks objectively at this matter would agree that the Utility scheme had reached a stage when it had to go and something else had to take its place.
  I receive a great deal of advice at the Board of Trade, and it is naturally often conflicting. But I must say that the overwhelming body of advice which I received about the old Utility scheme was emphatically on one side.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Assuming that is true, will the right hon. Gentleman not tell us there is even more unanimity in the body of opinion now advising him on certain aspects of the D scheme; and if he was so moved by unanimous advice on the Utility scheme, will he not be moved by even greater unanimity on the D scheme?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I read a very powerful speech by Mr. Trevor Owen of Barkers the other day about the advantages the D scheme would bring to the public, which I very much welcomed. I daresay there are other views, but here we are debating whether it was an advantage to do away with the old Utility scheme. The overwhelming advice was on the one side. The Cotton Board, which I consulted, represent a very wide cross-section of the industry. I consulted trade union members with very wide experience and employers from all sections. I ask the House to accept that there was not the slightest doubt where the overwhelming opinion lay—and it was that the old Utility scheme had to be done away with.
  The Rayon Federation, who, after all, are experimenting in new cloths and have a great field of development before them, asked specially to come and see me, and I spent much more than an hour listening to their views. They said that the Utility scheme was dislocating their industry, provided no real safeguard to the public, interfered with the introduction of new types of cloth and was a serious obstacle to exports.
  The Wool Textile Delegation from Yorkshire was precisely of the same opinion. Mr. Heywood, who is Secretary of the National Association of Unions in the Textile Trade, member of the Douglas Committee and member of the Cotton

  1801
  Board, whose views are respected on all sides of the House, emphatically impressed that same view upon me. He has stuck to it since and has repeated it in speeches in the North of England.
  Nor am I alone in being impressed by those arguments. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall), when we discussed this matter during the Budget debate, said:
  "We realise, and have done so all along—at any rate, for a long time—that something had to be done about the Utility scheme. The original scheme was excellent, but the classifications … became unwieldy and the specifications very obscure. Above all, as we know, it was viewed by the signatories to G.A.T.T. as a violation of international agreements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1602–3.]
  May I say about these international agreements that we cannot just dismiss them as red herrings? There is rather more to this question than the right hon. Gentleman would have us believe. I would emphasise that it was not just the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I can imagine no commercial treaty which this country would ever be able to come to with any other country would permit discriminating taxation of that particular type. If we entered into an agreement with another country and they tried to use that kind of discrimination against us, we should certainly make the very strongest representations to them. The fact that we may subsequently have imposed or been compelled to impose for balance of payments reasons certain quotas upon imports from other countries would be no possible justification for us maintaining discriminatory taxation on other than a national basis.
  Mr. Rhodes: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is now as dead as the dodo?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: No, it still happens to be a binding treaty. But, as I say, this goes much wider than that. I am not arguing this on the basis of one particular commercial agreement. There is no commercial agreement which a great exporting country such as ours could ever come to which would permit other countries to discriminate in that particular way against our exports, and I think that ought to be made quite plain.
  We have pledged ourselves twice in the clearest and most specific terms to do
  1802
  away with that particular type of discrimination. One pledge had been given as long ago as 19th December, 1950, not by but under the authority of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). The pledge had been repeated in even more specific terms on 20th September, 1951, by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross), who preceded me at the Board of Trade. I believe that the House would be unanimous in the view that we were under an absolute obligation to honour those pledges solemnly undertaken on behalf of the Government.
  Mr. J. Edwards: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is not a single word in any of the Orders which the Statutory Instrument revokes which is inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade? That Agreement is wholly concerned with tax and with the Finance Acts. There is nothing in a single one of the matters that we are discussing this evening which is incompatible with G.A.T.T. The incompatibility only arises in connection with the Finance Acts and with Purchase Tax.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman is under a great misapprehension in that matter. The difficulty arose because the Utility scheme was inextricably entangled with the Purchase Tax, and it was because of that that the right hon. Member for Huyton or my predecessor—I forget which of them—very properly and wisely appointed the Douglas Committee to look into the matter and see what other schemes could be devised in order to get over this as well as other difficulties.
  Mr. F. Blackburn: If a specification scheme is divorced entirely from a Purchase Tax scheme, there is then nothing which would conflict with our international agreements.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: Exactly. That is the principle upon which the D scheme is, in fact, based. I therefore come immediately to what alternatives have been suggested. I think everyone would agree that the old Utility scheme which then existed was a direct breach of this obligation. There is no question about that. The question arises as to what alternative methods of running a utility scheme of some kind were open to us.

  1803
  I am not going to argue them all this evening because many of them would be out of order, but the fact is that the Douglas Committee was appointed, not by me but by the party opposite, for the purpose of looking into that matter, and they came to a very clear decision.
  The Committee decided, both for the commercial reasons I have mentioned and for many others which they argued at great length, that the Utility Scheme had got to go and that another scheme, which is referred to as the D scheme, had to be put in its place. I only want to draw the attention of the House to two paragraphs in the Report of the Douglas Committee. The first is paragraph 127, in which they state:
  "Most of the Utility schemes no longer justify the faith which many people still have in them as providing a guarantee of quality or of value for money."
  The second is paragraph 25, in which it is stated:
  "Far from offering any assurance of value for money the wool apparel cloth Utility Scheme may well deceive the uninformed consumer on this very point."
  Some people may take a different view, but it is right for me to point out that these are the views of a Committee appointed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and a very representative committee it was.
  Mr. Rhodes: Let me read to the right hon. Gentleman what the Report says in paragraph 30. At the top of page 12 it states, and this refers to depreciation and debasing:
  "The consumer will probably not believe it has taken place because he has detected no parallel deterioration of Utility goods, and, of course, there has been none."
  That answers the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I should have thought it bears out my point. What paragraph 30 was pointing out was that there has not been a debasing of the standard provided because the manufacturers produced decent stuff. What they were pointing out was that the quality guarantee was not guaranteed by anything in the Utility Scheme which, as they said, might deceive the uninformed consumer.
  I have been asked to answer questions about what has been done about the new
  1804
  quality safeguards which I referred to in my speech in the Budget debate. The suggestion was made that they all ought to have been worked out in advance. Anyone with experience would realise the difficulties of doing so in advance. No discussions had started when I took up my office to work out alternative methods. I make no complaint of that. I do not think it was possible to start discussions. The Utility scheme was inextricably involved with Purchase Tax and other fiscal problems, and discussions with the industry would not have been possible without a forthright statement about Purchase Tax, which would have led to trouble.
  The House will recall, however, that I did say shortly after I arrived at the Board of Trade that I had set about trying to obtain, with the advice of the British Standards Institute, methods of guaranteeing quality. I can say this, that a good deal of progress has been made. It is a very complex thing, as anyone who understands the subject will appreciate. It requires careful work, and a lot is of a pioneering character. Standards will shortly be issued for bedding, safety footwear, rubber proofed cloths and garments, girls' blouses, gym tunics, the fabric content of woven wool cloth, and industrial overalls, Other items which are well advanced are colour fastness and shrink resistance standards for rayon fabrics.
  The House will recall that the Cotton Board have assured me that within the next few weeks it hopes to deal with the most popular specifications over a wide range of cotton cloths and textiles amounting to 75 per cent. of the trade in those types. Frankly, the progress in that has not been as fast as I had hoped. The cotton industry has been having great difficulties, and the leaders have been fully occupied. I have news from them and have every reason to suppose they are pressing on, while we hope to get these specifications at an early date. I want to say a word on wool textiles. There is a meeting with the British Standards Institute in Bradford next week to discuss the terms for labelling woollen goods.
  To summarise the position on the first Prayer, it seems to me that the case for the abolition of the old Utility scheme was an overwhelming one and that the new quality specifications, though not perfectly completed at the present time, are making some good progress.

  1805
  I must say a word, too, about the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? I merely want one issue clarified. Is it his intention, when the British Standards Institute has settled minimum standards, to embody them in a Statutory Instrument to be laid before this House, or will the B.S.I. standards become agreements between his Department and the manufacturing or trade associations?
  Mr. Thorneycroft: I am happy to answer that question. I certainly do not intend to start again a whole mass of Statutory Regulations, which are constantly amended and all the rest of it. I do think, while I believe the Government has an important role to play in these matters, that the Government is not qualified to undertake a great deal of this particular type of work. I would much rather the Government gave some encouragement to starting schemes of this kind, which are much better left to the industry and bodies like the B.S.I.
  On the question of price control, the truth is that price controls in the Utility range were increasingly becoming a matter of definition of a tax-exempted field, and decreasingly becoming an effective control of prices. I feel that if price control is to be used to protect the consumer, it must be used with discrimination and judgment at the right times and under the right conditions, and not all the time, irrespective of the state of the market. When one moves from a sellers' to a buyers' market, it seems that competition is a much more effective way than price regulations for controlling these matters. I am satisfied that the price control of Utility goods was certainly unnecessary on 11th March, when I ordered its removal. Since then, many prices have moved down.
  To be effective, price control has got to be accompanied, as the hon. Member said, by a tight quality specification so one can have the squeeze between the two. That state of affairs long since ceased to exist. I cannot sum up better than in the words of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne in his speech upon the Budget Debate. The hon. Gentleman, with all his experience of the industry and of the Board of Trade, said:
  1806
  "In a buyers' market, a tight scheme is quite impossible."
  That is, in the situation we have today.
  "Production control is no use, because people cannot be forced to make what they cannot sell. In regard to specifications, we cannot have in such circumstances a long list of specifications tightly drawn, and, thirdly, neither can we maintain price control in a falling market. It is just impossible, and it is a fatuous thing to do, …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1657.]
  I cannot express my views more strongly than that.
  Question put, and negatived.

  BREAD (PRICE)
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Bread (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 527), dated 14th March 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be annulled.
  We feel that we cannot let this occasion pass without drawing attention to the fact that the Government, by their own policy, have increased the price of bread very considerably. Incidentally, it will also give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity of making a new speech; and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), who has been moving many Prayers on the subject of increased food prices, must have become a little inured to hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food a speech which, in the past, has gone something like this: "We do not like this very much and we are sorry that we have to increase the price, but, of course, you were going to do this anyway. Had you not left office when you did, you would have moved this Order, so you cannot vote against it now." I do not think that is an unfair interpretation of his speech, although the hon. Gentleman put it far more elegantly than I did. That is the effect of it.
  Now the Parliamentary Secretary has something to answer for himself. What is more, he has to answer for the Minister of Food. He does not have to answer for the co-ordinator, because the co-ordinator says he is not responsible

  1807
  to Parliament at all. We shall have more to say about that on another occasion when it will be in order. At any rate, the Parliamentary Secretary has to answer for Government policy.
  The policy to which effect is given in this Order is to take £48 million from the subsidy in the price of bread and to place it upon the shoulders of the consumers. The purpose of the policy is to make us pay a real price for our bread. At least that is arguable, and it certainly has been argued at great length by hon. Members opposite, but what is not arguable is that we should have to pay a real price for our bread, the proper price, but, nevertheless, should have transport at less than cost price.
  The Government have certainly come to the House in the last few weeks to tell us that we had to pay the real price for our loaf of bread, but that, in the case of the increased fares, we could pay something less than the real cost of transport and no harm would be done to the moral fibre of the nation. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would be wonderful at explaining that sort of policy, particularly to an audience of butchers or members of the Housewives' League, but he will find that we are a little more critical than perhaps some other audiences.
  At any rate, let us be quite clear: what the Government have done is to place upon the shoulders of the consumers some of the £48 million and to take it off the food subsidies. This we believe to be wrong, against the national interest and unfairly penalising the poor by comparison with the rich. I shall proceed to demonstrate that during the course of the few remarks I want to address to the House—and I have promised to be brief.
  This Order raises the price of the small loaf by ¾d. to 3¾d. I am speaking of the great body of the country, not the exceptions. The price of the large loaf is raised by l½d. from 6d. to 7½d. We are told by the Ministry of Food and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this increase in cost will be, on average, 4½d. a person a week. Averages are very untrustworthy things to deal with, and this average is more untrustworthy and more misleading than most, but an in-
  1808
  crease of 4½d. represents an average consumption of three large loaves per person per week—I hope my arithmetic is right: I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is much better at this than I am. The 4½d. is the amount which the Ministry of Food say the mythical average family will find to be the increase in their budget.
  If this is so, it means that this mythical average family, which I take for my purpose as two adults and four children, will be eating 18 loaves a week, and that their old bill was 9s. a week and their new bill will be 11s. 3d. a week. It is going to cost them another 2s. 3d. a week.
  What I should prefer to do, instead of dealing with these averages that the Minister is so fond of, is to look at some actual cases. In fact, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows better than most of us, the people who eat the most bread are manual workers and children. This was recognised when we introduced bread rationing in 1946, because it will be remembered by the House that at that time—I have looked up the figures—whereas the normal allowance, the average allowance, of bread was 63 ounces per week, for men manual workers it was 105 ounces, and for adolescents it was 91 ounces. It was expected that the average consumption would not apply to families which included in their numbers either manual workers or children. When the Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister come here to tell us about the average increase in price they make no allowance in their calculations for the fact that many families include both manual workers and children.
  So I want to submit tonight—and, indeed, it is well known to the Parliamentary Secretary, who was once known as the "Radio Doctor"—that in the working-class diet bread plays a most important part. The National Food Survey estimated—and the Parliamentary Secretary knows these figures very well—that 30 per cent. of the average value in working-class diet came from bread and flour—a third of the value in the diet of the urban dweller of the working-class. What this means is that when the price of bread goes up the amount of bread that is eaten does not decrease.
  That, I understand, is not true of other foods, and especially of some of what I may call fancy foods. I was reading,

  1809
  for example, in the newspapers only the other day that after the last increase in the price of milk the demand for milk fell off, and for the first time in this country since the war it did not recover. Apparently, the demand for these commodities always falls off after a price increase, and then, as people gradually get used to paying the new price, they begin buying again. In the case of milk that has not happened. That is deplorable, but, at least, it means that people have adjusted their budgets and are drinking less milk. This, I suppose, is what the Government wanted them to do, that being their idea of maintaining and stabilising the Welfare State; and they have achieved it, and people are drinking less milk.
  This does not happen, though, in the case of bread, because, as we have already seen, in the case of the manual workers, in the case of children, this demand for bread is what, I believe, the economists in their jargon call "inelastic." That is to say, they still eat the same amount of bread, no matter what the cost. Therefore, there was a special responsibility upon the Minister of Food and the Parliamentary Secretary to protect this item in the diet of the working-class and of the manual workers from the depredations of the Chancellor. The Minister of Food has failed in his duty to protect this essential item in the working-class diet.
  I want to take some examples from my own constituency of families and their bread consumption. One instance I want to give—and I give these to the Parliamentary Secretary in good faith: they have been given to me by a local tradesman as actual examples culled from his bills—is of a family of two adults and four children. The husband is a postman. I know him quite well. They eat four loaves of bread a day. The Parliamentary Secretary will notice that this is above the average. It is what I should have expected, because a postman does a lot of walking and, therefore, with the four children in the family, they consume far more than the average amount of bread. Their old bill for bread was 2s. a day. Their new bill is 2s. 6d. a day—6d. a day more; 3s. 6d. a week more.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: What about the increased family allowances?
  Mr. Callaghan: I shall come to family allowances in a moment.
  I want to deal first with what the Parliamentary Secretary said in the Budget debates. He said that a man can make it up by working an extra hour overtime. I do not see any of my hon. Friends present who have been in the postal service, but they would tell us that a postman does not go to his overseer and say, "I am going to work overtime tonight." The overseer would say, "You work overtime when I tell you and when it is on the rota." These people are being asked to find another 3s. 6d. as from 15th March and family allowances will operate—
  Mr. Nabarro: May I intervene?
  Mr. Callaghan: Only if the hon. Member is going to answer the question. I know the answer, indeed it was meant to be rhetorical. The family allowance will operate from sometime in the autumn. What are those people supposed to do meantime? Three shillings and sixpence from a postman's wages for bread alone is something serious.
  Mr. Nabarro: While on the case of the postman, perhaps the hon. Member will be strictly truthful and point out that this "wicked" Tory Government gave the postman a 13s. a week rise last November and that that will help him.
  Mr. Callaghan: I am sure that the 13s. a week rise, which I do not recall, was not in respect of the cost of living but in respect of a fresh valuation of the postman's duties and has nothing at all to do with the cost of living. I say the Government have deliberately weighted the scales against this sort of man by altering their policy in relation to food subsidies in such a way that the postman is worse off than he was before.
  Here is the example of a large family—and we have plenty in my constituency—not an average family. There are three adults and six children in the family. Two adults are not working; there is the one breadwinner. This is interesting because these are actual facts. The man is a labourer and they are consuming seven loaves a day. That is well above the mythical average of which the Parliamentary Secretary is so fond. Their bill was 3s. 6d. a day—it sounds incredible, but it is a fact—and their new

  1811
  bill is 4s. 4½d. a day, an increase of 6s. 1½d. a week.
  Sir William Darling: The "divi" from the Co-op.
  Mr. Callaghan: If the hon. Member will make that point to his constituents they will give him an appropriate answer, I can assure him of that. I know that it is a difficult objective for the hon. Member, but let him try to apply his mind to this for a moment.
  The labourer has to find another 6s. 1½d. a week for bread alone. I do not know what his wages are, but as he is a labourer I am sure they cannot be very much, £6 a week maybe, or may be less. The family allowance will come in September, but what is he supposed to do in the meantime? It will at least have what we on this side of the House argued earlier would be, the effect of Government policy, which would be to precipitate substantial wage demands throughout many classes of industry.
  Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I think we should have this clear. We recognise that the increases are there but the Chancellor has recognised it by increasing the family allowances as part of an overall policy. There is a delay and the two do not synchronise, but I think the inference that this is peculiar to the Conservative Government is not right. I am sure the hon. Member would agree that when his right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), increased old age pensions there was the same time lag, that she admitted that it was no one's fault, and that it was one of the administrative difficulties which all Governments have to face.
  Mr. Callaghan: What the Labour Government did not do was so to alter the financial policy that we took £48 million deliberately off the food subsidies and increased the price of bread deliberately against the working class.
  I want to draw out this point. Let me take, by contrast with my postman, with two adults and four children in the family, a middle-class family, friends of mine, whose income is about £1,500 a year. They eat not four loaves of bread a day but one and a half. Their bill was 9d. a day and it is now to be 11¼d.;
  1812
  a weekly bill of 5s. 3d. is now to be 6s. 7d. The increase is 1s. 4d. a week on £1,500 a year; the increase for the postman is 3s. 6d.
  But that is not the whole story. The postman has to wait until September until he gets family allowance; he gets no relief from income-tax. The £1,500 a year man has started to accumulate from the beginning of the present financial year Income Tax reliefs amounting, over the whole year, to about £75, or 30s. a week. I put it to hon. Gentleman opposite that when the Budget and the increased price of bread are surveyed, it must appeal to them that this reversal of the Government's economic policy is likely to precipitate really grave industrial trouble and substantial wage demands. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Spelthome (Mr. Beresford Craddock) shakes his head, but it can only be because he has not followed the figures.
  How can we possibly justify a situation in which the country is in difficulties and we say to the £1,500 a year man, "You will pay only another 1s. 4d. a week for your bread a week, because you are not a manual worker and therefore do not eat so much," and in which we say to the postman, "You are going to pay another 3s. 6d."? At the same time, we say to the former that he is to receive 30s. a week Income Tax rebate.
  Mr. Beresford Craddock: The hon. Gentleman is doing what he has done so often: he is taking extreme cases. He ought to be fair and point out that in the Budget another two million people have been relieved of paying Income Tax altogether.
  Mr. Callaghan: No, I am simply not taking the mythical average of the Parliamentary Secretary, which disguises the effects. I am taking cases at both ends, for which I can vouch.
  It is for this reason we feel bound to bring this issue to the House and to show that we deplore this departure from the policy of the late Government. The Parliamentary Secretary went to the butchers' conference the other day, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, tells me that they sang, "For he's a jolly good fellow." It might well have been "Charlie is my darling." I would suggest another song he might

  1813
  well be starting to sing, an old negro spiritual:
  "Not my brother, not my sister,
  But it's me, O Lord,
  Standing in the need of prayer."
  Really, when we contrast the position in which the hon. Gentleman has allowed himself to be put with what was said in the Conservative Election manifesto about maintaining the food subsidies, he and his right hon. and hon. Friends ought to be thoroughly ashamed of defending a policy that flies in the face of every promise they made to the electorate.
  11.25 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to second the Motion.
  On the last occasion we debated food questions I said I then felt charitably disposed towards the Parliamentary Secretary, tonight I feel positively sorry for him, because I recognise that he was only an accessory after the fact. He has been forced to take this distasteful action because of the action the Chancellor of the Exchequer took without consultation with the Minister of Food. The Chancellor, in effect, halved the food subsidies.
  The relevant figure is not the so-called reduction of £160, but the ceiling of £250. It is obvious that when we look at the Price Review and other increased costs that the subsidy has been halved. There was a very good case, as the T.U.C. asked, for increasing the food subsidies, because it seemed possible by so doing to stabilise food prices. But with that very opportunity the Chancellor has halved the subsidies. The Minister of Food's dilemma now is either to be grossly unfair to the people of this country by making them pay increased prices before they get increased family allowances and the other concessions, or, alternatively, if he delays six months he will have to double the price increases to recoup what he has lost in the first half of the financial year.
  We suffer gross unfairness both ways. We get the unfairness of which my hon. Friend has complained tonight, and, later, when the families concerned receive the increased family allowance some of the price increases will be doubled, because it is clear that the Government are hesitant, knowing the opposition this has created in the country, to pursue this present path of unfairness. But it means they will pursue an unfair path when we
  1814
  come to later in the year and have to pay steep price increases. However, these present price increases in themselves are really very steep increases.
  As you indicated, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with flour and bread for the purposes of this debate. This is the second occasion on which the price of flour has been raised by the present Government. It was raised by a halfpenny on the first occasion and is now raised by three halfpence. If we are to go on raising the price of flour on this scale, what is the next increase going to be? But the increase in the price of bread is the steepest and largest we have ever experienced in this country.
  Mr. Nabarro: No.
  Mr. Willey: Yes. It is a 25 per cent. increase in price. That is a very steep increase indeed. But the hon. Gentleman, I know—because he will follow the path of his previous argument—will refer to what was done by my right hon. Friend and myself when we were at the Ministry of Food. During the whole of that period we increased the price of bread by one-halfpenny, but we improved the quality; we lowered the extraction rate and so improved the bread.
  My hon. Friend has dealt with the question of family allowances. May I put the case very simply? The figures are these, and they are obtainable for any hon. Member to check; they have just been published. As the Parliamentary Secretary explained to the House, in answer to a Question I asked him, by these Orders he is recouping £48 million for the current year. He is thus making the housewives' budgets £48 million greater. What is his right hon. Friend doing by way of family allowances? The Chancellor this year will give by way of family allowances £23 million. That is a sorry picture.
  This single price increase far outstrips the whole of the advantage that is being given by way of family allowances. In fact, housewives will be £25 million worse off even if we regard only these present price increases. This is a very serious matter; it is a toll which the housewife is paying for having a Tory Government. Every time she buys bread she realises that this is in fact a tax upon her.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the Housewives' League. I do not know what they

  1815
  are saying today, but I do know that the Minister met them today. I hope he referred them to the paragraph quoted so often from "Britain Strong and Free." It provides a very good example of the Tory Party tearing up pledges within six months, although this is nothing to what is going to happen in the next six months. It is enough to ensure that at the municipal elections next week the housewives, whether through their League or in other ways, will demonstrate against this Government.
  I hope we shall express our strongest indignation at the way in which the poorest have been the more harshly treated. Those with large families and those doing heavy manual work have been the more harshly treated. That is what Tory policy means to the working people of this country.
  11.30 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): We are becoming accustomed in this House to the efforts of Her Majesty's Opposition to discuss separately the financial results of the crisis through which this country is passing so that they may themselves seek to escape their responsibility for that crisis and deliberately exploit the inevitable hardship that results from the determination of Her Majesty's Government, first and foremost, to put this country on its financial feet once more.
  Tonight we have had an example of that, together with, in the case of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), some inaccuracy that I hardly expected from him. He stated that the amount of the reduction in the food subsidies announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from £410 million to £250 million, plus the sum of the order of £50 million which the Chancellor said must also be found, would, in fact, be secured in the current financial year. That is not what my right hon. Friend said, and it is not what he intended.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, then sought first to criticise the precipitancy of one increase and then, when tackling another and later increase, criticised it because the increase in price necessary to recoup the whole of the amount in the remainder of the financial year was heavier than it need otherwise
  1816
  have been. He not only sought to have it both ways but he urged an unsound argument in support of a conclusion which, no doubt, he was determined to reach in any case.
  It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) speak in the House because of his vigour and clarity. But as I listened to him deploring the effect of price increases and the tardiness of the Government in making the compensations which, he implied, went a long way to meet the position, I would hardly have thought that there were three price increases in bread imposed by the Government of which he was a member, none of which was accompanied by the compensation he urged in his statement.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, referred to two price increases. He left out what happened in May, 1946, when, by a reduction in the size of the loaf, a price increase was achieved—so devised, no doubt, in the hope that the public would not notice it. Then in September, 1949, following devaluation, the price of the new 1¾lb. loaf went up by 1d. to 5½d. Then on 8th April, 1951, the price of that same reduced loaf was raised to 6d. Why? What led the Government of the day to raise the price to 6d.? It was to reduce the expenditure on the food subsidies. It was an exercise to bring down the level of subsidy to £410 million, and, incidentally, the price increase on bread was not bravely announced in this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as part of his Budget speech; it was quietly announced to the Press.
  Mr. Callaghan: Quietly announced to the Press?
  Dr. Hill: Yes, quietly to the Press.
  Mr. F. Willey: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman; I want him to make his case, but I would point out that I was only dealing with the period of office in the last Parliament, and I compared the price increase by the present Government in six months with a third of the price increase over the 18 months of the previous Government.
  Dr. Hill: I agree that by a reduction in the period of the last Government's office selected for the purpose the hon. Gentleman can, no doubt, make it two instead of three price increases.

  1817
  The problem before us was how best to achieve this saving of approximately £210 million in the food subsidies, and perhaps I may get to grips with the point so vigorously put by the hon. Member—namely, why select bread? I think that fairly summarises his point. He pointed out, accurately, that for years 30 per cent. of the calories in the national diet have been obtained from bread. He also pointed out, again quite accurately, that within a narrow margin that percentage has not been found to fall with increased prices. I would qualify that by saying that I believe where there is a danger of reduction of consumption it is in the very large family in particular, but, again, it is the large family which will be helped by increased family allowances.
  But when we are confronted with the problem of deciding where to make the price increases we are at the same time faced with other problems. A price increase in milk which reduced consumption below the available supply would carry with it serious difficulties. On the other hand, an increase in the price, say, of butter leading to a demand upon margarine in excess of the available supply would in itself be dangerous.
  But examine the field of £250 million—the new field of subsidies—in another way. Rather more than £100 million of that field of subsidies is covered by the welfare field, animal feedingstuffs, the fertiliser subsidy, the ploughing-up grant, the calf subsidy and the white fish subsidy together. Therefore, we are left with £150 million of subsidy to cover the other items. A sum of £48 million has been taken off bread, but £48 million still remains as the subsidy on bread. It is the food with the highest subsidy expressed as a percentage of the unsubsidised price even allowing for the latest reduction.
  I will also mention milk, because the Chancellor included that in his announcement. Even with the projected increase there will still be a subsidy of £50 million on milk. If we take into account the £48 million remaining on bread—I do not pretend to give the exact figures—the two subsidies together amount to rather more than a £100 million in a full year, and it will be seen that the rest of the field is relatively small. I am not discussing the underlying policy, but it will also be seen that without a reduction in the
  1818
  bread subsidy it would have been impossible to distribute the subsidy reductions over the field and still take reasonable care of price levels and human needs.
  To return to the hon. Gentleman's 30 per cent. argument. Suppose the price increases had been disposed on other foods—butter, milk, bacon, and the like We know by experience that in this field consumption is more susceptible to price change, and the fact that bread consumption remains level can be adduced as an argument in favour of a reduction of the bread subsidy and not as an argument against such a reduction. The situation we must face is that subsidies must be cut by some £210 million, with bread, enjoying a subsidy of some £96 million, as an inevitable candidate for selection. I am not seeking now to minimise the effect.
  I am not seeking to deny that there is involved a substantial increase, widely distributed, of food costs. I am saying that the decision to reduce the food subsidies to a level of £250 million having been made, it is reasonable and proper that bread, bearing as it does a subsidy of some £96 million, should bear a substantial proportion of the reduction. At the same time, it is true that there still remains the sum of almost £50 million in subsidy in bread, including flour, and there still will remain a subsidy of the order of £50 million on milk after the planned price increase.
  Let us see these things as they are; part of the effort to put this country on its feet again. They are part of a scheme which will involve the distribution of reliefs in places where they are most needed; part of the task of clearing up the appalling mess left to us by the previous Government.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I have never heard a less satisfactory answer to a Motion of this kind than the one to which we have just listened. All the Parliamentary Secretary said, when it was boiled down, is this. "We decided we would reduce the food subsidies to £250 million and we are jolly well going to do it." There is nothing more in what the hon. Gentleman said than that.
  In view of the pledges given by the right hon. Gentlemen who are in office now, particularly in view of the speech of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at North Berwick, in which he

  1819
  told the country that any suggestion that there was to be any monkeying about with food subsidies was one of the things they should not believe, we say that the Government have no right to make these reductions in the food subsidies and that, therefore, the whole of the argument, if one can call it an argument, which the hon. Gentleman has addressed to the House, falls to the ground.
  Napoleon said that an army marched on its stomach. The way in which the present Government appears to think this country should march forward to something better, is to make quite sure that the stomach is one of the first things to suffer in any scheme they have for
  getting the country, as the hon. Gentleman said, on to its feet. I do not think that the troops which he will have to command, if he is going to achieve his object, will feel that this attack on the stomach is an incentive to march. I hope that my hon. Friends will show dissatisfaction with the statement made by the hon. Gentleman by going into the Lobby in support of this Prayer.
  Question put,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Bread (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 527), dated 14th March 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th March, be annulled.
  The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 74.

  Division No. 114.]

  AYES

  [11.48 p.m.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

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

  Gibson, C. W.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Grey, C. F.

  Slater, J.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Usborne, H. C.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Wallace, H. W.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Collick, P. H.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wigg, George

  Deer, G.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Morley, R.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Yates, V. F.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Pearson, A.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Field, W. J.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Horace Holmes.

  Finch, H. J.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

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

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Anstruther-Gray, Maj. W. J.

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Redmayne, M.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Barber, A. P. L.

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

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Linstead, H. N.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

  Russell, R. S.

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

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Shepherd, William

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

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Bullard, D. G.

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

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

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Marples, A. E.

  Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

  Craddock, Berestord (Spelthorne)

  Maude, Angus

  Tilney, John

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Turton, R. H.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Mellor, Sir John

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Drewe, C.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Heath, Edward

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Wills, G.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Partridge, E.

  Mr. Butcher and Mr. Vosper.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Pitman, I. J.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND, WILTSHIRE (USE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]
  11.56 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Hollis: I wish to take the opportunity to raise a particular instance of a general problem which, to some extent, is found in every part of the world.
  We are all aware now, I think, of the great fact that when the first industrial expansion took place people were allowed to build factories or build homes almost regardless of their position, and it was thought right enough that agriculture should be allowed to look after itself. That, as we have now come to realise, has created a very serious problem in these days when the first of our needs is to conserve as much of our agricultural land as possible. There can be no county in England, I am sure, where it would not be possible to bring forward difficulties which we could ask the Minister to face, but I want to put before the House the case of one particular county whose livelihood is very seriously threatened, the County of Wiltshire.
  Wiltshire has been, as we know, traditionally one of the most important agricultural counties in the country, and now, by a series of different converging events, the agricultural land of that county is very seriously threatened. To begin with, for reasons which I do not in the least wish to challenge, it happens to be the part of England which is most convenient for military use, and so we have to start off by facing the fact that no less than one-seventh, not merely of the agricultural acreage, but of the total acreage of the county is in the occupation of Government Departments.
  It is perfectly true, of course—nor do I suggest the contrary—that not all the land that is in War Department occupation is totally unused for agriculture, but, nevertheless, it does mean that very far from the full use of it is being made, and of the 100,000 acres that is in the Government's occupation the National Farmers' Union suggested two years ago that at least 10,000 more acres could be made available to farmers for use on a year to year basis.
  1822
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) put down an Amendment to the Motion for an Address in reply to the King's Speech in 1950, and the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and replied to that debate, did recognise the very special problems of Wiltshire; and it is fair to say that only the other day Lord Carrington, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, visited the county and held out hopes of very full co-operation with the authorities of the War Office in the future.
  I do not wish to suggest that the authorities are not prepared to do as much as they can, nevertheless, there is no doubt that it is a natural tendency of all Government Departments to take more land than they really need, and it is the duty of other Government Departments to make certain that all the land is used for agricultural purposes that is not absolutely necessary for military purposes under Schedule 3, or some other plan.
  The Ministry of Supply is, in one part or other of the county, in occupation of more than 40,000 acres. There is the great area of Imber, from which the general public have been excluded, and Portland and Boscombe Down and the operations they are carrying out near the Beckhampton range. The Ministry of Supply are engaged on a study of mysteries into which we are not permitted to enter, which doubtless most of us would not understand if we were. If I were shown them I would not be able to say what amount of land was needed for tests of atomic energy.
  The Ministry of Supply clearly needs land. We are not disputing that, but there is doubtless a tendency to take more land than it strictly needs. I hope my hon. Friend will give an assurance that from his point of view he will keep a close watch on the Ministry of Supply and the War Office to make certain that they are not taking more than is absolutely necessary for national purposes.
  In addition to this Government occupation, there are a number of others using agricultural land. At present there is a plan to build a gigantic sanatorium for mental defectives which will take up a considerable acreage in the Vale of Pewsey, and there are housing projects

  1823
  which, if not checked, will interfere with a considerable amount of small holdings in two villages to the north of Devizes. Wiltshire has very much more than its fair share of other activities going on in the county on land which could otherwise be used very fully for agricultural purposes.
  We perfectly understand that these things have to be done. Important as agriculture is, we are not so foolish as to suggest that nothing but agriculture can go on in this country. The reason I am glad to be able to raise the composite picture of Wiltshire in regard to this problem—we have raised the question of military land and that of the Swindon extension before—is that while, one by one, there is obviously a good deal to be said for these projects, I wish to point out that altogether the effect on Wiltshire's agricultural prospects is very serious.
  There are already all these invasions of the agricultural life of Wiltshire, and others are taking place or are threatened. There is a new plan for a gigantic extension of Swindon with the importation of large populations from London and elsewhere which, in the form it was put forward, would mean 2,700 acres of very good agricultural land to the south of that town would be lost to agriculture.
  The Swindon plan has received no kind of backing or agreement in detail either from the county planning authority or from the Ministry—as the Parliamentary Secretary has assured me in private. I want him and the House to realise that Wiltshire is a county that has been called upon to make very serious sacrifices of agricultural land—more serious probably than any other county—and that therefore when the Swindon plan comes up, whatever plan may be agreed, great care will be taken to ensure that it involves only the minimum of sacrifice of agricultural land. We simply cannot afford to lose any more.
  12.6 a.m.
  Mr. John Morrison: I welcome the opportunity of supporting my hon. Friend, and I am glad he has raised the matter. Wiltshire has had many calls from the Service Departments, and we realise the necessity of training
  1824
  for our forces. But we also realise, especially on the evening following two days debate in another place on the importance of agricultural production, that we should grow as much food as we can. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that, although he is not an agriculturalist.
  So far as military training is concerned, the recent conference between the G.O.C., Salisbury Plain District, and the War Office tenant farmers has considerably helped in regard to agricultural production on that land. I am sure that if we can proceed upon the friendly basis established recently, rather, perhaps, than as in a few years past, both the needs of the military and farming can go hand in hand.
  My hon. Friend and his Ministry cannot suggest to either the War Office or the Forestry Commission the planting of trees, although they can stop the cutting down of trees. In my lifetime, as I said in the Army Estimates debate, Salisbury Plain as a training area has suffered detraction from its usefulness because most trees have now disappeared. If more trees could be planted on the Plain, it would be much more advantageous for all sorts of training.
  12.9 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): The House in general and Wiltshire in particular will be most grateful to my two hon. Friends for raising this important issue. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison) I will bring to the Forestry Commission's attention his remarks about the lack of trees on Salisbury Plain. The initiation of any move should come from the Forestry Commission and I shall make certain his views are known. I shall myself write a letter to inform them of what he said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has raised this subject before, and he always raises it with the lucidity we expect of him. Although I am not an agriculturist, I have a vested interest in consuming what is produced, and for that reason I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, who said it is important in this very small island that we conserve every acre of agricultural land

  1825
  that it is possible to conserve from other uses. I agree with that. A major object of planning—whether it is carried out successfully or not is another matter—is surely to prevent the undue diversion of agricultural land from agriculture to other uses which are not so vital.
  I want to say a word or two about Wiltshire and give one or two figures to the House. The total acreage of Wiltshire is about 861,000 acres, and it is practically all agricultural land. One-eighth of that, roughly speaking—not one-seventh—amounting to 114,100 acres is taken for the purposes of the Service Departments, which is a high figure, as my hon. Friend says. But I am not sure that it is a fair comparison to compare one county with another. Some counties have suffered grievously, and Wiltshire, quite frankly, has given more land to the Service Departments than any other county.
  But, surely, the test is whether in any county the use of agricultural land for other purposes is justified. One must balance the needs of housing with those of the Service Departments. If I may I will analyse what the Service Departments hold in Wiltshire. They now hold 114,100 acres, but they held 105,000 acres even before the war so that there has not really been a disproportionate increase in the acreage taken from agriculture during and subsequent to the war.
  Mr. Hollis: But does not my hon. Friend appreciate that, since the introduction of live training, land, such as Imber, which could be used for cropping at the same time as it was used for training in the old days, cannot now be used for cropping?
  Mr. Marples: I do, but that does not apply to all the land which the Service Departments have taken, but only to specific instances which are the minority and not the majority of the acres they have taken.
  It might be of interest to the House to say where the increases have taken place. Most of the increases have been at air-fields and in connection with the extension of the Ministry of Supply experimental station at Porton. But the Ministry of Agriculture and the Wiltshire County Council as the responsible planning authority have in both cases agreed to it. This allocation of agricultural
  1826
  land has not been carried out, as it were, over the dead body of agriculture, but with its full agreement.
  In some cases the tenacity of the agriculturists in Wiltshire, which is known to all hon. Members here, has resulted in a number of proposals being modified and certain of them being withdrawn. Concessions have been made, and I think those concessions are reasonable, but I do not think the agriculturists have much cause to complain about the result of their negotiations in Wiltshire. Just because Wiltshire has the most land taken over by the Service Departments that does not mean that the increases in acreage which the Service Departments take should be considered with less care than elsewhere. If anything, we should consider them with more care because of the losses they have already suffered.
  I want to say a word about the War Office. The War Department hold more land in Wiltshire than any other Service Department. They are using 95,000 acres at the moment. Of those 95,000 acres, 8,000 are for Bulford and Tidworth where there are permanent camps. Then 21,000 acres, that is, nearly a quarter, are used for normal agricultural purposes, and if any disturbance takes place compensation is given. Forty thousand of the 95,000 acres are used for agriculture at a low rental. Of those 40,000 acres, 8,000 are free from disturbance as compared with 5,000 acres which were free from disturbance last year, so that while the point made by my hon. Friend in his intervention that live ammunition is adversely affecting the ability of the agriculturists to use the land for cropping is a good one, it has less force this year than it had last year. The area has been visited recently by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and his Ministry regards the arrangements as being satisfactory.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes referred to the Ministry of Supply and the amount of agricultural land they have taken from Wiltshire. What he said is perfectly true. They have taken at Imber 15,000 acres used jointly by the War Department and the Ministry of Supply. The War Office use it for battle training and the Ministry of Supply for testing new weapons. When that land was taken over in 1949 there were no

  1827
  objections by the Ministry of Agriculture or the local authorities. I regret to say that as the range is in continuous use any cropping of land has to be confined to a relatively small area on the fringe. There is also some land at Boscombe, Allington, and Porton, and altogether there are nearly 40,000 acres in use.
  I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes that my Ministry is the co-ordinating Ministry in this matter. It is up to a Government Department, spon-soring a specific section such as the agricultural community, to make representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and he, ultimately, will decide what use should be made of the land. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend will keep an eye on this matter. This is a question of fact, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury have any specific cases they think ought to be considered by my right hon. Friend I shall be more than grateful if they will provide full particulars, and my right hon. Friend will see what can be done.
  The Pewsey mental defectives' colony referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has been in existence for many years and has never been fully developed. I presume that was because of lack of clients in the olden days, but in these modern days when democracy has seen the light of day there are more clients than there used to be. The proposal is to use more accommodation by taking 84 acres of land. Sixty-six acres of these are agricultural land and these will continue to be farmed by mental defectives and will still remain in production. On the assumption that supervision is good and the defectives carry out their work with reasonable efficiency the land should yield the same amount of food for the nation as it did in the past.
  Both the Minister of Health and the Wiltshire County Council are in favour of the extension, but it is opposed by a local council on the ground of difficulty of providing a water supply and a sewerage system. A meeting of the parties has been arranged for 30th May. I sympathise with the county upon having so much of its land taken from it.
  The last point concerns Swindon. The Minister has approved in principle the
  1828
  expansion of Swindon for the reception of overspill from London. This is in accordance with proposals in the Towns Development Bill now before the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes has taken a great part in the Committee stage of that Bill. Swindon is regarded as a suitable place for expansion for two reasons. First, it it a "one industry" town. It depends on the railway works only and the introduction of new population and industry will introduce a greater degree of balance in the town's industry. The second reason is that the train services are good and, therefore, the area is one where it is reasonably easy to decant the population of London. That is the principle on which it is being made an expanded town. But no decision has been taken on the extent of the expansion or the amount and location of land required to house the addition population.
  A great agitation has arisen as a result of certain statements made by the Swindon Town Council, and I think those are the statements which have disturbed my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. His figure of the increase was given without the authority of my right hon. Friend or of the Wiltshire County Council who are the local planning authority. The present population of Swindon is about 70,000 and the Swindon Town Council propose an increase of 60,000 which is nearly 100 per cent. The question of the size of the expansion is a matter, in the first place, for the Wiltshire County Council, and they asked for the advice of the Government Departments concerned particularly in the matter of the introduction of further industry into Swindon, because it is hopeless to plan for the expansion of Swindon merely by introducing houses and making it a vast dormitory for London. We must introduce industry into the area to form a balanced community.
  The matter is now being considered by the Department, and it is hoped that a statement on their views will shortly be available to the county. My right hon. Friend feels sure that the county will take into full account the effect of any expansion upon agricultural land. I think it ought to be realised that provision must be made somewhere for London's overspill, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes agrees in principle.
  Mr. Hollis indicated assent.
  Mr. Marples: I am glad that my hon. Friend assents to that principle.
  The alternative would be the evil one of building on London's Green Belt, and London is already large enough. We are trying to prevent the expansion of what they call congested areas such as London and Manchester; "conurbations" is the word used by the planners. It is necessary to expand some of these existing towns, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be wise if the
  1830
  authorities would be careful not to inject a note of alarm into the statements that they make. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied. I can assure him that if he will give my right hon. Friend particulars of any agricultural land which he thinks is being built on unnecessarily the matter will be carefully considered.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.

  BECHUANALAND (BAMANGWATO CHIEFTAINSHIP)
  BECHUANALAND (BAMANGWATO CHIEFTAINSHIP)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Census of Distribution Forms
  Census of Distribution Forms
  Textile Areas (Assistance)
  Textile Areas (Assistance)
  Clothing Industries (Advertising)
  Clothing Industries (Advertising)
  Newsprint and Woodpulp
  Newsprint and Woodpulp
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Advertising (Tax Allowances)
  Advertising (Tax Allowances)
  Coal and Agriculture (Prices and Wages)
  Coal and Agriculture (Prices and Wages)
  Purchase Tax (Textiles)
  Purchase Tax (Textiles)
  Ministers' Cars (Mileage Allowance Claims)
  Ministers' Cars (Mileage Allowance Claims)
  Cup Final Tickets (Tax Evasion)
  Cup Final Tickets (Tax Evasion)
  COMMONWEALTH FINANCE MINISTERS (MEETINGS)
  COMMONWEALTH FINANCE MINISTERS (MEETINGS)
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Office Cleaners (Ministry of Defence)
  Office Cleaners (Ministry of Defence)
AGRICULTURE
  Exhibition Pigeons (Fowl Pest)
  Exhibition Pigeons (Fowl Pest)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Improvement Schemes, Cornwall
  Improvement Schemes, Cornwall
  Price Review (White Paper)
  Price Review (White Paper)
  Potato Disease (Research)
  Potato Disease (Research)
  Ellbridge Horticultural Station
  Ellbridge Horticultural Station
  Farms, Edingale, Staffordshire (Visits)
  Farms, Edingale, Staffordshire (Visits)
  Prices Statistics (Publication)
  Prices Statistics (Publication)
  AFFORESTATION, WESTERN VALLEY, MONMOUTHSHIRE
  AFFORESTATION, WESTERN VALLEY, MONMOUTHSHIRE
PRISONS
  Births
  Births
  Executions, Liverpool (Press Statements)
  Executions, Liverpool (Press Statements)
  CIVIL DEFENCE (MOBILE COLUMN)
  CIVIL DEFENCE (MOBILE COLUMN)
  FIRE SERVICE (CLOTHING ISSUES)
  FIRE SERVICE (CLOTHING ISSUES)
  POISONS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS
  POISONS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS
  CUP FINAL (TICKET TOUTS)
  CUP FINAL (TICKET TOUTS)
  NEWSAGENTS (BANNED BOOKS)
  NEWSAGENTS (BANNED BOOKS)
  AIRCRAFT APPRENTICES (CALL-UP)
  AIRCRAFT APPRENTICES (CALL-UP)
EMPLOYMENT
  Ex-Tuberculosis Patients
  Ex-Tuberculosis Patients
  Re-armament and Armed Forces
  Re-armament and Armed Forces
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Cancer Treatment (Mr. Rees Evans)
  Cancer Treatment (Mr. Rees Evans)
  Cornea Supplies (Grafting Operations)
  Cornea Supplies (Grafting Operations)
  Newsham Park Hospital, Liverpool
  Newsham Park Hospital, Liverpool
  Pay Beds (Charges)
  Pay Beds (Charges)
  Surgical Boots and Appliances (Charges)
  Surgical Boots and Appliances (Charges)
  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Vaccine (Calves)
  Vaccine (Calves)
  Hospital Administrative Staffs
  Hospital Administrative Staffs
  S.W. Metropolitan Hospital Board
  S.W. Metropolitan Hospital Board
EDUCATION
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Précis Writing
  Précis Writing
  National Camps
  National Camps
  Secondary School Places
  Secondary School Places
  Sub-Normal Children, East Riding of Yorkshire
  Sub-Normal Children, East Riding of Yorkshire
  Voluntary Schools (Financial Assistance)
  Voluntary Schools (Financial Assistance)
  Infant School Project, Stockton-on-Tees
  Infant School Project, Stockton-on-Tees
  Grammar School Pupils
  Grammar School Pupils
  HOME GUARD (CIVIL DEFENCE TRAINING)
  HOME GUARD (CIVIL DEFENCE TRAINING)
  REFRIGERATORS (OVERSEAS IMPORT RESTRICTIONS)
  REFRIGERATORS (OVERSEAS IMPORT RESTRICTIONS)
  P.O. TUNNEL ACCIDENT, LONDON
  P.O. TUNNEL ACCIDENT, LONDON
  DEFENCE PRODUCTION (METAL-USING INDUSTRIES)
  DEFENCE PRODUCTION (METAL-USING INDUSTRIES)
  FEEDINGSTUFFS (SUBSIDY)
  FEEDINGSTUFFS (SUBSIDY)
  U.S. AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, BROADSTAIRS
  U.S. AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, BROADSTAIRS
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (STEEL SUPPLIES)
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (STEEL SUPPLIES)
  HERTFORD BRITISH HOSPITAL, PARIS
  HERTFORD BRITISH HOSPITAL, PARIS
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (TUBERCULOSIS PATIENTS)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (TUBERCULOSIS PATIENTS)
  WAR PENSIONS (TOTALLY DISABLED)
  WAR PENSIONS (TOTALLY DISABLED)
SCOTLAND
  Milking Parlour System
  Milking Parlour System
  Water Supplies, Isle of Barra and Vatersay
  Water Supplies, Isle of Barra and Vatersay
  Hill Farming Improvement Schemes
  Hill Farming Improvement Schemes

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

RESPONSIBILITY OF CO-ORDINATORS
2.39 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with the view expressed by the Lord President of the Council in the debate yesterday, and reported in Column 475 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of April 30, that:
"the work of the co-ordinators is not a responsibility to Parliament; it is a responsibility to the Cabinet."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, what my noble friend had in mind was that the co-ordination of the work of Departments is a function within the Government, an allocation of duties by the Prime Minister for purposes of administrative convenience. It does not affect the direct responsibility to Parliament of Departmental Ministers, which, as before, remains with these Ministers once the Government have taken their decisions: nor, equally, does it affect the long-established ministerial responsibility to Crown and Parliament.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Marquess for the courtesy of his reply, may I ask him whether what he has now said would also refer to the Minister of Defence, who might make a decision covering the Departments coming under his care, or to the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power? I think there is a distinction between certain Ministers, and in these two cases what the noble Marquess has said will cause us grave reflection.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not complain in the least that the noble Lord should have asked this Question, but I am both too cautious
524
and too conscious of my own limitations to pontificate on these extremely difficult points at the very short notice which I have received. What I have tried to do—and I think I have done it—is to give the House a broad answer about the functions of co-ordinators. I would prefer not to amplify that; and, indeed, I should have thought that others who have had some experience of government would probably agree that one might do more harm than good by trying to define this matter too accurately. The broad central view is that all the Ministers jointly are responsible for Government policy. That is the essence of Cabinet responsibility.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask this further question? If the Minister of Defence makes a decision which affects one of the Ministries under him, is the Minister of Defence answerable to Parliament for that decision, or is it the Minister who carries out the instruction?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord himself would agree with what I have already said. This question was raised with me just before lunch, at 11 a.m.; that was when notice of it first reached me. These are important points, and I would prefer him not to press me to-day, when I cannot give a completely informed answer.
LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps the noble Marquess would indicate whether he would be willing to give consideration to the points raised and come to the House at some other time with a more considered opinion on these questions.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I shall be delighted to do that.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, did not ask for time before he made his statement. He made the most amazing statement: that not only he but also the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power, were not responsible in their functions to Parliament—that is to say, a new class of Ministers is created who are not responsible to Parliament. I should like to ask the noble Marquess how Parliament can bring to book the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, if he has made a decision, which is a final decision, since he is in the Cabinet, but which is against the wishes of Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, that is the responsibility of the Government as a whole. The noble Viscount knows as well as I do that when a decision is made in the Cabinet, it is not made by an individual Minister. The reason why co-ordinators have been brought into existence—and I think, on the whole, they fulfil very useful functions—is that very often some problem which concerns more than one Department arises, and there is need for somebody to link together, to weave together, the policy which affects both Departments. As I have tried to explain to the noble Lord, that does not affect the direct responsibility to Parliament of departmental Ministers which, as before, remains with these Ministers once the Government have taken their decision.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Marquess, if he will forgive me for saying so, is going much further than the present constitutional practice. Everybody knows that Cabinet Committees are private affairs, and that the Cabinet as a whole are responsible. But three Ministers have been appointed who have the right to give orders to other Departments. Supposing they give an order, how can the departmental Minister be held to be responsible to Parliament when he himself has received an order from a Minister who himself declares that he is not responsible to Parliament?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is where I feel the noble Viscount is begging the question when he speaks of "giving orders" to other Ministers. I do not admit that. The object is to co-ordinate, not to give orders. Otherwise, the other Ministers would become merely Under-Secretaries. That is not the position to-day. As I have said, I am speaking at short notice on an intricate constitutional point. If the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, cares to put down another Question (I will let him know when), I shall be delighted to go further into the matter.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether, when he comes to give another reply on the point, he will kindly clarify the precise degree of the responsibility to Parliament of the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power. Is it the case that the noble Lord the Secretary of State is not
526
responsible to Parliament for what is commonly regarded, in Parliament and outside, as his principal function? I do not ask for an immediate reply, but I should be obliged if the noble Marquess would look into the point, because I think it is of the utmost importance, from the point of view of Parliament and of the general public.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I shall be delighted to look into the matter, and I will include that point.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: One cannot help but observe that the Lord President of the Council made a constitutional announcement yesterday, without asking for the consideration for which the noble Marquess now quite rightly asks. The noble Lord the Lord President told us yesterday that the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power is not responsible to Parliament. That is a serious statement, of which the public is taking notice, and which should be clarified by the Government at the earliest possible moment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, what the Secretary of State is responsible for is co-ordinating transport, fuel and power. That does not mean that he has power to give orders to the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Minister of Transport. But I do not think we shall get much further by arguing this question to-day, and I do not think it is of great value. I am quite willing to look into the matter again. I will let the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, know when I have done so, and he can then put down a further Question.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, in view of the last remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, I feel that I must intervene. No notice was given to me of this "grave constitutional question." I was called upon to answer it without any notice at all. I thought that I stated a quite clear Parliamentary principle, which I should have thought the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who has been in Parliament for so long, would have welcomed.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am obliged to the noble Lord. We fully understand, as does the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury—although apparently the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, does not—that this

527
touches on a central point in our Constitution. The noble Lord says that he had no notice. Apparently he required no notice to announce that one Minister at least, and possibly three, claimed the right of irresponsibility in their offices.
LORD WOOLTON: I made no such statement.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: You said that they were not responsible to Parliament. That is a clear negation of the Constitution of this country.
LORD WOOLTON: That is not what I said.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.49 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform your Lordships that there will be a formal Sitting of the House at 11.15 a.m. to-morrow in order to receive the National Health Service Bill from another place. It has been arranged to take the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House on Tuesday next.

POACHING OF DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FOOD PRODUCTION
2.50 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Llewellin, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to measures for increasing the production of food from our own soil.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, I suppose I should start by craving your Lordships' indulgence for a maiden speech, and perhaps your Lordships will have some sympathy with me in having to make a maiden speech at the age of sixty-five, after half a lifetime in Parliament. The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, yesterday led to what I think everybody who heard it must agree was an extremely interesting debate, on which there was a large measure of agreement. The problem of increased food production in this island is obviously of
528
supreme importance, and I venture to believe that two considerations are vital: first, the world situation, about which there was a general measure of agreement yesterday and, secondly, the view taken by the public at large regarding the question of food, its provision and its price, about which I venture to think rather less was said yesterday and to which I want, if I may, to devote a portion of my remarks.
So far as the world situation is concerned, your Lordships know only too well—there have been numerous debates on the subject in your Lordships' House over the last five or six years—that the main point which emerges is that the situation, compared with that which existed pre-war, has radically changed. Pre-war, we enjoyed, or so we thought, a period of gluts in the world at large of great exportable surpluses of primary commodities. The primary producer, both in this country and overseas, lived on a very low level of existence, but there can be little doubt that the urban and industrial population of this country, as a result of the cheap foods which came to these shores, enjoyed during those years a steadily rising standard of living. To-day that is entirely changed. The growth of population in the world as a whole, largely due to improved medical science and the increasing industrialisation—promoted largely by the war—of countries which formerly were mainly primary producers, has resulted in a complete change, and the availability of the export surpluses that existed in pre-war days has been reduced.
India, on balance, is a large net food importer; South America, on the whole, contrary to what one has always believed, is a net food importer; the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia are in the same boat; and if we look round the world we find that, apart from New Zealand, Canada and the United States at the present moment are the only countries where substantial supplies are available for export. So far as we are concerned, owing to the dollar position, the greater portion of those export surpluses are not now available to this country. It is true that in the Colonies there is a certain amount of exportable food and raw material, but we enjoy those surpluses from the Colonies—or, at all events, we have enjoyed them over the last few years

529
—only at the cost of our increased sterling indebtedness to them. I have not seen the latest figures, but I believe we owe the Colonies to-day, mainly for raw materials and food imports, something of the order of £1,000,000,000 sterling. Put quite bluntly, although I do not believe the people of this country realise it, what that means is that we have been maintaining our standard of living in this country at the cost of the people in the Colonies, many of whom are on a grossly lower standard of living than we are in this country. That is a situation which cannot go on for ever and which, indeed, it will take all our efforts over the next few years to remedy by increasing our exports to them of consumer goods. Only in that way can we liquidate the indebtedness that we have built up.
Therefore, I am led to the conclusion—which I hope your Lordships will share—that our position vis-à-vis food has radically changed for the worse, and, I am afraid, radically changed for the worse for ever. The question is, does the country realise it? I am inclined to doubt it, but in my opinion—and this is what I am going to try and argue to your Lordships—when we come to consider the future of agriculture and of increased food production in this country, it is vital that the country should realise that fact. I believe that over the years the British public have come to believe that cheap food is an inherent right of the British people, almost regardless of its effect upon the primary producers. The facts are that as the world demand for food increases owing to the rising world population and to its industrialisation, more money and more energy are required than in the past to produce more food from the existing acres or from new marginal land.
I need hardly remind your Lordships that mass production in a factory largely reduces the cost of the unit of production. That, unfortunately, is not true in the case of agriculture. Indeed, the very opposite is the case, as your Lordships will remember from many instances in the last few years which will spring to your memory. Again I wonder whether the public realise that. Again I venture to doubt it, for the system of rationing and food subsidies which has been prevalent over the last ten or twelve years has tended to hide it from view. But again I believe that no system of ration-
530
ing and no amount of subsidies is going to alter the fundamental fact that, as a nation, we shall in the future have to give up some margin of our present consumption of consumer goods and services if we are to obtain the food we require, whether from overseas or from home sources. The sooner we realise that the better, and the sooner we shall get rid of rationing and all that that implies.
Speakers from all sides of your Lordships' House yesterday stressed the importance of the shortage of food with which we are faced. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt—who was kind enough to tell me he could not be here to-day because of an earlier engagement—said yesterday, and I fully agree with him (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 176, col. 493):
"At all costs, we must do everything we can, as a matter of the greatest urgency, to increase the food supplies of the country."
I think the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, a little earlier in the debate, had made a most apposite comment on that. He said (col. 478):
"It is simple enough to say these things in this House, but it is difficult to get the mass of the people of this country to understand that simple but profound economic truth."
That I believe to be very true. The noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, also said (col. 493):
"What we have to do, therefore, far transcends any issue of Party politics."
Again I venture to agree with the noble and learned Earl. But both Parties in this country, as I see it, share my doubts as to whether the public believe that this situation exists. If any one in this House doubts that statement, he has only to look at the canny way in which both major Parties in the State approach the ticklish question of the cost of living to realise the truth of what I am endeavouring to say.
I venture also (I hope that I shall not be accused of being controversial) to suggest that your Lordships will all no doubt remember plenty of examples, on this side and vice versa, over the last few months. It is all very well to say that both Parties are fundamentally in agreement on agricultural policy, both long-term and short-term, but (I do not know whether it is polite to your Lordships to say so) it is a fact that farmers distrust politicians. The farmer tends to look beyond the politician, to the great mass of the people of the country, and to ask:

531
Are they, the urban dwellers, the mass of voters in this country, convinced of these things? I wonder whether any of your Lordships believes, in his heart, that the public of this country are convinced of the entire change in the world situation with which we are faced.
I apologise for stressing this point, but I believe it is fundamental to the problem of greater food production. The farmer here, like the miner, has a very long memory; he remembers what happened between the wars to himself and his family, and to the workers—and, for that matter, to his farmer colleagues across the sea. He wants convincing that it is not going to happen again, before we can expect him to provide the increase in food production which we need. During the early years of the war food production campaign, I was met, whenever I asked the farmers to plough up more and increase production, with the argument: "It is all very well for you to ask us to do this while the war is on, but are we going to be let down again, as we were last time?" My answer—and it was the only answer—was something like this: "The real answer to your question is the food situation in which we are going to find ourselves." I told them I believed that we should be very short of food and that, provided they were efficient and produced food at reasonable prices, I believed they were assured of a market at reasonable prices for all they could produce. The only mistake I made was that I greatly under-estimated the shortage of food with which we were going to be faced. I should add that that was the foundation for the great policy that was eventually worked out from 1944 onwards. To-day, the demand from the farmers is for a long-term policy. I hope that your Lordships will not think it presumptuous if I say that that demand is as ill-conceived as the question which the farmers used to put to me in the early days of the war.
Again, I apologise for saying this, because so many of your Lordships yesterday referred to this long-term policy. But I believe that fundamentally that demand for a long-term policy is only a parrot cry from the farmer. Ask a farmer what he means by a long-term policy. In the majority of cases he will not be able to tell you. If we are right in our belief that this world food shortage
532
is going to continue, then the farmers of this country—again, provided they are reasonably efficient—can be assured of the market they require. That is the best possible guarantee that they could get, and it is the best long-term policy they could get. If we are wrong, if we are going in a year or two to see a glut of raw materials or of food, such as we did between the wars, then we may be quite certain that any guarantee to-day of prices that will be paid three or four years from now, will not be worth the paper it is written on, because no Parliament can bind its successors; and if there were such gluts, no Government, with the pressure of public opinion upon it for a lowering of the cost of living, would be able to stand. Therefore, in my opinion, this demand for a long-term policy is misconceived.
But if we want, as the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, says, to give confidence to the farmers and get the maximum production of food through that confidence, we have to do something to establish it. Unless we can establish confidence in the mind of the farmer, it is unfair, in my opinion, to ask him and his landlords to invest further sums in improving his buildings, draining his land and improving long-term fertility, reclaiming marginal land and so forth. I believe that that confidence would be most soundly based if the farmer felt that the public really realise and appreciate the facts of the food situation in the world and at home which I have been endeavouring to outline to your Lordships. That is the real long-term policy, not scrapping at yearly or half-yearly intervals about Price Reviews, as we have been doing. That situation will come only when the country as a whole realises that the farmer, here and overseas, whether he be a big farmer or a peasant, has a right to expect a living proportionate to the hours he works, to his investment, and to the risks he runs. I believe that to be fundamental.
From this point of view I confess that I was a little worried about what the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said in one passage of his speech yesterday, when, in his apparent optimism, he referred to the many food-producing firms in foreign lands who know the value of keeping commercial friendships in repair and who would welcome a return to fuller trade with the 50,000,000 people whose market is here. The noble Lord is much better

533
acquainted with the situation overseas than I am, but I am bound to say that, in my humble opinion, while such pockets of available food may well exist here and there from time to time, in sum total they are very small indeed in relation to the total world shortage. Even if they were available to us, they would certainly not be large enough to solve our problems, though they might serve to alleviate them a little from time to time. But even if those pockets existed in the world at large, it would not necessarily follow that they would be available to us. We might not be able to pay for them. My view is that the balance of payments problem is going to be with us probably for all our lifetime. We are certainly going to have a very hard struggle in this country to export sufficient to pay for the imports of raw materials, without which we cannot exist at all, and for the imports of such foods as, strive as we may, we are not able to produce. We have also to face competition from Germany and Japan. Therefore—I hope the noble Lord will not mind my saying so—I venture, from the farmer's point of view, to deprecate anything which may tend in the public mind to minimise the need for greater food production, or which may lead the country into believing that perhaps the situation is less serious than I personally believe it to be.
That brings me to the present Price Review. I have always been very much concerned with the public relations aspect of agriculture. During the war, we tried, I believe with some success, to "put agriculture over" to the public. The farmers, thanks to their magnificent efforts, and those of their workers, and with the co-operation of their landlords, emerged from the war, I believe, very high in the public esteem. I am very much afraid that that high esteem has not been maintained in the interval. When we were laying our plans for the post-war years—and be it noted that they were non-Party plans, for no Minister ever had a more loyal colleague than I had in the person of Tom Williams—there was an implicit understanding with the farmers that, in return for guaranteed markets and guaranteed prices, there would continue to be strenuous efforts to maintain and increase farming efficiency. Eventually, the Agriculture Act of 1947 was passed. Whatever may have been the intentions of the authors of that Act, I do not think
534
there can be any doubt that in practice it has led to an excessive security of tenure in holdings. I think that was agreed on all sides in the debate yesterday. I am not blaming the authors. It was something that possibly they could not foresee, but I think that is agreed to have been the result. Landlords are frustrated in any effort they make to get rid of a bad, let alone an indifferent, farmer. From such information as is at my disposal, agricultural executive committees are equally frustrated. In other words, it is having a disastrous effect on the whole system of landlord and tenant, on which agriculture over the years has been so largely built up, and which still covers two-thirds of the land of this country.
But I am concerned with its effect on increased food production. I had intended to say a good deal about this aspect, but my task has largely been made superfluous by yesterday's debate. From all quarters, I think almost without exception, the need for dealing with the substandard farmer was stressed, particularly, I thought, by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel and also by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in a powerful speech with almost all of which I should imagine your Lordships fully agreed. For my purpose, I want to quote only one short sentence. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, said this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume 176, column 493):
"In these circumstances, a man who is not doing the best he can with his land is an enemy of society, and he must be treated as such."
That is a doctrine which I advanced when I was Minister of Agriculture in nearly all the speeches I made to farmers. I believe it to be profoundly true.
I would add only this: that the good farmer, the "A" farmer, is as good as any in the world. We may be able to look to him for some small increase in food production. He farms a considerable proportion of the land of this country but, of course, the very fact that he is an "A" farmer and a good farmer means that he is to-day producing very nearly up to the hilt. I am perfectly certain that your Lordships and the country can rely on his taking advantage of, and applying, any advances that science can suggest towards increasing food production. He farms well, partly from patriotic reasons

535
but mainly, I think, because he loves doing it. He gets a real psychological satisfaction out of seeing his land cultivated well and to the full. Increased prices for him will have little influence, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer will skim most of that off in due course. I hope that I shall not be considered controversial, but I could not help thinking, when the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was speaking and was "chipping" the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, about the necessity for co-ordination being done in the Cabinet and not by individual Ministers, how we should all like to be invisible hearers of a Cabinet meeting in a future Labour Government in which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, as Minister of Agriculture or at the Board of Trade, was trying to persuade Mr. Hugh Gaitskell of the evil effect on productivity of high taxation.
It is the man immediately below the good farmer who requires encouragement and help, and it is to the land which he occupies that we must look for any really great increase of food production. I believe that this land is capable of a very great increase. The reasons for which these farmers find themselves in difficulties are varied and many—too varied for me to occupy your Lordships' time in discussing them to-day—but I suggest to the noble Lord the Under-Secretary who is to reply that it is on them that we require to concentrate all our help in a large variety of ways to meet the varying needs of the men concerned. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, called attention to the falling output in the last two years. That is not a process that has just taken place in the last two years; that is a culmination of a process that has been going on for the last five or six years. I suggest that what we need to-day is a return to the sense of urgency which prevailed in the farming community during the war. I believe that that is going to be the main task of my right honourable friend Sir Thomas Dugdale, and, knowing him personally very well, I believe he will not fail.
Now a word about prices. Quite frankly, I do not believe that by themselves higher prices will increase production. It is possible that they may maintain it but, so far from increasing production, in the case of many of the really sub-standard farmers these increased
536
prices will merely enable them to carry on in their old bad ways. The prices need to be supplemented, as so many of your Lordships said yesterday, not only by an amendment, or amendments, of the 1947 Act, but even more by an alteration in the whole atmosphere of its administration. In detail I think that, for purely psychological reasons, the increased price for milk is a little too low, simply because of the inherent difficulties and worry of producing milk, as compared with rearing cattle.
Having regard to the present profitability of pigs, I am not sure that a rise was necessary, but in the case of cereals I am quite sure that we should get much better results by abolishing the system of feeding-stuffs rationing, making farmer-to-farmer sales free and abolishing price control. It is often said that that would result in a large increase in price. I do not think so. I do not think we should see any material advance in prices, because a farmer is not going to buy, for example, barley from a fellow farmer at a price beyond that at which he believes he can profitably feed it to his pigs and get the results in bacon and pork. If the prices for livestock products are right, then I am certain that the cereal prices will take care of themselves. Incidentally, we should by this means get rid of a lot of cumbrous machinery. We should save a good deal of manpower and expense and, above all, I think we should put an end to the black market, which I am certain exists to-day. If the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, will allow me, I would suggest that this is pre-eminently a case for his talents as co-ordinator. I have no inside information but, from my general knowledge of the circumstances, I should guess that the Ministry of Agriculture are strongly in favour of this proposal and the Ministry of Food are strongly against it.
I have refrained from burdening your Lordships with a lot of figures. Perhaps you will forgive me if I quote one set. Table 21 in the Economic Survey shows that, at 1950 prices, the expenditure of this country upon food in 1951 as compared with 1950 dropped from £2,627,000,000 to £2,613,000,000—that is, a drop of £14,000,000 sterling in the expenditure on food in this country. The Survey comments that this could be due to prices overtaking income, apart from

537
the reduction owing to the decrease in the ration of carcase meat. This explanation hardly fits the figures in the next column, which show an increase in expenditure on drink and tobacco from £1,501,000,000 to £1,543,000,000. That is an increase of no less than £42,000,000 in the year. By peculiar coincidence, this is roughly the figure by which prices, including the fertiliser subsidy, are going to be raised to the fanner. So your Lordships will realise that if the public reverted to an expenditure on drink and tobacco, not of the order of that for 1938 or for 1945, nor even for 1949, but only of that for the previous year, 1950, the increased prices to be paid to farmers would add nothing to the public's global cost of living.
To sum up, I have tried to show the importance to farming of the public attitude to the price for food. There is imperative need, as I see it, of a determined campaign (and this has nothing to do with Party politics) to explain to the people of this country that the days of cheap food at the expense of the primary producers have gone for ever; and to get them to realise the fact that over the next couple of decades—I consider that this is a safe prophecy—the reward of primary producers all over the world will have to rise materially in relation to the reward of the urban and industrial population, unless, of course, the latter want to go permanently hungry. That is really the issue. So far as this country is concerned, I believe that the reward to agriculture—the farmer, the worker and the landlord taken collectively—will have to be made proportionate to their work, their costs and their risks. The farmer, on his part—and I stress this—will have to see that his industry as a whole is as reasonably efficient as it can be made by the joints efforts of all, so as to remove even that shadow of plausibility which Mr. "Featherbed" Evans genuinely feels is extant in his present-day arguments. Finally, we must hope that the Price Review under discussion will give us a breathing space—the breathing space that we undoubtedly need. But it will only do so, I am sure, if it is accompanied by a drastic amendment in the terms and the method of administration of the 1947 Act.
3.24 p.m.
LORD HUNGARTON: My Lords, may I, on behalf of your Lordships' House, offer our very hearty congratulations to the noble Viscount who has just spoken? I must say that he has taken a great deal of my thunder, but we are more or less brothers in arms, at any rate so far as farming is concerned, because we saw much of each other during the war period. And I think this would be an opportune moment for your Lordships' House again to express its gratitude to the noble Viscount for the wonderful work which he did during that time. Those of us who laboured with him know the terrific amount of drive which he put into his work—and it was drive! Believe me, when the noble Viscount went up to Leicester we knew we had to get on with the job, and we did. If from this debate we can go to the country and get the countryside to work as hard as it did during the war years, then we shall do a great deal to help our nation out of its present difficulties.
I should like also to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who has performed a great service in bringing this important matter to the notice of the public. I am somewhat sceptical that the public realise the difficulties which are facing this country. I am sure they do not. I am certain that, whatever we may do, in five years' time the food position will be worse than it is to-day. But if there is anyone to be blamed in five years' time, who will it be? It will be we in this House and those in another place; we shall take the blame from the public for not having provided the food which they require. Therefore we should do everything we can to educate the people to appreciate the difficult position in which we are now placed. There is, at any rate, one thing of which I am very glad—namely, that this debate has been almost non-political. That shows how we can get together if the subject under discussion is important from the point of view of the well-being of our people.
I, as well as other noble Lords, am concerned at the declining food production of this country, It is true that there is a steady decline. We see the workers leaving the land, not only in this country but in other parts of the world. I am very concerned about that. We cannot increase our food production here, in the

539
Colonies, or anywhere in the world, if we have not the men and the women to do the work. What is happening in Australia and Canada? I do not want to bore your Lordships with too many figures, but I think you will find that these are rather interesting. They are taken from The Times of April 15 which states that in 1939 the population of Australia was about 7,000,000, that in 1951 it was about 8,500,000, and that it is hoped and expected that during the next six years it will exceed 10,000,000. The rural forces in Australia in 1939 were 520,000, and they have now fallen to 450,000. Those figures rather frighten me. The factory labour force in Australia in 1939 was 542,000, and that has now risen to 889,000. Australia is becoming an industrial country. In those circumstances, what hope have we of increasing our food production in Australia? Let us take Canada, another great country. Again, these figures are taken from The Times of April 15. During the past twelve years industrial workers in Canada have increased in number by two-thirds, and farm employment has decreased by a quarter. My Lords, these are rather alarming figures, and I hope they will be made more public than heretofore.
Take the little county of Leicester. We are only a small county, but we are asked, quite rightly, to produce more food. How are we going to do it? During the past two years the number of our farm workers has dropped by some 627. I would remind your Lordships that at the end of the war we had in our county about 4,000 prisoners-of-war, displaced persons, and so on, for this type of labour. They have all gone. We now have a casual force of something under 100; that is all. We must get the workers back to the land by some means, and I was very glad to hear the noble Viscount say that there is only one way—namely, that this type of labour must be paid more money and should be housed better. One of the things which I hope the Government will do, and as soon as they possibly can, is to adopt the policy of building more houses in the countryside. We want more homes and we want those workers to return to the land. Human nature being what it is, good wages and good housing will do
540
much to encourage those people to go back to the countryside.
I was glad to hear the noble Viscount refer to the way in which the farmers farmed the land of our grand old country during the war period. I agree with him that 90 per cent. of our country is very well farmed. There is room for some improvement, but it is true to say that 90 per cent. is very well farmed. When we consider that in the 1920's and 1930's the agricultural industry, as your Lordships know, was in a very bad state, it is clear that a wonderful change for the better has been wrought. I remember, in those old days to which I have just referred, paying a visit to the Eastern counties. I there saw farmers in such a state that they were wearing rags, and there were workers in a similar plight. What could those men do? In many cases, they left the land—200,000 of them did so. I do not want to bore your Lordships by going over past history, but I think it is just as well to remember these things. It is because of this that the farmer sometimes says to us: "Ah, I remember the 1930's my boy. What is going to happen to us in the future? If you get the opportunity are you going to manage things so that we slip back into the condition in which we were in those times?" We have to assure the farmer that such a thing will not happen again in this country. I do not think it will. I am confident that, even if adequate supplies of food to meet all our needs were available in the world, we should not let our farmers down. But we have no room for passengers; that 10 per cent. who have been referred to should and must be dealt with.
At this point I should like to place on record an expression of our debt of gratitude to our farmers for what they have accomplished during the past ten years. They have certainly done a grand job. It has been said that the "C" farmers, the poorer farmers, should be the ones to produce greatly increased quantities of food. I do not agree. If you really want a quick increase in food production, you must go to the "A" farmer, the "A-plus" farmer and the "B-plus" farmer, men in the higher categories, and ask them to produce more. You will find that there is not one in a thousand of them who will not tell you that he could do much better. I have spoken to a number of them recently. In the great

541
majority of cases what these men have said amounts to this: "I have not got any pigs, poultry or sheep, and the reason for that is that I have no houses in which to accommodate the necessary men. If I am going to have this livestock I shall want a poultry-man, a pig-man and a shepherd, and they will need homes to live in." All these things come into the picture. To-day, I regret to say, there are thousands of farms which are without poultry, pigs and sheep. Many are without livestock of any sort at all. That is not good farming. I regret to say this, but it is the fact. I hope that the men concerned will be educated into recognising that they are not treating the land as they should. After all, land is a trust and it is not being treated as it should be treated if there is no livestock upon it.
Here I should like to pay a tribute to the National Agricultural Advisory Service which has done, and is doing, a grand job. We farmers are not making anything like as good use of that Service as we ought to do. About 1941 or 1942, when the organisation started, a number of young men from it came along to help our fanners. In my district, we had the assistance of a particularly brilliant young man. I encouraged him to come to ray farm at least once a week. We used to walk round together. With my practical experience and his theoretical knowledge we made a very good job of the farm. I certainly benefited a great deal from that young man's technical knowledge. I urge all farmers to make as much use as they possibly can of the National Agricultural Advisory Service.
How are we to get a big increase in food production? As has already been said in this debate, we must infuse confidence into the agricultural industry. That must be done, and I think it will be done. Farmers, I am sure, appreciate to the full the benefits which they enjoy. They appreciate guaranteed prices and assured markets. Those are grand things, and I think it is well that the farmers should be reminded of the position in which these advantages place them. Broadly speaking, they are, I agree, in a very favourable position. So far as beef is concerned, however, the situation is rather different. When a farmer goes into beef production he needs a period of four years before he sees a return. If a farmer decides to start in beef production, say next week,
542
he buys his beasts for breeding, and by the time he has calves reared and fit to go to the block some four years will have elapsed. That means a farmer has just got the turn-round by the end of the four years. If some other Government were to come into power and to say to the farmer "We are not going to allow you to have the same conditions in the future," it would be just too bad for that man. He ought to know, I suggest, that he has at any rate ten years of the settled conditions with regard to beef production ahead of him.
I want our cousins in the towns to know these things. They should realise that this is a very slow process. There is no other industry in the country which is so slow in its returns as farming. We must face these facts, and I hope the country will face them. We need that ten years; and we need an assurance of that ten years' period before we can persuade farmers to embark on beef production in a big way. As the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said yesterday, if we are to get this beef we have got to have more calves. The noble Lord said he thought this country could well rear a further 300,000 or 400,000 more calves during the next four years or so. I agree that it can be done, but I am not sure that it will be possible unless we make some little change in our methods.
I do not like going into technical details, and I will not detain your Lordships more than a moment or two; but I should like to give an explanation to show what I mean. I think we ought to make much more use of the thousands of young cows which are now being put out of dairies as not being good enough milk producers. There is no reason why these young cows should not be potential rearers of calves—at any rate for two or three years before they come to the end of their days. We have to have more breeders, and if we do not use these young cows there are only the heifers. If you use the heifers exclusively, that means taking them away from the beef market. I most strongly urge that these immature cows should be taken off the market and that some use should be made of them for breeding. To ensure this being done, I suggest that the price for these cows should be, say, £1 per cwt. less than the heifer price now prevailing, instead of there being a difference of 50s. per cwt. between the prices of cows and heifers as at present.

543
Let such of these cows as are suitable—they might be chosen by the grading panels in our various markets—be earmarked for breeding purposes. I suggest that that is an idea which might well be considered, with a view to a scheme being worked out. I hope that I have not bored your Lordships too much with technicalities. It cannot be stressed too strongly that if we are going to have the beef which is so badly needed, we must have calves, and such a scheme, I suggest, is one means by which we might get more of them.
Next, I should just like to refer to the greatest potential we have—grassland. That is our greatest potential producer if it is properly managed. Millions of acres are crying out for fertiliser, and I was much vexed to note in the Press two or three days ago that one of the big fertiliser firms were standing off 150 of their workers. The firm could not get rid of the fertiliser which they had in stock. They stated that one reason for this was that some of the farmers had last year bought enough fertiliser to cover their requirements for a considerable future period because they knew there was going to be a rise in prices. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the farmers are not using so much fertiliser, and steps should be taken to ensure that more is used. I do not know how this is to be done but the Goverment must get the farmers to put more fertiliser on to the land. I leave the method to the Government—I do not mind how they do it. If it has to be done by subsidy, then let it be so done. Personally, I hate subsidies, but if they are going to be the means of getting increased production, then we have just got to have them. I am sure that we can double and in many cases treble the output of grass. If we re-seed and then apply fertilisers, it is marvellous what results can be achieved.
At present too much damage is being done to the agricultural industry by stupid and unfair criticism. It is time that this talk about "feather-bedding" and nonsense of that kind was stopped. It is doing harm. It seems as though many people in this country think farmers should not make a profit at all. Why not? The Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome farmers making a bit of money, which might be useful for the tax collector. I do not know why we should grudge the farmers a little
544
pleasure. We should let them have a look at the money, if only for a month or two. Do not begrudge them that. Speaking seriously, I would point out that the agricultural industry returns a smaller percentage of profit than any other industry.
I should like to ask the Government whether they are quite satisfied with the results of the work done by the agricultural executive committees. Let me pay the greatest possible tribute to the work that these committees did during the war. They did a noble and a grand work. But to-day they are not getting the output. I do not blame them altogether, but I am not satisfied that they provide the answer to our problems to-day. I should like to make a suggestion, which I hope your Lordships will receive kindly. I believe that during the years we have outrun our methods for dealing with farmers and with land. After listening to this debate, I am glad to think that we are more or less agreed that agriculture should be outside politics. I am going to suggest that we should consider forming a Home Food Corporation in this country. Some of your Lordships may think that we have had enough corporations, but I consider that the time has come when we should take a look at this suggestion. We should have a marketing board for every commodity we produce, and that applies more than anywhere else to the horticultural side of the industry. Goodness knows! they want a marketing board. We have already several marketing boards and many farmers to-day say, "Thank God for the Milk Marketing Board!"
I am suggesting that we should have a Home Food Corporation, which might be composed of one member from each marketing board, plus an agreed number of farmers chosen by ballot and selected for their business acumen and farming ability, an agreed number of land workers and land owners (actually in my notes I have "land owners" first, I do not know why), and, in addition, an agreed number of consumers' representatives and representatives of the Ministries of Agriculture and of Food, and of the Treasury. I suggest a very wide composition and that the Corporation should have wide powers. The Corporation would be responsible to Parliament, as it is bound to be. Parliament would say that it wants such-and-such an amount of food, and it would be up to the Corporation to produce it. I think we should be able to put

545
to use the experience of the agricultural executive committees, which might be reconstructed and come under the Corporation, as would the National Agricultural Advisory Service. This is a big question to throw open for discussion at the present moment, but I hope your Lordships will give some thought to it and perhaps, if thought fit, we might look into it further on some future occasion. I believe that some good could come of it for the country. Give the farmers confidence, I will not say, "Give them capital," but let it be available to them; and give them workers. With good leadership—I stress the word "leadership"—I am certain that the farmers of Britain will not be found wanting in producing the increased quantity of food which is so vital for the well-being of our country.
3.46 p.m.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, this is the first time I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House and I hope your Lordships will grant me the indulgence which I understand is customary for a maiden speech. I am glad to have the opportunity of making my maiden speech on the subject of this debate, which I believe to be of the greatest importance for the country at the present time. There are a few things I should like to say, with all humility, having listened yesterday and this afternoon to many eminent agriculturists and other experts, who seem to have covered the ground very thoroughly. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to explain that during the last three-and-a-half years I have been concerned with the development of a new project in Norfolk which is designed in a small way to add to our supplies of home-grown feeding-stuffs, and, therefore, I have had an opportunity of studying some of the new techniques which are being developed and which may be able to help us to increase our production of food from our own soil.
During the last six years we have been struggling to export sufficient industrial goods to balance our payments abroad, without very great success. It appears that the position now is as bad as it has been at any time since the war. Meanwhile, half the money we earn with our exports we spend on importing food—that is, including drink and tobacco. Considerably more than one-quarter of the total value of our exports is being
546
expended on grain, meat, dairy produce and fresh fruit and vegetables. In these circumstances, as many noble Lords have already said, surely it is of vital importance that we should consider to what extent we can increase the production of food from our own soil and depend less on the export of industrial goods in order that we can afford to buy food from abroad. I believe we should have a much larger and more prosperous agricultural industry in this country and produce at least two-thirds of our own food in future. I am convinced that if we want more eggs, bacon and meat, we must produce them in this country. If we do not, before long people are going to go hungry. Not only do I believe that we can produce the extra foods we want, but I am convinced that we can do so far more cheaply than they can be obtained from any other source.
One thing which is going to be of great importance is the extent to which we should aim to be self-sufficient in our food supplies. One of the greatest problems in the agricultural industry, in considering how we are going to expand production, is the supply of animal feeding-stuffs. Of all the basic food produced in this country at the present moment from our own soil, 80 per cent. is consumed by livestock. Therefore, if we are to keep more animals we have to get greatly increased supplies of feeding-stuffs. I suggest that it would be foolish for us to build up our herds and flocks based on uncertain and expensive supplies from abroad.
In considering this question of the production of feeding-stuffs in this country, grass is a crop of pre-eminent importance. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, referred yesterday to the fine work that has been carried out at the Hannah Dairy Research Institute in Ayrshire, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, also drew your Lordships' attention to the important contribution that grassland production could make to feeding the cattle population of this country in particular. We have 17,500,000 acres of grassland, and if we could increase the production from that grassland by 25 per cent. it would be equivalent to 4,000,000 tons of coarse grains, which would not otherwise be available to us, unless it were imported. A 25 per cent. increase in production is a very modest figure, compared to the

547
actual increases that have been shown to be possible at such research stations as the Hannah Institute, and it is by no means an impossible task. There again, we could produce a great deal more grain from our existing cereal acreage if modern techniques were used, such as using the right variety of seed, with the optimum amount of fertilisers and proper weed control. In that way we could probably increase our yields of grain by at least 10 per cent., and this would give us a further 500,000 tons of coarse grains, which would provide more food for our pigs and poultry.
But increased production of grain is not the only means of providing extra food for pies and poultry. The more grass we can feed to our cattle, the more grain will be freed to feed pigs and poultry. It is often thought that an increase of grassland production is incompatible with producing more corn. On the other hand, I believe that the more grassland we plough up in order to grow grain, the greater the acreage of land that will eventually come into the rotational ley system, which will indirectly increase our grassland production. Therefore I feel sure that the two things can go hand in hand. It has been calculated that if we made the maximum use of grass for feeding our dairy herds during winter and summer it would free for pigs and poultry the equivalent amount of coarse grains that could be grown by ploughing up a further 1,000,000 acres for cereals.
I feel that there is a great potential production from grassland in this country. It is a crop which we can grow easily; and, as I say, there are already 17,000,500 acres of our available cultivable land growing grass at the moment. Above all, grassland can quickly and easily make an enormous contribution to our supplies of home-grown food. At the present time about half the present food for our cattle is provided by grass—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, referred to that yesterday. The average yield from this grassland is of the order of 15 cwt. of starch equivalent per acre—that is, on the dairy farms of this country. We have a national average of only 600 gallons of milk from our dairy herds. To achieve this we feed nearly 4 lb. of concentrates, some home-produced but mainly imported, per gallon of milk. This is a
548
most extravagant and uneconomic use of a commodity which is expensive and imported largely at the expense of dollars.
The results of an investigation on some sixty farms, mainly concerned with dairying, have recently been published, and I believe that the information gathered is of the greatest importance to the future of the agricultural industry. It is not a survey of a research project, but an investigation of ordinary practical commercial farms, and it has shown what can be done with a good level of management on ordinary farms in everyday practice. I should perhaps explain that these included many small farms of under 50 acres, of poor land—or, at least, not all good land—in districts such as the West Riding and Wales, up to altitudes of 1,000 feet. In 1950, on these farms grass provided 65 per cent. of the diet for dairy cattle, and the yield of starch equivalent from their grassland was 20 cwt. per acre, as opposed to the average for the country of 15 cwt. per acre. The average yield of the herd was 710 gallons, and the income per cow £102, which is very high when compared with the average income over the country. As a result, they were able substantially to reduce the amount of concentrates fed to the cattle. I believe that this is one way in which a spectacular and important contribution can be made to the whole problem of providing feeding-stuffs for the extra livestock which are essential to produce the meat, eggs and bacon that we require.
The criticism is occasionally levelled that by feeding grass to our cattle we should have a fall in our milk production. But if we look at Holland, which has a shorter grazing season than this country, 80 per cent. of the national dairy herd's diet is provided by grass; they have the highest national herd average in the world, and at the same time they are probably, together with Denmark, the lowest-cost producers of milk in Europe. I think we could do better in this country, with our longer grazing season and the warmth and moisture brought to us by the Gulf Stream.
There is one last comment that I should like to make. It appears to me that our present system of subsidising imported feeding-stuffs for farmers, and particularly for small farmers, militates against the widespread adoption on our farms of practices to which I have referred, because so long as a small

549
farmer can buy feeding-stuffs in a bag from a merchant, he knows exactly what he is getting: he can feed it to his stock, and he knows the price of the end product. He can, therefore, calculate fairly exactly what his profit is and he knows the risk. In these circumstances, it will be very difficult to persuade him to adopt new techniques and intensive grassland management, all of which involves risks and unknown practices with which he is not accustomed, and there is no incentive for him to do it. At the present time, dairy cake is being sold to the farmer at about £10 a ton below cost. I have calculated, on figures which have been published, that, if import prices do not fall during the coming twelve months this subsidy will cost the Exchequer something of the order of £40,000,000 over the year. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that this money might be better applied in paying the farmers increased prices for their livestock, which would encourage them to produce food from their own soil, rather than, so to speak, providing them with an artificially low-priced, semi-manufactured product, which in practice has the reverse effect and is indirectly persuading them to produce less from their own farms.
4.2 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I believe your Lordship will wish me to express on your behalf our satisfaction and gratitude for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. It is refreshing, as it is right, in your Lordships' House to hear the remarks of experts, particularly when they are delivered in that modest but convincing manner which Lord Melchett has used in addressing you this afternoon. The course of this debate so far has, it seems to me, taken two lines which I wish to follow. In the first place, the speeches from the Benches of the noble Lords opposite have led your Lordships to feel that we have unanimity in an agricultural policy in this country, and I sincerely hope that that is true. Nevertheless, the facts of the matter are that during the last seven years in which the agricultural policy of this country has been administered by the supporters of the Socialist Party, agricultural output has fallen steadily. I cannot believe that that is entirely a coincidence. Farmers, like most other people, prefer to produce more in order to make more money. If they are pro-
550
ducing less, it is not because they wish to produce less or to "do somebody else down." They are producing less because the price policy and the policy which has governed agriculture to date has not afforded them the inducement to produce more.
If your Lordships will look at the Monthly Digest of Statistics you will find very disquieting figures, to which various speakers in your Lordships' House have referred. There has been a steady decline in all cereal products, or the three principal cereal products; a steady increase of land going back to what is called permanent grass, as opposed to ley, and, what is even more disquieting, a steady decline in the cattle population, especially of young cattle, which is what really matters. I do not want to bore your Lordships with figures, especially on the second day of a debate of this sort, but it is not without significance that since 1948 the numbers of cattle under one year of age have been and, so far as I know, still are falling. That augurs badly for the production of increased quantities of meat. The population of sheep is subject to particular circumstances which have led to a rise in the last year. That is a result mainly of the recovery from the very bad and critical winters of 1946 and 1947. The fact of the matter is that the sheep population is vastly below what it was before the war, though what is euphemistically described as "rough grazings" appears, if anything, to have increased rather than decreased Farmers, if they are as a whole producing less, cannot all be out of step, except Mr. "Featherbed" Evans. Or are they? The fact of the matter is that at the present moment farming in this country presents rather a dismal picture of an industry with declining output, and this at a time when it is vital to have increased production, on account not only of our balance of payments but also of the whole future of our population.
The second point which seems to me to come clearly out of this debate is that the remarks which noble Lords have made fall into two categories only one of which arises directly out of the terms of Lord Llewellin's Motion, which deals with the increase of food production in this country. A great deal has been said about food abroad, and it is true that that

551
has a very distinct bearing on the problem. I want to deal with that point for one brief moment before passing on to the question of food production here. Studies which have been made, including those of Mr. Colin Clark, to which there has already been a reference in your Lordships' House, present a picture of world population increasing at the rate of about 1¼ per cent. But what is far more important than that is the fact that the population of the high-consuming countries is increasing far more rapidly than had been expected. In particular, one of the prognostications which was made ten to fifteen years ago was that by the end of this decade the population of the United States would have achieved a stable level. It has, of course, done nothing of the sort. The reasons why it has not done so are interesting. The explanation is unknown, but instead of a population turnover per century of three generations, the turnover is now four, as a result of the young age of marriage, which averages something under twenty-five.
The second point which arises from that is that the average family in the United States, which was two and was expected to decline below two, is now two and a half. The same increase of population in the high-consuming countries is reflected in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and in practically every country in Europe except this country. The consequence is that those countries, being either wholly or growingly industrialised, are all potentially larger consumers of world food. What has been happening since the war is perfectly clear evidence that that is, in fact, taking place.
May I, with all respect, differ from the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, on one particular point? The United States to-day is, I believe, a net importer of food and not a net exporter of food. What is even more important, so far as meat is concerned, is that in the last two years the United States has been a net importer of meat. That gives considerable food for thought. The meat-growing areas in the world are not very considerable. There are some which can still be developed. But if the United States and Canada, from being net exporters of meat and other products, become net importers of meat—there is no question of Canada being a net importer of other
552
foods at the moment—the prospects of imported food supplies in this country vanish into thin air.
The remedy is to secure a development of meat supplies in other parts of the world, of which notably Australia and New Zealand are the most important. An increase in meat supplies from New Zealand is in fact taking place. On the other hand, the prospect of more meat from Australia is rapidly disappearing. I quote from a Report made by the Commonwealth Committee which investigated the development of the North-west. The Report says:
"Estimates made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics indicate that if Australia is to meet home requirements for beef and maintain an export surplus at the present level"—
that is a pretty low level, comparatively—
"it will be necessary to increase the output of beef cattle by some 40 per cent. by the end of this decade"—
that is within eight years.
The contribution which Her Majesty's present Government and Governments in the past have made to stimulating production of meat in Australia has been to negotiate an export price for meat which is wholly unremunerative to the beef producers in Australia. It is no credit to any Minister or Ministry of Food to negotiate an agreement with a producer of meat which makes it unprofitable for that producer of meat to export it to this country. The present position, so far as meat from Australia is concerned, in a very few words, is that the existing contract—much criticised, naturally, in Australia—provides, I think, for a price of 15.3d. per lb., seaboard, for meat exported to this country. That same meat can be sold in Sydney and Melbourne at 24d. per lb. Is it surprising that, without a greater incentive to the meat-producing areas, Australia, may cease to be an exporter of meat in, say, two or three years?
Even assuming that we have a balance of payments which allows us to buy meat, we shall find ourselves in a position in which meat will not be available to be bought—not only in those Commonwealth countries which should produce a great deal more, but also in Eire. The meat from Eire is to-day being sent to feed the United States and the United States Army, and is also being exported

553
to other European countries, because the price which the Ministry of Food are prepared to pay for that meat does not compare favourably with what other people are prepared to pay. We must reconcile ourselves to the fact to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, and other speakers have referred, that prices of food products, and especially of meat, are to-day a great deal too low. Reckoned in terms of gold value after a depreciated pound, the price of 15d. per lb. for Australian beef, seaboard, is quite ridiculous. If, therefore, we find that we are not able to get meat from overseas countries, because we are not prepared to pay to encourage meat producers to produce it, and if we find that world consumers are going to take off the meat that we might get, we shall be left in the position of having to produce the meat that we may expect for the next twenty years, substantially, if not wholly, in this country; and if it is not produced here we shall not get it.
I do not want to go into the various methods and schemes to which many noble Lords have referred—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in his remarks just now—but there is one aspect which seems to me to be quite outstanding concerning what can broadly be termed marginal land. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, was told yesterday by, I think, Lord Woolton, in reply to a question, that about 1,500,000 acres of marginal land could be brought into production and that about 500,000 acres could be brought into production quickly. The fact is, of course, that there is marginal land and marginal land, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe said. I take it that marginal land means land which is connected or accessible to existing farms and which can be very much better farmed than it now is.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): The 1,500,000 acres to which Lord Woolton referred is grassland which can be ploughed up as a result of the ploughing-up campaign, not marginal land.
LORD RENNELL: Land, production of which could be substantially improved.
LORD CARRINGTON: Not marginal.
LORD RENNELL: Not marginal. But there is obviously a good deal of land which is not properly utilised; it is practically waste land—land which requires reclamation or which can be improved. The existing machinery, in the form of ploughing subsidy and subsidies for improvement, is probably adequate for that, but when it comes to the reclamation of marginal land, which is land specially suitable for breeding and for carrying additional stock, I doubt whether the present machinery is adequate. The additional machinery provides for grants for reclamation and for improvement, and there are, it is true, facilities such as loans on mortgage from the Agriculture Mortgage Corporation and other concerns, whereby either a landlord or tenant can improve such land. But in most cases that machinery requires either some initial capital to start the improvement, or some initial capital to which the State will give an addition, or it involves personal borrowing by either the land owner or the occupier. Broadly speaking, that is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Luke, referred yesterday. Capital for this purpose is not generally available. There are large numbers of landlords and tenants who just cannot find the initial few hundred pounds which they have to put up to start the scheme for the reclamation or improvement of marginal land.
I have been in communication with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and perhaps he will say something when he comes to reply, about what seemed to me a possible way out of the difficulty, which I feel is a real one. Living, as I do, on the borders of a country where there is a great deal of marginal land—on the borders of Wales—I am perpetually depressed at the slight progress in reclaiming land—except during the war years, when agricultural committees did some quite remarkable work. It has seemed to me that there were methods by which something could be done to help on this reclamation. People who come overseas from Australia to see me (I have no doubt the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, also has friends who come from overseas to see him), foreigners from Europe, and Americans, are surprised at the amount of land which they regard as wasted, in a country where land values are so high. That the land

555
is wasted indicates that there is a need for some better machinery than we have yet provided for getting that land into cultivation or into higher production. The ploughing-up of grassland, as Lord Carrington knows, has some enemies, as well as some strong supporters. It is not necessarily true that grassland ought to be ploughed up, or that it will necessarily produce more if it is ploughed up than it is producing now. I am speaking of land which obviously can produce more.
I believe there are two ways in which this can be done. One is—and this is especially applicable to hill farms or high farms—to take a leaf out of the book of our friends in Australia, where certain land improvements, notably fencing (these are very necessary adjuncts to the development of hill farming), access roads and water are regarded and are treated for tax purposes as annual outgoings in the farm budget. They are not subject to improvement charge. In other words, the 1947 Finance Act, which provides for expenditure on improvements being recoverable over ten years, should, I think, for certain types of farms and for certain types of improvements, be modified in order to allow the farmers, occupiers or landlords, as the case may be, to write off the current year's expenditure on certain approved improvements. That has been of the utmost value in developing the country in Australia.
The second proposal that I have in mind, and which I should like to see developed, is that the improvement of land should be undertaken by the Government. I do not mean that this should be done compulsorily, but that it should be done by the Government where both the owner and the occupier, or the owner or the occupier, wish to see the improvement carried out but are neither willing themselves to contract a personal debt nor in possession of capital to start the improvement. Your Lordships will be aware that in the Eastern Counties of England, land which has been flooded and reclaimed is subject to an owner and occupier's drainage rate, payable by the owner or by the occupier, and very often by both. The object of that rate is to keep the land free from water and to maintain the drainage channels and works. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government should consider the reclamation of land by the State and the levying
556
on it of an improvement rate, payable either by the landlord or by the occupier, or by both.
As I see it, this would not involve agricultural committees themselves undertaking the work. Most, if not all, of that work is best put out to contract. I believe that many landlords and many occupiers of high farms would welcome the drainage of waterlogged hill land, and the provision of fencing, access roads, water supplies and improvements to farm buildings. Those tenants, as I think they are legally called, or those tenures, could then be charged with a rate which would in thirty to forty years redeem the capital expenditure on the improvement of that land. I believe that either or both of those schemes would lead to an increased acreage becoming available for the production of meat. Within a short time that would substantially improve our domestically grown meat supplies, without which, on account of our balance of payments as well as of the absolute shortage of world meat supplies, we are in danger of becoming an entirely vegetarian nation.
4.25 p.m.
LORD KENSWOOD: My Lords, doubtless I am foolhardy in taking part in this debate and exposing my dismal ignorance of agriculture. Nevertheless, my justification is that, whether we like it or not, whether we know it or not, we are directly interested in agriculture, not only in this country but in the world as a whole. If, then, I intervene, I do so because I feel it important that this country of ours should survive, and should survive as a first-class nation. I do so also because I think the economics side of this debate has been perhaps a little neglected. When we look at agriculture, we must remember that, although it is possibly the most important industry in this country (and I suppose that most farmers will agree with that statement) it is only one of our great industries. It is true, of course, that we can live without producing iron or coal—it is possible under certain circumstances—but we cannot exist unless we produce food.
Let us consider for a moment some of the factors which have struck me, as a layman—as an ignoramus, if you like—while this debate has been proceeding. I have listened with very great interest to all the technical arguments which have been brought forward. They have greatly

557
impressed me. I have also been much impressed with the knowledge of the noble Lords who have already spoken. But what has also struck me is the diversity of opinion. Although we have tried to keep this debate on a non-political, non-controversial level, nevertheless there has been a great disparity of view as to what is marginal land, as to what steps should be taken to produce more beef, whether we should go in more for cereals and so forth; whether we should drain land, and gain a larger area for production.
I think my noble friend Lord Hungarton has put his finger on the immediate requirement. What we need is a National Food Corporation. I am impressed, again as a layman and as a consumer, with the lack of unanimity of opinion as to what we can produce. What are our potentialities? I suggest that we should make an inquiry, a "whole-hogging" inquiry, into what our requirements (when I say "requirements," I mean the necessary requirements, not luxuries) are to feed this country. Then we should look at our country's acres, and see how much we can produce, not necessarily at any price, because I have no doubt that we could produce all we need at a cost, but what we could produce reasonably for which a town-dweller would pay a reasonable price. Further, doubtless there will be a gap between what we could reasonably produce and the amount that we think we ought to consume. We should then consider how much we might reasonably expect to be able to buy from other countries like New Zealand, and over a long period. Then we should go to work to see how we can co-ordinate those three factors.
Here again, I am quite prepared to believe that, in spite of improved technique, in spite of improved organisation, there would still be a gap between what we could reasonably expect to receive and what we think we ought to make available for our consumers. That gap will have to be bridged, I believe, possibly through subsidies. Let us remember here that when we speak of subsidies we are speaking of financial encouragement for farmers. Let us consider who pays for those subsidies. We speak vaguely of the Exchequer having to find the money. But who is the
558
Exchequer? The Exchequer comes down, in the end, to the inhabitants of this country, the consumers. But the inhabitants of this country are also producers; and if the producers have to pay more for their food they will increase the prices of the commodities which we are able to manufacture—and let us remember well, the commodities which we shall have available for export. Unless we export, we cannot hope to get the raw materials to keep this country on even a low standard of living. We shall also have to export in order to be able to buy not only necessary food but those things which give grace and significance to the lives of everyone in this country. We do not want to live on the margin; we want to have something to make life really worth living.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, liked the last Government, and that may possibly have led him into the criticism that agriculture has suffered so disastrously since the war. I am quite prepared to admit that our farms have not produced as much as they did during the war, but may I point out to the noble Lord that during the war we all lived in a high state of tension? And when peace came, many of us, perhaps all of us, heaved a sigh of relief and thought, "Now we can relax a little." Ought not the farmers also to have had a breathing space? Doubtless, we regret that the difficulties which the farmers had to surmount during the war were not faced up to by all farmers after the war. But they are not to blame for it. Now, of course, is the time for us to encourage the farmers to produce more.
My Lords, my final conclusions from this debate are, first, as my noble friend Lord Hungarton expressed it, to have a National Food Corporation which will look into our requirements and also into our potentialities. Then we must remember all the time that it is fatal to consider agriculture as a watertight compartment. It is part of the life of this country—perhaps the most important part, but nevertheless a part. Whatever we do in agriculture will have an immediate bearing upon other industries in this country. We must not get things out of focus. We must see that, while we encourage farming, while we try to get every ounce of food that we reasonably can expect out of our farms, we do not

559
allow the town dweller, the producer in other industries, to suffer and possibly to push up the prices of the other consumer and capital goods upon which we as a nation have to rely.
4.34 p.m.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, my remarks this afternoon are going to be very brief, because I have only just flown in from South Africa, where I was judging British beef cattle at the International Show at Johannesburg, and I have not had time to read Hansard or the reports of the speeches of the various noble Lords who spoke yesterday in this most important debate. However, I should like to follow on the lines of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who I think has made far the best speech this afternoon.
First, I should like to turn briefly to the question of overseas food production and to the efforts that have been made by this country to promote further food production, at our expense. These efforts were inaugurated by various bodies who, I am afraid, up till now have not altogether satisfied public opinion. I am not going to dwell at any length on anything like the groundnuts scheme or the Gambia egg scheme, or even the Queensland situation which I hear is rapidly deteriorating. All these schemes have gone wrong, and I think the public money expended on them might well have been spent on agriculture at home. I should like to make the point that, while distance lends enchantment, it is not necessarily correct to suppose that there are vast untapped areas in countries overseas which are still capable of producing large supplies of meat at cheap prices which can be consumed by the 50,000,000 people in this island. That is an entirely fallacious theory. If we are to spend public money, the taxpayers' money, on these rather random and often quite impractical ventures overseas, I humbly suggest that something in the nature of a pilot scheme might be floated on an experimental basis before millions of pounds of money are thrown away in a completely futile venture.
I should like now to turn to the position at home. When I left a few weeks ago I think we were still importing horse-meat. We are the only country to do so in Europe to-day. This meat is imported from Europe—I may say from Germany. I believe that in the interval a few reindeer have been introduced into Scotland.
560
But that is not going to be the answer to our food problem. In this Island there are 65,000,000 acres of land, of which only two-thirds, or slightly over 40,000,000 acres, are actually producing food; there remain something like 18,000,000 or 20,000,000 acres. I am not speaking of marginal land—it can really be called hill land—of which by far the greater part is in Scotland, which remains completely untapped.
I join issue with the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, in his speech, when he said that he had no great brief for a long-term policy. Of course, he was speaking of his immediate problems in farming down in Wiltshire, but his problems, naturally, are not the problems of hill farmers. Hill farming has suffered throughout the last 100 years by lack of a policy and lack of confidence. I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for his assurance that, in effect, there will be a long-term policy which will enable us, as hill farmers (I am speaking now for Scotland) to launch out and develop the potential which is unquestionably there but which has never been tapped to its uttermost because of lack of confidence. While I speak of hill farming, may I ask the Government to ensure that less misuse of land—not only hill land, but arable land—is practised by those experts (and here, like Henry Ford, I would say, "Heaven protect me from the experts!") who are in charge of our future and our increased agricultural potential.
It is shocking to think that it is only in the last three or four years that the Government have realised that there is a meat shortage in this country. At the end of the war many of us who have to travel abroad to earn our living voiced the fear that this meat shortage would become apparent, and it was only in 1946 that the Hill Farming Act was placed on the Statute Book, thereby bolstering up the sheep population and the sheep farming, which had fallen to a dangerously low level. Even to-day, as other noble Lords have already said, we are several million sheep below pre-war standard, despite the realisation of our great shortages. But surely beef is even more important than mutton, and the beef producers on the hill farms have had absolutely no assistance. I speak as perhaps one of the largest hill farmers, and I have had to carry out my fairly extensive work in breeding cattle on the hills without any such assistance

561
as was available to the black-faced sheep farmers and hill farmers under the terms of the 1946 Act, which gave a 50 per cent. grant to sheep farmers.
I should like to illustrate the importance of a policy, by witnessing the extraordinarily successful way in which the Irish Free Stale has tackled this farming problem. I am sure I am not offending anyone here present of Irish extraction when I say that as a race the Irish are certainly not very distinguished agriculturists, in the sense of working their arable land. But they have realised that they have grass and constant rainfall, and in Ireland we see a country which is not only supplying beef to the United States, Canada and Europe, but is also sending over to the British Isles somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400,000 store cattle annually. This in itself is a remarkable contribution to the nation's food supply. I am confident that Scotland could do the same, but, in my part of the country at any rate, we see glen after glen and hillside after hillside being taken over either by the Forestry Commission or for hydroelectric developments which involve the flooding of fields, and, to my mind, misusing the land. I will not cite instances to show the cumulative effect of this misuse, but it is becoming more evident all the time in respect of arable land, especially in view of the building of houses and schools, and the laying-out of playing fields, aerodromes and rifle ranges. These things constitute an enormous source of interference with production, and the cumulative effect is such that it is difficult to foresee what is going to happen in the future with world population growing at the speed at which it is growing to-day.
As an example of the importance which is attached to land abroad, I would point out that it is, in fact, a crime, both in Scandinavia and in Switzerland, to drown land. I am told that in Holland it is impossible to build a house if the site suggested is one which can be cultivated, and that there are people to-day actually living on the canals of Holland who have not been able to get permission to build houses because of the acute land hunger. We, at home, have not realised to the full how vitally important every acre is to our population. We have the lowest acreage in proportion to population of any country in the world, and these precious
562
acres are steadily diminishing. I hope the Government will take steps to remedy this carelessness—the need to do so does not seem to have been appreciated by their predecessors—for this land is a heritage which will be of supreme importance to us in the future.
4.44 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I wish to make only one or two points, and I can assure you that I shall not detain you for long. Many noble Lords have already emphasised the fact that it is to the pig that we must look for any substantial increase in our meat supplies in the near future. We all welcome the fact that between December, 1950, and December, 1951, the pig population has increased by over 1,000,000. At the same time, however, there is a rather disturbing feature, in that the total number of sows, which had increased by 100,000 between June, 1950, and June, 1951, had fallen by December by about 20,000. Those 20,000 sows might have produced some 23,000 tons of pig meat.
As your Lordships know, among pigs there comes a day in the life of every girl when the decision has to be taken whether she should become a mother or bacon. The decision is usually irrevocable, and it is important, not only to the pig, that the decision should be the right one. One important factor which may influence the farmer who has to take this decision is what the ration position is likely to be in many months' time when the litter is due. I am not speaking so much about the best pedigree pigs but what I think is usually sold as commercial breeding stock. To resist the temptation of a quick return from bacon needs confidence in the future. It must always be to a certain extent a gamble, but it is made even more so by the fact that the ration is announced such a short time before it comes into effect. The ration scales for the period from January to April were announced on November 29—just a month before they came into effect—and the ration scales for the period starting to-day were announced on March 14—just six weeks ago. I am not criticising the ration scales, as I am sure the Government are well aware of the necessity of making them as high as they possibly can, but I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to see

563
whether anything can be done to make the Government's announcements very much further ahead, even if it means announcing a minimum scale and later, if more food becomes available, announcing an increase. After all, food is the limiting factor in any livestock rearing programme, and unless the breeder is reasonably certain that the rations will be available to carry the animal to maturity he will not breed it.
While on the subject of pigs, there is one other point I should like to mention. We all want to increase the quantity of our pigs, but we should not forget that at the same time we want to improve the quality. There is a very wide difference between the best and the worst, both in breeding and in fattening qualities. Those of your Lordships who read the results of some of the feeding trials must be amazed at the very high rate of growth of some of these pigs and the high rate of conversion of feeding-stuffs to pig meat. These qualities are largely hereditary. There is a danger, when these sudden increases occur, that in some cases inferior stock is used for breeding, and this leads to a waste of feeding-stuffs which we can ill afford.
One other point which I should like to make very briefly relates to the question of tinplate. We all know how important it is that we should do all we can to preserve our crops, to help to add to the variety of our diet and to save foreign exchange. We know, too, that the supply of tinplate is totally inadequate to meet the requirements of the canners. It came to my notice the other day that in some cases there may be a tendency to concentrate the available supply of tinplate rather too much on canning more expensive crops, such as asparagus and strawberries, as they show a greater profit per tin, than to use it for the cheaper crops. I do not know how far this goes, but though it may be a very natural thing to do I cannot feel that it is in the public interest. What we want to ensure is that the available tinplate is used to the best advantage, because to conserve our food is in many cases almost as important as increasing the production of it.
4.50 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I intervene with considerable diffidence in a debate of this kind, to which so many
564
farmers have made noteworthy contributions. Originally I wished to speak in order to emphasise a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, at the outset of the debate, in a speech which I thought was in his best form—that is to say, about the quite unforgivable waste of land which goes on in this country. But if your Lordships will allow me to address the House for a few minutes I should like to comment on one or two other speeches made in the course of this most interesting and valuable debate. If the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, will forgive me, I will not try to pursue him into his researches into the parental qualities of the pig, about which he knows a great deal more than I shall ever do.
What the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, said about hill farming in Scotland is also true of hill farming in the Lake District, the Pennines and North Wales. Undoubtedly hill farming has been the Cinderella of farming over recent years, when a great deal has been done for farmers who farm in much more favourable conditions in better parts of the country. Until recently, hill farmers have been left very much in the lurch. Not only have they a difficult occupation in trying surroundings but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, pointed out, their position is made more difficult by the inroads which have been made on to their lands, particularly by the Forestry Commissioners. In the Lake District several famous farms which have bred sheep that have won prize after prize at all the shows over the last hundred years are now under conifers. I appreciate the need for timber, but I think we are now realising that food comes even before timber, and that we must have woollen clothes on our backs even before we have timber for the construction of houses. Obviously, there is a real conflict of interest between these two demands on the land, and there is no question that so far the hill farmer has had the worst of the game.
There has been an undercurrent of extreme pessimism in this debate. I agree with noble Lords who have said that it is important to bring home to the public that we are in a difficult position in respect of food, but I think that idea can be pushed too far. If we overdo it, and try to make the flesh of our people creep

565
more than is necessary, it will have exactly the opposite effect to that which noble Lords desire to achieve. I think there cannot be much doubt that, if we really pull ourselves together, and determine to use our land as well as the people of Denmark, which is not naturally a fertile country, have done over the last hundred years or so, the food production of this country could be tremendously increased. Holland, which is even nearer, is another country where large acreages have been brought into fertile production over the last few hundred years, acreages which were previously lying at the bottom of the sea. Can any noble Lord doubt that if, for example, the Wash, an area of shallow sea which is larger than some English counties, were situated in Holland, it would have been brought into rich agricultural production many years ago? Of course, a good deal of useful work has been done around the Wash, but it is being done much too slowly, and I think the situation has now arrived when we should take these great engineering problems in hand and press for their solution much more strenuously than we have done in the past.
I rose, however, to emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and other speakers, that the demands which are being made on our agricultural land, and very often on our best agricultural land, from all sorts of directions have now become so burdensome that, if we do not take a really firm stand against them, we shall be in grave danger. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, referred to a remarkable address which was given to the Royal Society of Arts by my friend and colleague, Dr. Dudley Stamp. I should like to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of all that he said. The noble Lord referred to the acreage which had been put in pawn, so to speak, at a figure of something like 500,000 acres. That is a large figure, which Dr. Stamp converts into terms of counties. I should like to quote a few sentences from this address. Dr. Stamp said:
"It is a saddening thought that if we accept the exaggerated demands of housing authorities and other demands we shall cover with houses and other urban developments in the near future an area larger than the combined surface of the counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire."
566
Is that not an astounding statement? Dr. Stamp continues:
"I do not think it is any State secret that the Government Departments concerned have been moved to look at the problem involved"—
it is high time they did—
"and that the official view, though not published in detail, is that the acreage which will be so used is in the order of 750,000 acres, equal to the whole of the counties of Berkshire and Bedfordshire."
On the minimum scale which, apparently, has been accepted by the Departments (I hope that it has not been accepted by the Cabinet), we are to lose over the next few years the equivalent of two counties.
This interesting and valuable address of Dr. Stamp is entitled The Reclamation of Abandoned Industrial Areas. The main emphasis of his address is naturally directed to the reclamation of industrial areas—and that is the other point which I should like to emphasise. While we are building new towns and extending into the country the suburbs of many of our existing large towns, absorbing agricultural land which we cannot afford to give up, even to the building of houses for our people, we are leaving inside urban areas extensive acreages of land which are being used for nothing whatever. If the noble Lord who said he was having such an easy job of co-ordinating would like to give up some of the hours which apparently he is not planning to use in order to come round the outskirts of London with me, I am prepared to show him sites, including blitzed areas, for thousands of houses about which nothing is being done. Yet all the time housing authorities are going into Hertfordshire and Surrey, and other counties surrounding London, using up agricultural land to build houses which could perfectly well be built on these urban sites which are at present completely wasted and where, very often, the sewerage, the electric cables, the gas pipes and all the other necessary services of a housing estate already exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is not finding it difficult, he says, to co-ordinate the activities of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food. If he finds it easy to drive two horses, perhaps he would like to add a third horse to his coach and take under his wing the Minister of Planning as well. In the Planning Ministry they do not seem to

567
be getting down to the fact that there is a great deal of waste land in the urban areas, not only of London, but equally of a city which the noble Lord knows better than I do—namely, Manchester—and also other great cities in the north of England. I do hope the Government will direct their attention to this important point, because if all the land now being wasted in the urban areas of this country can be brought into productive use—and by that I mean for the purpose of building houses, factories and workshops—I feel sure that a substantial step will have been taken in the right direction.
5.2 p.m.
LORD SAVILE: My Lords, throughout a long and lively debate noble Lords on all sides will have felt increasingly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for so wording his Motion as to make it possible for noble Lords to range far and wide over the whole field of agriculture, with their own particular problems and experience in mind, and still to be in order at the end. I hope, therefore, that I shall be in order if I refer to two matters which deeply concern those who are interested in food production in the North of England, and particularly in the West Riding, of which I have had some experience during the last few years. The first matter is something which we by no means regard as only one of the minor curses of mankind, although some of your Lordships may think it is rather a small red herring to produce so late in the debate. I refer to the effects of opencast coal mining operations on farm land, and the fears of farmers who live on the fringes of it.
In the West Riding opencast coal mining extends to some 15,000 acres, on some 150 working sites, all of which are in various stages of operation. In this considerable area—I think that 15,000 acres is a considerable area—there are instances of highly productive land which, so far as I can see, must be written off as a loss for food production for at least two years. When the restoration has been completed the county agricultural committee take the farm in hand for some five years, and they are at present farming over 6,000 acres. From my own experience during the time when I was a committee member, I have every reason to believe that this land which is being worked will never be quite so good as it
568
was before. The food production from the land which is being worked will certainly be sadly diminished, if not for ever, for many years to come. Your Lordships will all know the importance to farmers of such things as drains, water supplies and fences. These important things are being interrupted and disrupted by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, although the most solemn undertakings are given that everything will be as it was before—which, in fact, is not so, as those who have had experience will know. Even more unsettling are the fears of the farmers who live on the fringes of this area: they have not already been engulfed, and they may be wondering when and where the next blow is to fall.
All this is very unsettling for the future, particularly for the short-term policy of food production. It has been agreed throughout this debate that we want food very badly now, and I call opencast coal mining a short-term rather than a long-term problem. Bearing these points in mind, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that these operations, which I believe amount to about 5 per cent. of the total national coal production figure in the country, are really justified, in view of the consequential loss of food. We have been told that this must go on: in fact, it is going on very much at the moment, and has been "hotted up" considerably in the last year or two. Therefore, I cannot hope by my remarks to persuade the Government to abolish opencast coal mining altogether—that, I think, would be asking a little too much—but I would, with respect, suggest that one of the methods of increasing the food production they should have in mind is to reduce the scope of this devastating menace to farmers.
The next matter that I come to is one that has been talked about considerably—namely, the release of land from agriculture. I think it was on the Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill in your Lordships' House, before the Recess, that one or two noble Lords, when trying to claim land for the War Office, were conscious of the strong objection of my noble friend, Lord Carrington, to any encroachment on his agricultural land. From all the things that he has heard in the last two days, I hope that he will object even

569
more strongly. Again, I can speak only for the West Riding, but we have been losing nearly 4,000 acres a year—I believe the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, said yesterday that the total figure in the country is about 50,000 acres. Of these 4,000 acres about 1,000 are being kept temporarily for food production, but I think that their loss is certain in a matter of time. That figure does not include land which has been released for such things as the working of gravel, sand and clay. I see no signs of this diminishing at all, and, as your Lordships have already heard, it constitutes a serious threat to future food production.
In these days of food shortage and the necessity to restrict food imports, why should such large areas be designated for new trunk roads, unsuitably placed housing schemes and playing fields? The noble Lord, Lord Luke, is not here now, but I was going to say this about playing fields. Are we absolutely certain that the acreage released for playing fields is not too large? Looking out of the train coming down from Yorkshire, one can sometimes see the schoolchildren playing in only a corner of a field, and I am not at all sure that the area of playing fields could not be cut down somewhat. What I mean by unsuitably placed housing schemes is the acquisition of farm land on the outskirts of towns. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has just told us about London and the South of England, and I could repeat what he said almost word for word in relation to the North. In a city like Leeds there is a considerable area of land devoid of building, or covered with derelict buildings or old cottages, which could be cleared and utilised for housing schemes. This would house the worker nearer his work and save him money in travelling to and from his job. I believe there are few workers nowadays who enjoy having to travel for miles to their work; they would rather be right on top of it. Furthermore, it would save the counties the tremendous expense of having to provide necessary services, such as water, electricity, gas, sewerage and streets.
Like many others, I have a certain grouse against planning authorities, because to the farming community they always seem to require the best and most level land. A great deal has been said about marginal land, but there must be
570
acres and acres of what I should call second-class land, less suited to food production, which could be readily adapted to the housing schemes and school buildings. The county agricultural committees are constantly up against this problem and keep pressing for alternative sites. Sometimes they win, but more often they do not.
In passing, I should like to thank the Government for a concession. I have recently learned that a concession is going to be made whereby owners and their agents are to be informed when agricultural land is likely to be used for non-agricultural purposes, at the stage when the Ministry of Agriculture have been approached by local authorities or by the planning Departments. That is a step in the right direction. The importance of common courtesy cannot be stressed often enough. I understand that these owners or agents are not going to be consulted; they are only going to be informed, and this arrangement is to run for a trial period of one year. I think it ought to be made permanent, and I hope it will be, and that it will even be extended to the occupiers of the land, because when it is a matter of other authorities coming around they often get the worst deal. I can tell your Lordships of an ambitious young tenant farmer whom I know and who has just got his first holding and has settled down. He is farming the land with the utmost enthusiasm, with all the rules of good husbandry. Suddenly, one morning last year, he spotted an army of surveyors with maps on his land. After a time they went away, and he knew nothing whatever of the purpose of their visit. Some time later, in the round-about way that one often gets to hear these things, he heard to his dismay that half his farming land was required for a school. I give that only as an example. I am sure that other noble Lords know of other instances of that kind of thing.
I may have seemed to turn a blind eye to the requirements of everything except food production, but I assure your Lordships that, living as I do near the big industries, I am only too aware of the other side of the picture, and how the urban dweller needs the essential things of life—coal, housing, education and recreation. But, in the battle of priorities, it is only natural that one wants the thing one is interested in to win. The

571
Government have an extremely hard job in satisfying the needs of everybody. Next week we might have a debate on coal production, and we should hear exactly the same arguments in favour of that. I was glad to hear the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, refer to the way in which Mr. Tom Williams hammered away at the Cabinet, sticking up for his own industry. That is excellent. It does not mean that the Ministry of Agriculture always win the battle of priorities, but I wish the best of luck to the two noble Lords, Lord Woolton and Lord Carrington who, I know, are thought a great deal of in the North of England. I wish them every good luck in winning many future battles for the farmer.
5.15 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, we are a House of moderate men, but I suggest that this is the one issue facing us over which we ought to be extremists. There is nothing relative about the need for further food production in this country—it is absolute. I speak as a countryman but not as a farmer, and I have not in any sense a technical contribution to make. I have spent far more time than I should like in big cities, rather than in the wide open places, with the exception of two in New Zealand or Canada for a short time. Therefore, I feel the urgency of this situation in an urban way, and I cannot help being appalled at our numbers. There is no need to go into the history of that—it is all obvious and common ground. But when one considers the roads of this country on any Sunday evening in the summer and the returning people, one cannot be anything but staggered by the situation. Here are all our people. Consider at the same time that the overseas sources of food supply are really permanently drying up. That is a very open question—whether permanently or not. In my view, the overseas sources of supply, so far as we are concerned, are permanently drying up. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he agrees with that, or whether he thinks that in any sense this is a temporary situation, even if by "temporary" one is to mean thirty years. Does he envisage in the future a situation in which food production is not so important to this country as it is at the moment?
572
I think there never will be such a situation, and the temptation to think that there will be is one of our worst disadvantages, because it tempts us to regard the present food shortage as merely a gap which we have to fill before the overseas countries are again going to do this tremendous job of feeding us.
What an undignified business it all is! We ought forthwith to dedicate ourselves to a new pioneer concept, to a pioneering spirit, on our own land. Why go 13,000 miles to New Zealand or 3,000 or 4,000 miles to some part of Canada, when the thing is crying out to be done within 100 or 200 miles of your Lordships' House? There must be a great need for emigration, but certainly we cannot afford to lose a single farm person. We have it in us, and we have the people to get out on to the sub-standard fields and into the hills. I agree that it is a far-fetched metaphor, but I think we ought to try to view ourselves as if we were newly arrived immigrants in some new, fertile country, with the urgent problem immediately of clearing the ground this year for houses and for planting seed. We need to view the situation in that way, and to try to get back something of a spirit essentially worthy of the Mother country of the Empire.
I am very loath to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, but I feel, in the light of the belief of so many of your Lordships that this is accurately the situation, that it is really not enough to use words such as the noble Lord used (OFFICIAL REPORT; VOL 176, col. 479):
"Our views of British agriculture are broad-based."
To the average farmer here I cannot think that that is a dynamic inspiration. The noble Lord went on:
"I believe in this, if I may say so. …"—
why does one need to be apologetic?—
"I am sure that I am speaking for the whole of this House and not one side of it. We want to give confidence to the farmers."
I think the noble Lord was speaking for both sides, but in far too negative a way. There will be no let-up, as I have suggested, and our task can prove a blessing in disguise, because we shall be able to get back this true Empire spirit into this Island. That is why it is dangerous to emphasise one product or another. This is a convenient method of linking the endeavour. All lines of production

573
should march forward together, with no such long-term limit as, say, 60 per cent. above pre-war. Of course, even that may not be achieved without quite a new approach. We have to deal with the psychosis of the past working in the farmer's mind. That will not easily be cured in the older generation. It takes very little to destroy confidence.
I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he imagines that at any future point he will be in a position to give a permanent guarantee to agriculture—or rather, a guarantee to agriculture whenever a Conservative Government are in power. We ought to move on the lines of some sort of national pledge by both main Parties. This would have a terrific psychological effect on the farmers. There is one other point. Have the Government a specific new expansion programme in connection with this figure of 60 per cent. above pre-war? If so, what are the details? This is an overseas problem too. The matter is the most urgent at the point where it is also the most difficult. No one doubts that there are full costings available—the facts are known. Our cities simply must accept the fact of the increased cost of producing food. We have to develop new methods of dealing with the matter from the farmer's point of view—as regards, for instance, large variations in efficiency—but we have to accept the situation that food will never be cheap again.
Perhaps I may be allowed to end with a quotation from John Ruskin, which seems very pertinent at the moment—indeed, it would be at any time—with regard to our city communities. He wrote:
"We find the inhabitants of this earth divided into two great masses: the peasant paymasters—spade in hand, original imperial producers of turnips; and, waiting on them all around, a crowd of polite persons modestly expectant of turnips, for some—too often theoretical—service."
We could bridge this gap, but, in doing so, we must move from the city towards the country, and not the other way.
5.23 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, debates on agriculture in this House have a very great usefulness, because agriculture is not a Party matter and there are many experts in this House of all kinds who
574
come from all parts of the British Isles. I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes but there are one or two points that I should like to mention. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, yesterday mentioned the question of Ireland and of store cattle coming to this country. I farm in Ireland and I go there frequently. In Ireland there is a strain of nationalism which makes the Irish people wish to kill their own cattle and to use the by-products for themselves, rather than export them to England as stores. In the past, English people have not taken that attitude very seriously, but I can say that a number of factories are either being set up or to be set up in Ireland, which will deal with cattle when they are fat. In due course the numbers will increase, and we shall not be able to depend upon Ireland for store cattle in the same numbers that we have had in the past.
Moreover, in Ireland we have other good customers. Your Lordships may remember that a short time ago some publicity was given to the fact that a number of Irish fat cattle were being flown to Italy. I believe they were sent to Birkenhead; from there to Lympne in Kent; from there to France, and on to Le Touquet—scarcely an appropriate place for fat cattle—and thence to Italy by rail. In what condition they would be when they got to Italy I do not know; but I do know that when I was in Italy recently I got some good meat which may well have come from Ireland. If the Italians can buy Irish meat it may be that our prices are not attractive enough. We have either got to pay world prices for our meat or not get it. We must not, at any rate, depend on the Irish store cattle trade continuing in future to the same extent as in the past.
Arising out of that—and this matter was touched upon during the debate initiated some time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat—I think we should consider whether the Highlands of Scotland cannot supply far more stores than they have done in the past. I should like to back up what Lord Lovat said, to the effect that beef production can be increased in the Highlands. There are various questions, however, which make it difficult. One is the question of transport—and that, of course, affects the cost of feeding-stuffs enormously. In the debate which I have just mentioned, Lord

575
Lovat spoke of a sum of £26 a ton for hay in the Isles. Recently I met a man who had paid £30 a ton. That was in Skye. No one can winter animals and pay £30 a ton for hay. Therefore, unless the Highlands can get hay from elsewhere, or get much more silage, they cannot winter many animals. The usual practice is that the small crofter or farmer has a certain number of cows, and winters last year's calves, carrying them through until the end of the summer when they are eighteen months old. If the price could be adjusted it would be better for him to have more cows and produce more calves and sell them rather than carry them through the winter, with hay at £30 a ton or any other price. He could, perhaps, have three or four cows, instead of two, and increase the production of store cattle enormously.
One other question I wish to raise is that of competition for land in the Highlands. It is essential for the Government to take into account this question of competition between forestry, hydro-electric schemes, and agriculture. I think the first priority in our present position should be agriculture, for food is more essential even than electricity or forestry. These three interests are in competition for the best land. Nobody competes for the rocks: all compete for the valleys. Although you can plant trees up to several hundred feet above sea level, if you do so you take away the best grazing. The only animal that can survive at the top is deer. Even sheep cannot survive without lower land, and certainly cattle must have low ground for wintering. I hope the Government will consider the question of priorities among the three competing interests, and I hope that the first place will be awarded to food production.
Lord Luke spoke yesterday about the question of calves. He said that there were about 1,000,000 calves slaughtered every year and not reared for beef. Of course those are the milk calves, such as Guernseys, Ayrshires, Jerseys, and so on. It is not economic for farmers to rear those calves for beef. In the first place, they do not make good beef if they are raised; and secondly, because it pays the farmer far better to sell the milk and then sell his calves for 15s., 20s., or 30s. each when they are two or three days old. I may say that in
576
Ireland there is no demand whatever for milk bull calves—so much so that my Ayrshire bull calves in Ireland go to the Dublin Zoo; I cannot even sell them. But the position is a little better in England. I see the noble Marquess, Lord Townshend, sitting near me. He has done what I have also tried to do—that is, experiment with a few Ayrshire bullocks. I have a few Ayrshire bullocks now which my friends have told me I am silly to try to rear. I have them on some good land at present, and I hope they will prove that it is worth while rearing Ayrshire bullocks. I do not say that it is as profitable as selling the milk and sending them to the market as veal, but in this case it is not always a question of profitability, because we want the meat. I hope that that question of rearing the milk bull calves will be considered. I hate subsidies, but it may mean some alteration in price, or even a further development of the calf subsidy, in order to encourage farmers to rear a certain number of milk bull calves. Farmers are a very peculiar people and, if the financial inducement is enough, they will turn their production in one way or another. It is all a question of weighting the inducements a little bit more on one side than on the other. As the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said yesterday, if even 250,000 calves a year could be reared, that would be a very big contribution to our meat supply.
I am sorry to be going round all the different varieties of farm animals, but the next I come to is pigs. I am glad to see that the pig population has increased as well as it has done recently, but the amount of pigs which the bacon factories can take is limited, which means that a great many of the pigs will have to be used for pork. The pork that I personally get in this country is very unpleasant. It is really rejected baconers; as baconers they are no good. The bacon factories will not have them. They are too big, or they are wrong in other respects, and they get turned into pork. The pork which gets into our restaurants or into our weekly meat ration is very bad. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government might consider starting a bona fide pork type—in other words, encourage the farmer to sell the 8-score pig instead of waiting until it is 9-score, or even more, so that many people would

577
still enjoy eating pork, instead of disliking it. At present, there is no attraction in eating the sort of pork that we get. It is a question of educating the public. I feel sure that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture will realise what a help really good pork could be to the meat ration. As pigs increase in number so quickly, I hope that pig breeding and pig selling will be encouraged, not taking into account at all the pigs going to the bacon factory.
Arising out of that (I have put these views forward before), it always seems to me remarkable that in Germany the pig population has increased much more quickly than it has in this country. That is because everyone in Germany who wishes to keep a pig can do so, if he can get the food with which to keep it. He can also sell the pig or kill it when he has reared it, whereas here we are so bound up with restrictions in keeping pigs, rearing them, selling them and killing them, that people are discouraged. After one of the debates in this House, I was speaking to somebody and this question of restrictions on pigs came up. Another noble Lord, who had better be nameless, said to me: "Well, it really is very remarkable, because I asked my agent to arrange that my semi-annual pig should be killed." His agent got the licence to kill the pig, but unfortunately it was killed on the thirteenth day after the obtaining of the licence, instead of on the fourteenth day. The noble Lord said, "That was very unfortunate, because I was fined £10, and they took the pig away as well." That is the sort of restriction we suffer in this country. I know how keen the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is on private enterprise, and I hope that he will direct his attention to private enterprise in pig keeping.
The last point I wish to make is on the question of sheep, because, of all farm animals, except the pig, the sheep reproduces its kind more quickly than anything else. I am not going into the question of rabbits, but sheep are a very essential part of British farming, both in Scotland and in England. A few years ago, I had the honour to be President of the National Sheepbreeders' Association. In 1946–47, which was during the time I was President, we had that awful winter, when the sheep population was depleted to a very large extent. I am glad to say that,
578
although we had a bad winter in 1950–51, and a bad lambing in Scotland last year, so far this year we are having a very good lambing in Scotland; and I think there has also been a very good lambing in England and Wales. I hope there will be a big increase in the sheep population this year. Arising out of that, I am not complaining that the price of wool has gone down, because obviously it had to. I am not complaining that the subsidy for ewes has gone down, because it is quite right that it should. But I hope the sheep breeders and the sheep owners will not be discouraged by the reduction in the subsidy on ewes and by the reduction in the price of wool. The breeders need encouraging, since they can supply immense quantities of meat. That applies to the Highlands more than it does to England.
I next come to the question of keeping sheep in England near the towns. I have a number of farm tenants who would keep sheep if they could, but they say that it is impossible to owing to the activities of dogs. I am not going to suggest that the dog population should be decimated, but I think that if it were decimated, there would be a great deal of food which might be diverted to pigs, with the result that we might have all the more to eat. But such action might be very unpopular with the electorate. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government would not like to go to the country at the next Election suggesting that the dog licence should be put up to five guineas from whatever it is now, or that the dog population should be reduced. But this question of sheep being killed or mutilated by dogs is a serious one. There are very few flocks of sheep on farms which I own, because the farmers say they cannot keep flocks of sheep. I personally lost about a dozen sheep last year through dogs, and my farm is not so near the town as some of the other farms are. It is impossible in large areas of the country to keep sheep at all. I feel that something should be done about this question, even to the extent of legislation being passed to enable farmers legally to take even stronger measures against dogs which maraud their sheep. That is all I have to say. I hope that Her Majesty's Government, who have a great fund of knowledge already, will learn even more from the debate which we have had during these two days.
5.38 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, in the course of this most interesting, and what I am sure we shall all agree will prove to be most valuable, debate, the emphasis all the time has been on cattle and beef, and pigs and pork, but little has been heard about the hen and the egg. For instance, a little while ago the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, in the course of his most interesting speech, grew almost lyrical about the pig. For a few minutes I am going to sing the praises of the hen and the egg. Someone has said that
"The egg is smooth and very pale,
It has no nose—it has no tail;
It has no ears that one can see,
It has no wit or repartee."
But on the question of home food production, we must give some consideration to the home egg supply.
I must declare my interest in this matter, because I am Chairman of the Domestic Poultry-keepers' Council of England and Wales, representing the backyard poultry-keepers. That most worthy body of home food producers are a very badly treated lot so far as rations are concerned—because hens are rationed, just like human beings. Our domestic poultry-keepers to-day number over 1,000,000. They are estimated to possess about 10,000,000 hens, and are responsible for producing something like 20 or 25 per cent. of all the eggs consumed in this country. They depend largely upon what is called a balancer ration—and a very meagre one it is too, and it was recently reduced. I urge upon Her Majesty's Government that there will be no quicker or more effective way of increasing home food production than by giving our domestic poultry-keepers an increase in the balancer ration.
But that is not the main point I want to make on their behalf this evening. Domestic poultry-keepers, unlike commercial poultry-keepers, get no balancer ration or any ration to feed what are called "replacement" pullets. Hens have to be replaced like other livestock, but they have to be replaced much more quickly, because the working life of a hen is only about two or three years. There is absolutely no ration to-day to cover the twelve to sixteen weeks from the time that the bird is hatched until she starts to lay, and I should like to
580
urge upon the Government that this is a matter the consideration of which is long overdue. I ask them to give earnest and full consideration to that matter when they are considering the results of this debate.
5.42 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is the end of two days of long, varied and interesting debate, and I am sure all your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for having raised the subject. Anybody who has listened to the debate cannot have failed to be impressed with the knowledge and experience which has been shown by noble Lords in the speeches to which we have listened. We have had speeches from my noble friends Lord Bledisloe and Lord Cranworth, who have each spent a lifetime in the interests of agriculture and have forgotten more about farming than a great many of us know. I hope, contrary to their expectations, that we shall hear a good many more speeches from both of them for a good many years to come. We have listened also to speeches from younger members of your Lordships' House, such as my noble friends Lord Savile and Lord Amherst; and we have had the welcome addition, if I may put it not disrespectfully, of some agricultural outsiders in the persons of the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition, and the noble Lords, Lord Kenswood and Lord Chorley.
Having regard to all this, I hope that your Lordships will be sympathetic with me in the task I have this evening of trying to answer the questions that have been put to me and to sum up the debate. First, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Melchett on the maiden speech which he addressed to your Lordships. He spoke from real knowledge of his subject, and, among the experts we always welcome, we welcome him as yet another expert in agriculture. Then we had the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Hudson. I think it was about six months after the Election of 1945 that I was first appointed to a county agricultural committee, and, even so, I may say that his influence was still very strongly felt. The occasion on which he visited my committee is still referred

581
to as "The day that. Mr. Hudson came to see us." I never thought that I should be in a position, or should have the temerity, to congratulate him on his maiden speech, but feel sure all your Lordships will remember how indebted we are to him for the magnificent work that he did as Minister of Agriculture during the war—and not only for that, but for the plans he laid for the foundation of our post-war policy.
My Lords, I shall try to answer at any rate some of the questions which have been put to me. Several noble Lords have mentioned the loss of agricultural land to industry. I entirely agree that that is one of the most serious difficulties with which we have to contend. I was glad to hear of the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I remember that he helped to pilot the Town and Country Planning Bill through this House, and his support when we moved Amendments designed to assist agriculture on that occasion would have been very helpful to us if he had had the same views then as he has to-day. All the same, I do not think that any noble Lord in this House would go so far as to suggest that development ought to be stopped altogether. We must go on building houses, schools and factories, and we must exploit the minerals which are so badly needed for our industry. But what we can do, and what we are doing, for agriculture, is to exert every effort to see that as much as possible of the good agricultural land is kept for food production, and that no development takes place on good agricultural land if it can be diverted to land which is of less use for food production, or if it is development that cannot be fully justified on its merits. Quite understandably, we hear a great deal about land which is lost to agriculture, but we do not hear much about land which is saved. The provincial officers of the agricultural land services—I pay them a tribute—are continually engaged on this work, and I can assure your Lordships that they have, through their liaison arrangements with other Departments, succeeded in saving a great deal of good agricultural land.
It has been suggested, I think by my noble friend Lord Llewellin and by one or two others, that common land ought to be used wherever possible, either for food production or for development. This is a suggestion which I shall look into at
582
the first opportunity, but it is clear that there are considerable difficulties in the way of accepting it without any qualification. The rights in regard to some commons go back for many years, and they should not lightly be taken away. The Minister intends to go on for as long as he can—which is until December, 1954—using his powers to cultivate commons. But making use of commons for agriculture is one thing; to obliterate them for ever with bricks and mortar is quite another. Nevertheless, I agree that there are considerable expanses of land which do not appear to be much used for amenities and which can be brought into or continued in production. I will look into this suggestion.
The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and one or two other noble Lords, felt rather unhappy about the call-up of agricultural workers for the Forces. It has been suggested in other quarters as well that farm workers would probably not be called up in war time, so why should they be called up now. I do not think that we can assume that no farm worker will be called up in war time. Obviously, it would be necessary to keep a big labour force on the land in any future war, but arrangements would depend largely on the conditions prevailing at the time. In any case, the reason for the call-up of farm workers was the urgent requirement of the Forces for more men to meet their commitments now. The period of National Service was first extended from eighteen months to two years in an effort to bridge the gap; but that did not prove adequate. It became necessary to get more men into the Forces, and so both the previous Government and this Government had to agree that there should be a call-up of farm workers. But I would remind your Lordships that, unlike any other industry, there are elaborate arrangements for deferment in cases of need. Originally, workers from farms with not more than two full-time men could get deferment, as could also cowmen and shepherds; but recently, as my right honourable friend the Minister announced in another place, the Minister of Labour has agreed that a farmer can apply for deferment for any stockman, and some deferment can be given where a large farm is liable to lose several workers within a short time. Furthermore—and I think this is an important point—farm workers are not going to be

583
called up during the period of the root harvest.
Another point which my noble friend raised was the incidence upon farmers of the tax on petrol. As your Lordships will know, a scheme was introduced in 1950 by noble Lords opposite which was intended to relieve farmers of the incidence of an increase of ninepence per gallon in the tax on petrol which was announced in the Budget of 1950. Payments under the scheme were related to the estimated average annual consumption of petrol per machine. This may have been rough justice, but the result was that contractors and large, efficient farmers who use their machines more than the average were not adequately recouped. At the other end of the scale many small farmers and those who were over-mechanised did not use their machines as much as the average and were over recouped. Payments under this scheme have now stopped, but account has been taken in the annual Price Review of the effect on farm costs of the recent increase in the petrol tax. This seems to be the best way of dealing with the problem. Any scheme involving direct reimbursement of farmers for the extra petrol tax would necessarily be complicated. We should either have to have a scheme that was simple to administer but which tended to be unfair as between different farmers, or we should have to have a more complicated scheme, expensive to administer, which might be fairer to farmers but would be very difficult to control.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, whose speech we all welcomed, and whose support we very much appreciate, asked whether the £4,500,000 which the Government were proposing to devote to the calf subsidy would be sufficient to cover both beef heifers and dual-purpose heifers. Under the old subsidy scheme steer calves had been drawing subsidy to the number of 500,000 a year; at the rate of £5 per calf this would account for about £2,500,000. It is intended that the subsidy on heifer calves shall be paid only on calves of recognisable beef type, a definition which will exclude a large number of the dual-purpose calves in Great Britain. We are now getting down to work out a practicable scheme, and we shall shortly be consulting the farmers' representatives. For the
584
moment I do not think that there is anything I can usefully add upon that subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to whose speech I have already referred, made some interesting observations on the subject of grass and its conservation. Let me say at once that the Government fully realise the importance of grassland production. Great advances have been made in the science of management and conservation of grass, and the scope for increased production is very great. I think, however, that the noble Lord will agree with me when I say that a great deal of progress has already been made in improving the quality of our grass and also in the increasing use of dried grass and high quality silage. The farmers are coming more and more to see the advantages of good grass, and with the present shortage of feeding-stuffs the dairy farmer who manages his grassland efficiently can afford to rely more and more on grass in his ration without reduction in milk yield but with considerable reduction in costs. We intend to give as much publicity as possible to this matter and to continue the encouragement given by our advisory officers to the farmers of the country. The new subsidy on phosphatic fertilisers and the Government's announcement of the extension of the fertiliser subsidy scheme should play an important part in raising our yields. We have got to keep more animals on a smaller acreage, and this, I know, can be done by efficient methods of management and conservation.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble Lord one question about the extension of the fertiliser scheme? Does that mean a new scheme applying to another fertiliser, such as the nitrogenous fertilisers, or not?
LORD CARRINGTON: As my right honourable friend announced, at the end of the year we are not abandoning the system of subsidies and there will continue to be a scheme.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: He has not specified what fertilisers will be included in the schemes?
LORD CARRINGTON: Not yet. Lord Melchett seemed to think that the feeding-stuffs subsidy removed the incentive

585
for farmers to grow their own feeding-stuffs. With purchased barley costing £27 17s. 6d. per ton and maize costing him £30 15s. per ton, I think there is a real incentive to the farmer to grow his own coarse grain. Rations are not enough for any class of farmer. The dairy farmer has to be self-sufficient for the first one and one-eighth gallons per cow. The pig bonus is only 3 cwt. for each eight score dead weight of pork supplied. Fanners who want to expand production have to be increasingly self-sufficient in feeding-stuffs. Many small producers, and notably small dairy farmers in the East Midlands and many small hill farmers, cannot become any more self-sufficient in feeding-stuffs as they have not the land or the type of land on which to grow the crops. Other small producers specialise in poultry and pigs and produce a large output from a small acreage which cannot support them in feeding-stuffs. It therefore follows that it is the small producer who is most dependent on imported purchased feeding-stuffs who is the hardest hit by high feeding-stuff prices. Nevertheless, I can say to my noble friend Lord Hudson that the Government agree that it is desirable that the feeding-stuffs subsidies should be removed progressively with the object of bringing to an end the feeding-stuffs rationing system as soon as possible. But this can be done only if more feeding-stuffs are grown at home to relieve the shortage of imported feeding-stuffs.
Several noble Lords have talked about the importance of increasing the prices of our pigs. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, whom I do not see in his place at the moment, complained about low prices paid for heavyweight pigs. The new price schedule intentionally gives low prices for heavyweight pigs. After it reaches a certain weight, any additional feeding-stuffs which you feed to a pig tend to be converted mainly into fat, which makes the meat unsuitable either for bacon or for pork. For this reason it is clearly a waste of feeding-stuffs to fatten a pig above the economic weight. Accordingly we have adjusted this price schedule to discourage this practice. Lord Hawke, who has apologised for not being able to be present this afternoon, asked about prices for pigs sold by domestic pig keepers. The domestic pig keeper can sell his pig either to the Ministry of Food for slaughter for bacon or pork or to a retail butcher. If he sells to the Ministry he
586
gets exactly the same price as any farmer would. If he sells it to a retail butcher, the butcher pays him the price which he would pay the Ministry of Food. Lord Amherst of Hackney complained that there was not much advance information relating to the scales of pig rations. I assure him that we will in future give as much time as we possibly can when we announce the feeding-stuffs scales.
Lord Savile spoke about opencast coal mining. Anyone interested in farming who passes by areas which are being worked for opencast coal will naturally be horrified at what he sees. None of us likes it, but in the present circumstances of our acute need for more coal it is inevitable that it should continue. There is, however, considerable scope for restoration. I spent a day last month visiting sites in the West Riding—whence the noble Lord himself comes. I believe that with the new regulations which came into force last: year there will be much better results in restoration. Until these new regulations came into force it was obligatory on the contractor only to segregate the topsoil, and even this, I believe, was due only to the intervention of the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson Now, however, the contractors are required to segregate both topsoil and subsoil, and although we have not been handed back any sites on which this has been done, I am confident that these sites will show a very considerable improvement.
Lord Rennell made some very interesting suggestions on the question of marginal land. As your Lordships will be aware, there are a number of measures under which marginal land can be improved. There are the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts and the Marginal Production Scheme. I thought it would interest your Lordships if I gave some figures to show Slow these schemes are progressing. Under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts we have had about 4,500 schemes for England and Wales which cover about 1,500,000 acres. The total amount involved is £7,750,000.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, is that the figure of the Government grant or the total amount of capital involved, taking into account what the tenant or owner is paying as well as the amount the Government are paying?
LORD CARRINGTON: I think that is the 50 per cent. grant, but I will check this up for the noble Earl. As regards the marginal production scheme, in the year ending March, 31, 1952, grants amounting to £720,000 were approved. In spite of that, I think we can all agree with my noble friend Lord Rennell that it is well worth while considering whether or not there could be some speeding up of the improvement of hill and marginal lands. I was very interested in the proposals which the noble Lord made, but I cannot help thinking that he is a little too optimistic about the possibilities in this direction. As your Lordships are aware, the main limiting factor is capital investment. The amount of capital investment allocated to agriculture is strictly limited, and noble Lords will have heard there has been a cut of 15 per cent. in the investment in water supply, drainage and buildings in 1952. We cannot increase the amount allocated to the development of marginal land without reducing investment in some other direction.
The noble Lord suggested that in order to finance his proposal the land should be charged with an improvement rate spread over thirty or forty years. He will be aware that there is already provision, as indeed he said, whereby land owners or farmers can obtain a loan to meet the cost of improvement under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts which is not covered by the Government grants—that is to say, the other 50 per cent. The Agricultural Mortgage Corporation can lend money for many of these purposes, and repayment can be spread over a number of years, which would have much the same effect as the improvement rate which the noble Lord proposes.
If the Government were to take over directly this business of developing marginal land on a substantial scale, I think that legislation would be essential, because we have no statutory authority for such expenditure. The mere fact that there is statutory authority for making grants to farmers and land owners under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts to do what the noble Lord suggests that the Government should do, would, I feel, be regarded as a sign that further Parliamentary approval would be necessary before an alternative method could be adopted. It is well known that the Government are not anxious to extend
588
the scope of State enterprise and prefer as much development as possible to be undertaken by private enterprise. In view of the facilities already available to farmers and land owners to help them to develop marginal land, I think it would be very difficult to justify the Government's undertaking a scheme of the kind which the noble Lord suggests.
It has been suggested, too, by some noble Lords that bad housing conditions are driving workers off the land, and the noble Lord, Lord Hungarton, asked us to do something in this direction. From April 1, 1945, to December 31, 1951, 140,100 permanent houses were built by local authorities in rural areas, of which 29,192 were rented to agricultural workers. In addition, 38,431 houses were built by private builders in rural districts, and although it is not known how many of these were let to those employed on farm work, working on the same percentage as those built by local authorities the figure would be about 8,000. As your Lordships know, until recently only one-fifth of the total housing quota has been available for private building. We have however, increased this proportion to one-half, and I think this should help farmers and landowners to build more houses for their workers than they were able to do during the time of the Labour Government. The previous Government also refused grants for the building or improvement of service cottages. We propose to make subsidies and grants available for service cottages when occupied by agricultural workers, and this also should improve the housing conditions of those working on the land.
As regards electricity, which was another subject mentioned, rather more than one-third of the farms of five acres and over were connected to the public mains by the end of last year. Of course, the figure for dairy farms is somewhat higher, running at about 45 per cent. Last year the previous Government found it necessary to put a stop to the further development of rural electrification schemes. We have now decided to increase the amount which the electricity area boards may spend this year, so that it will be possible not only for existing schemes to continue but for some new schemes to start. However, I should point out that rural development in relation to the use to be

589
made of the power is extremely expensive, and it is inevitable, in the present financial crisis, that area boards will be unable to extend their power lines to the extent which all of us would like to see.
Almost every speaker in this debate has referred to the question of farming efficiency and the need for taking action against the farmer who is making very poor use of his land. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition went so far as to say that such a man was an enemy of society and must be treated as such. The noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, said that too much security had been given to the tenant, and that amending legislation was desirable so that the landlord could play his proper role in the encouragement of good farming. In his announcement in another place just a week ago, my right honourable friend the Minister said:
"The Government intend, with the full support of the leaders of the industry and with all the emphasis it can command, to inaugurate a special drive to increase output and make the fullest use of the land. We shall take vigorous action to ensure that the limited area of agricultural land in the country is neither used inadequately nor misused through incompetence."
That statement represents the Government's policy in this matter. There is undoubtedly a great deal that can be done to raise the level of efficiency, and hence to increase production by better use of the facilities for technical advice and of the powers already available under the Agriculture Act, 1947, and the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948. We want to make sure that the additional security given to tenants in those enactments is not being abused and that full protection is given only to the efficient farmer.
With this object in view, my right honourable friend is asking county agricultural executive committees to be more active in the discharge of their duties in promoting efficiency, both by giving advice where needed and, failing that, by being ready to exercise more freely their powers of supervision and dispossession. Next week, the Minister is meeting all his county chairmen to explain to them what he wishes to be done and to suggest how they and their committees can best help. Here I want to emphasise that a great deal depends on the members of both county and district committees. If they play their part, I do not think there is a serious
590
need for amending legislation, though no doubt some improvements could be devised in procedure and otherwise. In addition, my right honourable friend proposes to meet the leaders of the principal organisations of land owners, farmers and workers to discuss with them the part they can best play in any campaign to eliminate the bad fanner and to promote the best use of the land. There is no doubt that some landlords have been discouraged and lost interest in the standard of husbandry of their tenants, and it must be part of our task to convince them that the land owner, like others concerned with food production, has both a responsibility and a great opportunity to help along the campaign for more food. In these days I am sure that all concerned must be more vigorous in their efforts. I hope that members of county and district committees, and their officials, will make their influence felt throughout their areas.
I am sure, too, that the greatest increase can come from "B" farmers, and that the increase can be obtained by greater technical efficiency. Here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hungarton. It has been my experience, and probably that of other noble Lords who have served on county agricultural executive committees, that it is precisely the "A" farmer who seeks the advice of the National Agricultural Advisory Service, the Agricultural Land Service and his district committee members. I hope that in the future we shall be able to persuade this group of "B" farmers also to make use of the facilities for technical assistance which exist in their counties.
LORD HUNGARTON: Did the noble Lord say the "A" farmer, instead of the "C" farmer?
LORD CARRINGTON: I meant "A" farmers. What I have found is that it is the "A" farmer who makes use of the advice of the N.A.A.S. and the A.L.S.
LORD HUNGARTON: I said that the "A" and "B" farmers were the two classes which would give the result required. I am entirely in agreement.
LORD CARRINGTON: Then we must not quarrel if we agree. There has, of course, been considerable interest in the price settlement announced last week by the Minister. But, important though that

591
is, the direction that we are giving to production, and the creation of conditions favourable to expansion of output, are even more important. All your Lordships, without exception, have agreed on the importance of producing as much of our food at home as we possibly can. As has been said, the standard of living is rising all over the world. That is a fact which we all welcome, but it means that there is less food for us to import from abroad. The population of the world is increasing at a phenomenal rate: there are 50,000 more people in the world to-night than there were when the House adjourned last night. There are, it is true, vast areas in the world capable of producing food, areas as yet undeveloped or only partially in production. But this development will take time. I had the good fortune at the end of last year to attend a Conference of the Food and Agricultural Organisation in Rome. I was heartened to hear not only of the steps which are being taken to develop the backward areas of the world but also of the determination of the sixty-four nations present to grow as much food as possible from their own soil.
We should not forget that, apart from the considerations which I have mentioned, and the importance of food production from the defence point of view, agriculture is still our third biggest industry, and that altogether 1,250,000 people are directly dependent upon it for their livelihood. It is in the light of all these points that we are planning ahead. The announcement which the Minister has made deals with the next four years. Some of your Lordships have criticised the figure of an increase in production of 60 per cent. over pre-war as being inadequate. I would remind your Lordships of what my noble friend Lord Woolton said yesterday. He said:
"I should not like the ideas of the farming world to be limited by a figure of 12 per cent."—
that is, on present production. But with the calls on our resources disclosed in the Budget, and in the Economic Survey which has now been published, it is obvious that civil investment must be restrained for a time. Large-scale additions to physical equipment of agriculture could not possibly help to feed us or to save imports until long after (but for such
592
restraint) our reserves had been exhausted. It is therefore no lack of a sense of urgency about the national situation of our food supplies that has made us expect agriculture to share in the restraint on civil investment.
I would emphasise, however, that we have not stopped investment in agriculture. The Minister dealt with this matter fully in another place on April 4. We have looked around to see what we could expect with the tools likely to be available. The farmers' leaders would have liked more tools and still greater increases in food production. Naturally they would; and so should we. But even so they agree with us that with the tools available there is room for a great increase in production; and we believe that an increase of 12 per cent. over our present output is perfectly possible. This would mean, roughly, as an example: grass as a crop, 15 per cent. more; an increase in grass-eating animals; a continued increase in the rate of sheep; and the rearing of between 300,000 and 400,000 more calves. There would still then be enough grass to permit 1,000,000 acres over the figure likely to be ploughed up in June, 1952; and June, 1952 should be at least 500,000 acres up on 1951. On the basis of this we should be able to expand pig or egg production, in proportions required by consumer demand. As for milk, the fact is that people want more meat, which is rationed, rather than more milk. We need not resign ourselves to the lower standard of living of the Continental veal and cheese. Lastly, it remains of first-rate importance to grow all the wheat we can, to maintain sugar beet and to satisfy the demand for potatoes. This, I believe, is a firm foundation for a long-term policy.
We all know that there is scope in all these ways for increasing efficiency. It is one of the most encouraging features of our national situation that our land is capable of greater production, in spite of—and I emphasise this—the high level that we have already reached. I do not want it to be thought from what I have said that the industry has been backward in this matter. We all know, also, that the improvements effected during and since the war in the general standard have been very remarkable and praiseworthy. There is a steady increase in the yields of crops and of milk. A comparison of

593
output with numbers of workers employed shows a substantial increase in output per worker. It is this improvement in technique, in management, in strains of seed and of animals, which has enabled the industry to carry on as it has. This has enabled farmers to pay greatly increased wages to their workers, and not pass on the full increase to the taxpayer or the consumer.
There have been some downward trends in production, to which the Lord President referred—for instance, in the number of calves reared and in the area of tillage—going right back to 1950. This was the situation when the present Government took office, and we were very much concerned to analyse the reasons for what seemed to be a hesitation in the expansion of production. The major cause underlying the whole situation is, of course, the effect of rising costs and labour difficulties associated with rearmament. These problems are not peculiar to agriculture. They affect our whole economy, and their evil effect can be completely removed only by the application of general policies which Her Majesty's Government have initiated. In agriculture, the problems have, nevertheless, presented particular difficulties which the industry cannot fully surmount unaided. As I have said, the industry has to a large extent offset increased costs with increased efficiency. It is right and proper that it should do so. If the industry were not able, by its resource and resilence, to absorb a due proportion of increased costs, it would be much less worthy of the confidence which we hope and expect the general population to have in it. But it is no good expecting agriculture, any more than any other industry, to absorb all the increased costs unaided.
All these considerations were, of course, in our minds in drawing conclusions from the Annual Review conducted by the Agricultural Departments and the Farmers' Unions which has just been completed. I do not think that there is a disposition anywhere to quarrel with the Minister of Agriculture's description of the Government's: decision as "a just and constructive award." The award, covering subsidies and prices, will enable the industry to meet the higher costs which have arisen during the year and to maintain its level of income, and will
594
give help to mitigate cost increases which might otherwise have made it particularly difficult for the smaller farmers to increase production.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. Can he say how much of the increased costs the farmers are carrying this year? We were able to estimate a figure for last year.
LORD CARRINGTON: I should prefer the noble Earl to wait for the White Paper which is to be published. It is a very difficult and technical subject and, as the noble Earl well knows, there are several ways of calculating these things. If he will be patient, I think all will be made plain in the White Paper. As I have said, I do not think there is any disposition anywhere to quarrel with what is being done. I am glad that none of your Lordships has come out as a "feather-bedder."
Before I sit down, I should like to give a few figures which illustrate how we are expecting, agriculturally, to meet the problem of the rise in costs that has occurred. If I may refer to the figures which the Lord President gave yesterday, comparing the previous Government's award of a year ago with the present award, I would remind the House of three figures: of the £16,000,000 addition last November, the £2,500,000 reduction of a once-and-for-all addition made a year ago, and the present award of £39,000,000. These three figures give us a total of £52,500,000, which is the measure of the increase in receipts since February, 1951—that is, the last Annual Review—in respect of the commodities falling within the Annual Review. This may be expressed as a percentage increase in what one might call the wholesale price level of home agricultural production. I think I should be putting the: percentage figure rather high if I put it at 7½ per cent., but I will take that figure, and I will compare it with the movement of wholesale prices as given in the published Digest of Statistics. If I take what I may describe as the two other main bulwarks of our economy, coal and steel, and compare February, 1952, with February, 1951, I find an increase in the wholesale price index to compare with my 7½ per cent. for agriculture, of about 11 per cent. for coal and about 20 percent. for steel. I think that those figures, which I give without any intention of

595
praise or blame for one industry or another, indicate that agriculture is fairly and squarely playing its due and proper part in our economy.
My Lords, I have gone on for too long. I do not expect that I have answered all your Lordships' questions. If I have not, I apologise, and I will write to any noble Lord who has asked me any questions which I have not answered. Let me end by saying that I think we have now laid the foundation for a sound and balanced and prosperous agriculture; and with the support of all concerned, of farmers and workers and of land owners, we shall reap the full fruits of our policy.
6.22 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think we may say that we have had a most valuable debate, and once more this House has shown that amongst its members it has a very large number who can give profitable advice on agriculture and on the food situation. One reason why I am glad that we have had this debate is that it has elicited such an informative and instructive speech from the noble Lord who has just sat down, and I think we shall all be very grateful to him for the full way in which he has answered our questions—or most of them. He did not deal with my question on top soil, but I hope that that will be dealt with in the same way as the question on mineral workers will be dealt with—perhaps he would write to me about that. We are all indebted to him for the extremely thorough way in which he has wound up our debate to-day.
I was delighted to know that the Ministry of Agriculture are so up to date with their information, because the noble Lord informed us authoritatively that between the time we adjourned yesterday and now, the population of the world has increased by 50,000 people. It is satisfactory to know that the Ministry of Agriculture have the statistics as up to date as all that.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: It is the Ministry of Health.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The whole object of this debate was to profer helpful advice, if we could do so, to the farmers, the farm workers, the Ministry and everybody concerned with our food pro-
596
duction. I want to produce more food and not Papers, and, therefore, without further ado, and with your Lordships' leave, I will withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
LLANELLY DISTRICT TRACTION BILL [H.L.]
Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
TOTTENHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
  BRITISH INVESTMENT IN THE U.S.A.
  BRITISH INVESTMENT IN THE U.S.A.
  MINTING OF GOLD COIN
  MINTING OF GOLD COIN