Sitting of 6 May 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Night Baking (Recommendations)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now completed his review and will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's attitude on the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee on Night Baking which reported in October, 1951, Command Paper No. 8378.
    The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): Not yet, for this is a most complex subject, but I will make a statement at the earliest possible date.
    Mr. Freeman: Can the Minister say when that will be? This matter has been before the House for very many years. Is this continual procrastination justified, because the Report deals with a legitimate grievance of a very large number of men?
    Sir W. Monckton: I cannot give a date, but what I can say is this: I quite agree that the matter has engaged the attention of this House for upwards of 100 years. The Report was received in October, and the observations of the various interested people in the industry did not reach me until the middle of February. It has been necessary to consult other Government Departments and to collate their views, but we are getting on with the matter now.

    Building Workers, Liverpool
    Mr. George Porterasked the Minister of Labour if he is in a position to place the building trade workers who have received notice to terminate their employment with the Ministry of Works at Liverpool.
    Sir W. Monckton: If these men, whose ages range from 66 to 74, register for further employment every effort will be made to place them.
    Mr. Porter: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that if his colleagues at the Ministry of Works had taken notice of the speech which he made on 5th April, asking for aged workers to be kept in employment, it would not have been necessary for me to ask this Question?
    Sir W. Monckton: The point is that these persons have not yet registered at the employment exchanges and their employment has not come to an end. In that age range, what we have particularly to consider is the strength and ability of the men as well as their willingness to work.
    Mr. Porter: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman understand that the type of work for which these men are called upon is more suitable for aged craftsmen than for the new entrants who are learning the trade at present?
    Sir W. Monckton: The information I had was that they were joiners, painters, bricklayers and labourers who were likely to be affected.

    Lancaster
    Mr. Fitzroy Macleanasked the Minister of Labour if he will give the latest unemployment figures available for the borough of Lancaster.
    Sir W. Monckton: The figures for 21st April will be available in a few days and I will write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Maclean: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this unemployment, which started under the last Government and has continued ever since, is causing great distress in Lancaster? In view of the contrary allegations which have been made on political grounds in certain circles, will he reaffirm that it is the Government's policy to maintain full employment?
    Sir W. Monckton: It is the aim of the Government, and my constant anxiety, to do what I can to maintain that policy.
    Mr. E. Shinwell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the hon.

    159
    Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean) never raised this matter during the period of office of the last Government?
    Mr. Maclean: That is not true; I did raise it.

    Vacancies (Trade Unionists)
    Mr. Frederick Leeasked the Minister of Labour whether he will take action to ensure that the refusal of an employer to accept an employee sent to him from the employment exchange to fill a vacancy of which he had given notice, on the grounds that the workman is a member of a trade union, shall become an offence under the Notification of Vacancies Order.
    Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. I am advised that there is no power to include in this Order any provision making it an offence for an employer to refuse to engage a particular worker.
    Mr. Lee: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, as the Order now stands, he is, in fact, forced to accede to the recognition of the principle of the closed shop against trade unionists by employers who do this sort of thing? As he has brought the trade unions into partnership with him as special agents in running the Order, does he not see how anomalous that position is? Could he not do something to deal with it?
    Sir W. Monckton: The difficulty about answering the Question otherwise than I did is the advice I have about what can be done under the Order. I am advised that it cannot be done by amendment of the Order, and that was the point which was put to me.
    Mr. Lee: As this Order was framed in conjunction with the N.J.A.C., would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree to reconsider this aspect of the matter—which is a new aspect and could not have been foreseen at the time—with the N.J.A.C. and take their advice on it?
    Sir W. Monckton: The difficulty about that is that it is not so much any disagreement which has to be resolved; it is what powers are authorised by the regulation under which the Order was made. I am told that it could not be done by amending the Order. It is a point which has been discussed with the unions.
    Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that although this Question refers to a case in Dundee, there is another case of the very opposite character in Dundee; and will he do nothing to alter the Order?
    Mr. Speaker: That is another matter.
    Mr. E. Fernyhough: Does the Minister realise that so long as the law permits an employer to refuse to engage a man merely because he is a member of a trade union, it is rank hypocrisy for the Tory Government to bar the Durham County Council because they do the opposite?

    S. Smith & Sons, Ltd., Cricklewood
    Mr. Maurice Orbachasked the Minister of Labour (1) if he is aware that, following the recent dismissal of 120 workers and the threatened redundancy of a further 350 skilled and semiskilled workers, the employees of S Smith and Sons, Limited, Cricklewood. have declared a strike; and what action he proposes to take to bring this dispute to a speedy conclusion;
    (2) on what date the dispute at S. Smith and Sons, Limited, Cricklewood, was reported to his Department; and what action his conciliation department have taken to bring about a settlement of the points in dispute.
    Sir W. Monckton: The dispute has not been reported to my Department for conciliation action. There is, however, ample machinery within the industry for dealing with it and in the circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to intervene.
    Mr. Orbach: Does not the Minister think it deplorable that so many of these skilled workers and half of this very efficient plant which ought to be engaged in priority work are at present idle?
    Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir, I deplore that, but there is within the industry agreed machinery for settling disputes. I understand that officials of the Association are still in contact with the district officials of the unions concerned with the object of securing a resumption of work so that the machinery may be operated.
    Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: In view of the fact that this firm is engaged on defence orders, among other things, has

    161
    the Minister any information to show that this strike is in any way Communist inspired?
    Mr. Orbach: Is not the Minister aware that an official of his Department has been in contact with the employers and the workers, but that his suggestion was so ambiguous and vague that neither side was prepared to accept it?
    Sir W. Monckton: I cannot identify any officer of mine of which that could be said. We shall keep in touch, but intervention is another thing.
    Mr. Orbachasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the need, he will set up a sub-office of his Department at S. Smith and Sons, Limited, Cricklewood, for the purpose of assisting redundant skilled and semi-skilled engineers to be transferred to other urgent employment of a national character.
    Sir W. Monckton: Provisional arrangements have been made for my officers to attend at this factory to register redundant workers and to assist them to find other employment, but I understand that it has not yet been decided who are redundant.

    Redundancy (Fondant Sugar Imports)
    Mr. Wedgwood Bennasked the Minister of Labour how many firms are faced with a stoppage of production due to the cancellation of licences for the import of fondant sugar from the Continent announced last November; what increase of unemployment he expects as a result of these stoppages; and what plans he has for absorbing the redundant workers into other forms of employment.
    Sir W. Monckton: I have received reports of only one firm where there has been considerable redundancy due to this cause. In that case there are still nine redundant workers registered as unemployed and the employment exchange is endeavouring to place them in other employment.
    Mr. Benn: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider bringing pressure to bear on the Minister of Food to see whether the pre-war allocations of sugar might be shared with those firms which have started since the war, and who were previously dependent on imported fondant sugar so as to prevent any unemployment at all?
    Sir W. Monckton: I will bring that matter to the notice of my right hon. and gallant Friend.

    Foreign Workers
    Mr. Cyril Osborneasked the Minister of Labour how many foreign workers there are in the United Kingdom; in which trades they are chiefly engaged; from which countries they have come; what steps are being taken to ensure that British workers are not made redundant whilst foreign workers remain fully employed; and to what extent it is proposed to repatriate them when they are no longer required.
    Sir W. Monckton: I am unable to say what is the total number of foreign workers at present in the United Kingdom, but since the war more than 200,000 have been absorbed into employment in this country under official or semi-official schemes. With permission, I propose to circulate the remainder of the answer, which involves a table of figures and information about the issue of individual permits, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Osborne: Will the Minister see that foreign workers do not remain in employment when English workers are out of work, and that when redundancy arises foreign workers will be put off first?
    Sir W. Monckton: In the case of those who are here under organised schemes for bringing foreign workers into the United Kingdom, most of the agreements between the two sides of the industries concerned provide that foreign workers shall be the first to be discharged in the event of redundancy. It is, of course, for the parties to those agreements to see to their implementation.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: While appreciating that foreign workers must not be retained at the expense of British workers, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that many of the foreign workers were brought in to remove bottlenecks which arose from the reluctance of our own workers to do the job; and will he see that there is no dislocation of industry to any excessive extent from the necessity to remove these foreign workers?
    Sir W. Monckton indicated assent.
    Following is the statement:

    FOREIGN WORKERS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Official and Semi-Official Schemes

    Origin

    Approximate numbers

    Industries in which they were chiefly engaged when first employed in United Kingdom

    Main Group

    Poland (Polish Resettlement Corps, etc.)

    100,000

    Agriculture, building, brickmaking, coalmining, iron and steel, textiles, hotel and catering, nursing, domestic work in institutions.

    Displaced Persons from various places in Europe to which they are unwilling to return (Baltic States, Ukraine, etc.)

    77,000

    Former Prisoners of War—

    Germans

    15,000

    Italians

    1,000

    Ukrainians

    8,000

    The above were accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom.

    Subsidiary Groups

    German women

    9,600

    Domestic work and textiles.

    Austrian women

    2,300

    Italian women

    2,000

    Italian men

    6,700

    Iron founding, tin plate, brickmaking, coalmining, etc.

    All those in the subsidiary groups are liable to be repatriated when their services are no longer required, but steps are being taken to see how far redundant foreign workers who do not wish to leave the country might be suitable for other vacancies which cannot be filled by British subjects. It is customary, however, not to enforce repatriation after a foreign worker has been satisfactorily employed for four years.
    Where there have been organised schemes for bringing foreign workers to the United Kingdom most agreements between the two sides of the industries concerned provide that foreign workers shall be the first to be discharged in the event of redundancies. The implementation of these agreements is a matter for the parties to the agreements to decide.
    Individual Permits
    In addition, during the years 1946-51 inclusive, some 172,000 permits for limited periods were granted to employers who applied for permission to employ foreign workers, mainly from European countries, in various occupations, predominantly in domestic service but also as entertainers, student-employees, nurses, teachers and workers in agriculture, textiles, tin plate and brickmaking. It is not known how many of these permits were utilised by employers or how many foreign workers have remained in this country on extension of the period for which the permit was originally granted.

    Re-armament Programme (Additional Workers)
    Mr. Stephen Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour from which consumer goods industries he proposes to draw the
    additional workers required for the rearmament programme, as outlined in the Economic Survey for 1952.
    Sir W. Monckton: As the hon. Member knows, I exercise no powers to withdraw workers from one industry and place them in another. The extent to which labour will transfer from individual consumer goods industries to re-armament work depends upon the areas in which the demand for additional labour falls, the type of other industry in that area and its level of employment.
    Mr. Swingler: As the Economic Survey says that where additional workers are required they will have to come mainly from other industries, particularly consumer industries, and as the last week, in reply to a Question on the cotton industry. the Minister said:
    "I am not saying that there will be an attempt to reduce the number of workers in the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 1212.]
    is the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply relying on indiscriminate unemployment in order to find additional workers?
    Sir W. Monckton: What I am suggesting is that if it turns out that in the consumer industries there are people not in work, it will be to that source that one will look for some addition to those required for the switch in industry.
    Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that the Minister has not the faintest notion where he can get these workers and that the rearmament programme depends on a number of haphazard accidents?
    Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir.

    Blackburn Area (Defence Contracts)
    Mrs. Barbara Castleasked the Minister of Labour what consultations he has had with the Minister of Supply and the First Lord of the Admiralty to ensure that normal defence contracts are placed in areas of unemployment like Blackburn.
    Sir W. Monckton: From an early stage of the defence programme it has been the practice for my Department to advise the Admiralty and the Ministry of Supply from time to time of areas where labour is available for their guidance in placing defence contracts.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of confusion about the basis on which these two Departments, particularly the Admiralty, are placing their defence contracts? Will he consider setting up an inter-Departmental committee under the chairmanship of his own Department to bring about a co-ordinated direction of contracts to the areas where they are most needed?
    Sir W. Monckton: We shall do all we can to encourage the closest contact. In the industries most concerned with Blackburn it has been taking place within the past few weeks, and is still taking place.
    Mrs. Castle: is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have received very contradictory replies from the Admiralty as to the basis on which they place their normal defence contracts, first saying that they cannot place them in Blackburn because there is no skilled labour and then that they cannot do it because there is not sufficient unemployment?
    Sir W. Monckton: I must take what comfort I can from the fact that the ambiguity comes from another Department. I am sure that the hon. Lady will put her question to that Department.
    Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say why hon. Members
    166
    opposite who are semi-pacifists are depending on re-armament for full employment?
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in Nelson there is a perfectly good and quite modern factory eminently suitable for some alternative trade to relieve unemployment in the cotton industry in the possession of the Admiralty and used by them purely for storage purposes? Could the Minister make representations to his right hon. Friend to release these premises and make them available for employment in this area?
    Sir W. Monckton: I have heard of that particular factory from certain hon. Members and I will remind my right hon. Friend of the possibility of putting it to better use.

    Cancer (Protective Measures)
    Mr. H. Boardmanasked the Minister of Labour what advice he has had from his experts as to how far workers on processes involving the production or use of A-naphthylamine or B-nap, are thereby exposed to the risk of cancer; and what protective measures are the factory inspectorate demanding to minimise this risk.
    Sir W. Monckton: There is reason to believe that the manufacture of these two substances is associated with the occurrence of cancer of the bladder among the workers concerned. This disease occurs also among both sexes of the general population which has no contact with these substances; and, although special research has been in progress for several years, the extent of the risk attributable to the industrial use and manufacture of the substances is not fully established.
    The precautions recommended depend upon the method of manufacture and the circumstances of use of the substances.
    Mr. Boardman: In view of the wide publicity now being given to a certain case, would the Minister give a specific assurance that workers with these chemicals will not be exposed unnecessarily to the risk of cancer merely because of the high cost of protective measures?
    Sir W. Monckton: I think it better that I should not say too much about the case which is now being tried because at one

    167
    stage I took the part in it which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-President of the Board of Trade appears to be taking now. This is a matter in which the Senior Medical Inspector of Factories is personally concerned both in research and in observing that all care is taken, and he is satisfying himself on that matter.

    Remploy Limited (Wages Claim)
    Mr. George Chetwyndasked the Minister of Labour what action is being taken by Remploy Limited with regard to a cost-of-living bonus claimed by employees.
    Sir W. Monckton: A claim for increased wages has been the subject of negotiations between the company and the interested trade unions, and both parties have agreed that the matter should go to arbitration.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is there any indication that this can be settled speedily, since it has already been outstanding for eight months? Can the Minister also say that the reward will be retrospective, as it was in the case of foremen employed in these factories?
    Sir W. Monckton: I cannot give any indication as to the award. I have not the date before me, but I think the decision to go to arbitration is a recent one.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can we have an assurance that this will go to the same arbitration tribunal as did the doctors' case recently?
    Sir W. Monckton: I think that was a special arbitration tribunal. This matter will go to one which I shall select in the ordinary way.

    Industrial Noises
    Mr. Joseph T. Priceasked the Minister of Labour to what extent his factory inspectors have under his regulations advisory powers in connection with the abatement of industrial noise where factory processes are likely to interfere with the sleep of persons compelled to live in the immediate vicinity of factories.
    Sir W. Monckton: None at all, Sir. There is no statutory power under the Factories Acts to deal with nuisances affecting residents in the vicinity of a factory.
    Mr. Price: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider this matter further and see whether he can give any assistance to a large number of constituents of mine living in Horwich, Lancashire, whose lives are made intolerable by the noise emanating all night long from the plant of the British Transport Commission? Will he consider this matter generally in connection with the development of industry, because in the opinion of many of us it falls within the purview of his Department?
    Sir W. Monckton: I can only deal with the situation as it is. It does not fall within the purview of the Factory Inspectorate. It falls within the provisions of the Public Health Acts, which are the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
    Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Is the Minister aware that if there were powers the Factory Inspectorate is so much below establishment that it would be doubtful if they could give attention to the matter?

  SCOTLAND

    Education, Fife
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the anticipated increase in the school population in the developing mining area of Fife, from January, 1952, to January, 1954, as a result of the transfer of miners and their families from the west to the east of Scotland; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure adequate educational facilities for these additional children.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): About 290 in 1952 and about 390 in 1953. The needs of these children have been taken into account in planning new schools for Dunfermline, Kennoway and Kirkcaldy.
    Mr. Hamilton: How, then, does the Secretary of State account for the statement he made at a Press conference a few weeks ago that, as a result of the circulars which he had issued recently, some of the areas which had suffered most would be among the development areas? Fife was one of the areas cited.
    Mr. Stuart: We are doing everything we can to push on with the erection of new schools in the areas receiving the transferred population.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many over-crowded classes existed in the primary and secondary departments of Fife schools on 31st December in 1939, 1945. 1950 and 1951.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Statistics are not available for 31st December in any year. I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL

    —

    Number of Classes

    Number of Oversized Classes

    Primary

    Total

    Primary

    First Three Years Secondary

    Fourth Year or beyond Secondary

    Total

    Maximum 50

    Maximum 45

    First Three Years Secondary Maximum 40

    Fourth Year or beyond Secondary Maximum 30

    31st March, 1939.

    1,304

    1,091

    171

    42

    22

    17

    —

    3

    2

    31st March, 1946.

    1,344

    1,143

    150

    51

    22

    4

    —

    13

    5

    31st March, 1949.

    1,414

    956

    392

    66

    65

    13

    —

    48

    4

    31st March, 1951.

    1,393

    973

    358

    62

    101

    —

    64

    26

    11

    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many primary and secondary schools will be completed in Fife this year; how many additional places these schools will provide; and how far such new accommodation will relieve the problem of overcrowded classes.
    Mr. J. Stuart: One large secondary school was opened in March; it is hoped that a big temporary extension to another will be finished during the year. Four large primary schools are under construction; in each case it is expected that some rooms will be ready for occupation by September. The completion of one small school, and of additions or restorations at four other buildings, will take place within the year. All these buildings will together provide over 2,700 places which, I understand, will enable the education authority to reduce the size of 84 of the 103 oversize classes.
    REPORT a table giving such detailed figures as are available.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the Secretary of State say whether there is an increase indicated in the years in question and whether there is likely to be an increase in the overcrowded classes this year?
    Mr. Stuart: As to the increase before this year the operation of the Schools (Scotland) Code in September, 1950, lowered the maximum for primary classes from 50 to 45 and this, naturally, may cause an increase.
    Following are the figures:
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon Gentleman realise that in the next year or two Fife is likely to have an increasing number of miners from the west of Scotland? Could he indicate therefore whether there are any extra facilities or increased priorities for the developing mining areas in Scotland as against other areas?
    Mr. Stuart: Yes, Sir. We realise that this transfer will create great difficulties in Fife which are not applicable in all other areas and we are doing everything we can to meet those difficulties.

    Private Mental Homes
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) the number of private homes under the Lunacy Acts, 1862 and 1913; the number of patients, minimum and maximum. in each home; and the number over 60 years of age;

    171
    (2) what total contribution he is making towards the upkeep of patients in private mental homes; and what are the minimum and maximum payments per patient.
    Mr. J. Stuart: There are two institutions in Scotland licensed as private mental hospitals, for 90 and 36 patients. The numbers at present in residence are 32 and 36, of which 22 and 14 are over 60 years of age. There are no contributions from State funds towards the upkeep of these patients.
    Mrs. Mann: Would the right hon. Gentleman say if there are private homes under the Lunacy Acts in Scotland with as few as four patients or 20 patients?
    Mr. Stuart: There are, of course, other categories. Mental patients boarded out in private houses under guardianship numbered 502 at 1st January, 1952, the maximum number in any one house being four; but I have no statistics relating to age.

    Tuberculosis
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how far experiments are being made in Scotland with the new tuberculosis drug, isonicotinic acidhydrazide; and with what results.
    Mr. J. Stuart: In co-operation with the Medical Research Council clinical investigations into the therapeutic value of this drug are being undertaken by the Research Committee of the Scottish Tuberculosis Society. Trials are planned at six Scottish hospitals prominent in the treatment of tuberculosis, but results cannot be expected for some months.
    Mrs. Mann: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that while the British Medical Council has hesitated to make a definite pronouncement about this drug it can be obtained by the ordinary medical practitioner, who may pass it on to his patient irrespective of its possible effects on the patient?
    Mr. Stuart: It is true that it can be prescribed by doctors; but it will not be used in hospitals under the National Health Service until these trials have been completed.
    Mrs. Mann: But are not these doctors working under the National Health Service, and is it not rather risky that they should be allowed to prescribe the drug, since it has not yet been pronounced on by the B.M.C.?
    Mr. Stuart: I agree with the hon. Lady. I should have thought that it would have been wiser to await the result of the trials.
    Mr. A. C. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons suffering from tuberculosis who are unable to have hospital and sanatoria treatment because of the lack of accommodation and staff.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The number on the waiting list for sanatorium treatment in Scotland at 31st March was 1,723.
    Mr. Manuel: Would the Secretary of State communicate that answer to his hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, who, in the debate last week, did not regard this problem as being of much significance? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hundreds of tuberculosis patients will have to pay for their drugs and medicines on the 1s. prescription as long as they remain outpatients?

    Economic Survey
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Economic Survey for Scotland, 1952. will be published.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I hope to publish the annual White Paper on industry and employment in Scotland in 1951 on 14th May.
    Mr. Hector McNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to see that the Scottish Survey is not curtailed, as was the English survey?
    Mr. Stuart: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have no intention of curtailing it.

    Highland Hotels (Wages)
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in regard to the need for modification of the Catering Wages Act for hotels in the Highland area, as recommended by the report by the Highlands and Islands Advisory Panel on the County of Sutherland.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I have brought the recommendation to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour who, as he stated in

    173
    reply to a Question by the bon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) on 10th April, is in discussion with the two sides of the hotel industry.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that hotel keepers in the Highlands and Islands are labouring under a very great difficulty pending the revision of the Catering Wages Act?
    Mr. Stuart: I can assure my noble Friend that I am aware of this, and that I have been in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour on this matter.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Would the right hon. Gentleman ask his noble Friend the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) whether he is aware that the report made a comment on this rather than a recommendation? It is not a recommendation.

    Teachers' Pensions
    Mr. John Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to enable retired teachers who are able and willing to return to teaching to do so without loss of pension.
    Mr. J. Stuart: In the case of teachers who retired between the ages of 60 and 65, pension is suspended on re-employment, but I have recently made provision for them to have the benefit on final retirement of a new pension award which takes account of any further service exceeding one year. Retired teachers over 65 years of age can only return without loss of pension to teaching service if the amount of their salary on re-employment, together with their pension, does not exceed their salary on retirement.
    It is a long-established principle applicable to civil servants and local government employees as well as teachers that they should not receive both a salary and pension paid or aided from public funds, and I am not able to make an exception to this principle in the case of teachers.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that teachers who have earned their pensions are able to draw them in any other form of occupation than teaching? Does he not think that that is an injustice which is handicapping many local authorities, and will he not look at this matter again?
    Mr. Stuart: I should be very glad to look at it, but I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on this subject on 12th February, 1951, by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell).
    Mr. Rankin: That answer is well within my recollection, and if the right hon. Gentleman disapproved of it he now has the chance to remedy it.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to institute monthly payment of teachers' pensions.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The change to monthly payment of teachers' pensions could not conveniently be made for Scotland alone, as teachers' pensions for both Scotland and England are paid by the Paymaster General. I should not feel justified in proposing this change in the present financial circumstances of the country in view of the additional cost which would be entailed.
    Mr. Rankin: How can the payment of the total pension which must be made be affected by the financial condition of the country? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is very unfair that those who are drawing small payments in the form of pension should have to wait as long as three months between each payment? Would he not agree that there should be greater frequency in these payments and could not he get in touch with his right hon. Friend to adjust it on a national basis?
    Mr. Stuart: It would necessitate additional accommodation as well as additional staff.

    Premises, School Teaching
    Mr. William Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have applied for permission to use premises other than schools for the teaching of schoolchildren.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Two, since this Government took office; but authorities do not apply for permission unless they wish to be assured that their expenditure on rent will rank for grant, as it does in the normal case.

    School Dentistry
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent school dental officers in Scotland are fully-qualified dentists.
    Mr. J. Stuart: All school dental officers in Scotland are fully-qualified dentists.
    Mr. Ross: While thanking the Secretary of State for that reassurance, may I ask him if he can give the House some information about the eight girl students from Scotland who came to London to the Eastman Dental Clinic, and, according to his report, are returning to employment in the school dental service in Scotland? What exactly are they going to do when they get back?
    Mr. Stuart: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have details, I will give him the information.
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the figures for the past year, to the nearest convenient date, of the number of children in Scotland who have had dental inspection at school; and the number who have not had dental inspection.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The number of children inspected by school dental officers during the year ended 31st July, 1951, was 231,381. The number not inspected was 552,298.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the Secretary of State aware that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the debate on the National Health Service Bill last week, were arguing that there had been a great augmentation to the school dental service, and that the figures which he has revealed show a deplorable lack of attention to the children's teeth in schools? Will he not direct the children and the authorities to use the general dental service under the Health Act?
    Mr. Stuart: The number of dentists in this service has recently increased from 95 to 115, and I think there is reason to hope that it will improve; but it will take a number of years to build up a wholly efficient service.
    Mr. Manuel: Is not the Secretary of State aware that more than half the school children in Scotland are not getting their teeth examined at all? Is he prepared to wait for a long number of years before children get dental treatment?
    Mr. Stuart: If the hon. Gentleman will study the Dentists Bill he will realise that we hope to help to speed up this matter.

    Infant Mortality
    Mr. Thomas Hubbardasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest available figures for infant mortality in Kirkcaldy; and the average for Scotland.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The provisional total of deaths of children under one year of age in Kirkcaldy in 1951 was 33, representing an infant mortality rate of 35.8 per 1,000 live births, compared with 37.4 for the whole of Scotland.

    Clydebank (Reconstruction)
    Mr. Cyril Benceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to remove the financial burden being borne by the burgh of Clydebank as a result of the destruction, by bombing and consequent replacement of about 4,000 houses.
    Mr. J. Stuart: This matter was recently discussed at a meeting between my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) and representatives of the Town Council, and is being considered in the light of the discussion.
    Mr. Bence: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the bombing of Clydebank was consequential on the great contribution which the burgh of Clydebank made to the national war effort, and, therefore, also agree that the national Exchequer should bear the financial burden of the reconstruction of Clydebank, and not the citizens of Clydebank itself?
    Mr. Stuart: I agree that the burden is a heavy one, but, as these representations have been made to me only recently, I would prefer to consider them.

    Central and Local Government (Duplication)
    Mr. A. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the progress made in eliminating duplication of administration in central and local government affairs.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The recommendations of the Scottish Local Government Man-power Committee in its first Report have,

    177
    in the main, been implemented. The Committee is now considering the existing arrangements for ensuring economy in the use of manpower by local authorities and Departments concerned with local government matters.

    Fishing Industry (Authority's Recommendations)
    Mr. James H. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received from the White Fish Authority regarding the reorganisation of the industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The White Fish Authority have made no recommendations for the reorganisation of the industry in Scotland; but they have made general recommendations for assistance towards the cost of replacing near and middle water and inshore fishing vessels, and they have under consideration a transport equalisation scheme and other projects.

  HOUSING, SCOTLAND

    East Kilbride
    Mr. Patrick Maitland askedthe Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the progress of housing undertaken by the East Kilbride Development Corporation; how many new houses have been built to the last convenient date; and what sums have been borrowed by the Corporation to date.
    Mr. J. Stuart: At 30th April the Corporation had completed 357 houses and had 1,032 under construction or contracted for. There have been difficulties about the labour supply, which has now been increased. The total advances to the Corporation amounted to £1,428,380 at 31st March last.
    Mr. Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that represents a completion of 14 houses last month and of only 37 since the middle of December? Is be satisfied that that total amount is adequate for a Corporation which has existed for this purpose for over four years?
    Mr. Stuart: A great deal of the labour available at present is concentrated upon factory work of first importance and as that is proceeded with there will be more labour available for houses.
    Mr. Maitland: Is the Minister aware that the workers in the factories which are under construction will need housing?
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that these development corporations have, of necessity, had to do a great deal of ground work? Is he further aware that the Minister of Housing and Local Government said in a recent debate that the ground work had been virtually completed and that he would reap the harvest that was about to result in an increased number of houses?
    Mr. Stuart: The surfacing of the roads is going on as rapidly as possible, and it will be possible to make more rapid progress with the housing which we realise is needed.

    Prefabricated Timber Houses
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, since his plans to import Swedish prefabricated houses have been frustrated by the general exchange difficulties of the European Payments Union to which Sweden belongs, he will continue to explore the possibility of importing such houses from countries within the sterling area to hasten the Scottish housing programme.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am not aware of any source of supply of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind. I shall be glad to consider any particulars he cares to give me.
    Mr. Maitland: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the term "hardwood" which normally applies to wood available in the Commonwealth is, from the carpentry point of view, soft? Is he aware that there are great quantities of timber available in countries I can specify and that there are great possibilities of developing that trade and industry?
    Mr. Stuart: We have considered that.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is considerable unemployment in the prefabricated housebuilding industry in Finland? Will he see whether he can obtain prefabricated wooden houses from Finland to help our housing drive?
    Mr. Stuart: When, originally, we thought of importing prefabricated

    179
    houses, it was urged that we should build them in this country and that is now being done.
    Mrs. Mann: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of withdrawing the contract already placed with the Coat-bridge firm for these houses? Is it not the case that they are better houses at lower prices than he can obtain in the sterling area, which is now almost as difficult as the dollar area?
    Mr. Stuart: I have no intention of withdrawing the contract.
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what number of prefabricated timber houses are expected to be completed in Scotland by the end of 1953.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The aim is to complete the whole programme of 3,000 houses by the end of 1953.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the Secretary of State impress upon the Treasury the desirability of being able to import prefabricated houses from Sweden? Is he not aware that prefabrication in this country will take away labour from the general housing programme?
    Mr. Stuart: I am in a difficulty over this. At one time we did intend to import, and we were pressed to build in this country; but I shall be very glad to consider what is the best course to adopt in the future.
    Mrs. Mann: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why we should employ Swedish workers when there are unemployed workers in Coatbridge, or why the Treasury should pay more for these houses when we could get them cheaper and better from the Coatbridge factory?
    Mr. Brooman-White: Is it not still broadly true to say that the housing problem in Scotland is, proportionately, about six times worse than in the rest of the country and, if that is so, will my right hon. Friend keep it very much before his colleagues when any possibility presents itself of extending this programme by any possible means?
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that to allow the firm at Coatbridge to undertake the entire programme is the best means of quickly
    180
    carrying out this programme? Would it not be better to have various firms in different regions of Scotland prefabricating on the spot?
    Mr. Stuart: I am afraid that that would add to the cost.

    Terminated Contracts, Glasgow
    Mr. James McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of private contractors who have failed to implement their contracts with the Glasgow Corporation for the building of houses in that city during the years 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951; and to what extent some form of penalty clause is included in such contracts.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed that 36 housing contracts involving 24 contractors were terminated by the Corporation from 1947 to 1951. No penalty clauses were included in these contracts.
    Mr. McInnes: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these figures illustrate the necessity for the inclusion of penalty clauses in housing contracts. and will he encourage local authorities in Scotland to insist on those clauses being inserted?
    Mr. Stuart: The use of a penalty clause for traditional housing is suggested in Part VI of the Scottish Housing Handbook, issued in December, 1951, and the Corporation have now adapted the Department's model penalty clause for nontraditional contracts.
    Mr. Rankin: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures also show that we cannot depend too much on private enterprise in solving the housing problem?

    Merrylee Scheme
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he is aware that Glasgow Corporation have only received, since January, 1952, 135 applications to purchase houses at Merrylee; and since this leaves a balance of 487 houses, what action is proposed by the local authority to find purchasers;
    (2) how many houses built for sale in the Merrylee scheme, Glasgow, have been completed since November, 1951; and how many have been occupied as at 1st May, 1952.
    Mr. J. Stuart: At 1st May, 146 houses had been completed at Merrylee; 28 had been sold; and the sale of 31 was being negotiated. In addition, there are eligible applicants for 76 more houses. I have asked the Corporation what their plans are for the disposal of the remaining houses.
    Mr. McInnes: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the inability or failure of the local authorities to secure purchasers for these houses is sufficient justification for him to intervene and let the houses to the applicants on the housing waiting lists?
    Mr. Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the houses are not all completed yet, and that, as a result of the meeting, I have written to the Convenor of the Housing Committee. We are watching this matter very carefully. I have no power, of course, to intervene in local authority affairs.
    Mr. McInnes: The right hon. Gentleman has just indicated that there are 146 houses completed. Some of them have been standing unoccupied for over six months, which is criminal in the light of today's housing shortage. Will he therefore intervene and instruct the Glasgow authority to let these houses?
    Mr. Stuart: I will watch the position, but, as I have said, I have no power to order them.

    Old People's Accommodation
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent provision, by conversion and new building respectively, or residential accommodation for old people is curtailed by present building restrictions.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Two projects for extending existing accommodation have been delayed; eight local authorities who have made inquiries about new building have been asked to make further search for suitable existing premises.
    Mr. Ross: Does that mean that no new building at all will be permitted for accommodating old people in Scotland?
    Mr. Stuart: No, Sir, it does not mean that. We have had to delay operations,
    182
    and preference will be given to projects which seem likely to provide satisfactory accommodation most economically.
    Mr. Ross: How long will the delay last?
    Mr. Stuart: It depends upon our ability to overcome the financial difficulties
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of aged and infirm persons in Scotland who are unable to have nursing care and attention through lack of suitable accommodation.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am afraid I have not got comprehensive figures, but if the hon. Member has any particular area in mind I should be glad to make inquiries. Home nursing and domestic help services are, of course, available, under arrangements made by local health authorities, for people in their own homes.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the local authorities in Scotland who are responsible, under Section 3 of the National Health Service Act, for the care and attention of old people, have sent forward to the Scottish Health Department schemes which they intend to operate when the right hon. Gentleman gives them freedom to have building licences which they can utilise to provide accommodation? Would he not, in view of the number of old people in Scotland needing attention, issue building licences, so that these, people may receive the care they need?
    Mr. Stuart: We have to be careful in regard to building licences at the present time. It is not the case that all these people require hospital accommodation; some of them can be looked after in their homes, and that does not require any new building.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I did not deal with hospital accommodation, but with the care of the aged and infirm, responsibility for which is placed firmly on the local authorities by Section 3 of the National Health Service Act?
    Mr. Stuart: New homes have been opened recently, and more are being opened, and I will, of course, encourage that development in any way possible.

    Housing, Fife
    Mr. Hubbardasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision is being made for building community centres in the special housing areas for miners in Fife.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Approval has been given, and grants have been offered, for the erection by the Miners' Welfare Commission of community centres at Oakley and Kennoway in Fife.
    Mr. Hubbardasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the 3,000 Swedish houses allocated to Scotland are to be built in Fife.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Two hundred and fourteen houses were offered to local authorities in Fife, including 72 to Glenrothes Development Corporation. By 3rd May, a total of 88 had been accepted.

    Timber Houses, Edinburgh
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the 3,000 timber houses have been allocated, or offered, to Edinburgh.
    Mr. J. Stuart: One hundred houses have been offered.

    CO-ORDINATING MINISTERS (RESPONSIBILITIES)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a further statement on the responsibilities to Parliament of those Cabinet Ministers who are charged with co-ordinating the work of various Ministries.
    Mr. James Callaghanasked the Prime Minister (1) for what matters the Secretary of State for the Coordination of Transport, Fuel and Power has any responsibility to Parliament;
    (2) in what way the responsibilities of the Lord President of the Council, in his capacity as co-ordinating Minister for Food and Agriculture, differ from those of the Secretary of State for the Coordination of Transport, Fuel and Power.
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister to what extent the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power is responsible to Parliament.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): As I think it would meet the convenience of the House, I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions. May I be permitted to say at this moment that I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) for postponing his Question from yesterday

    ANIMAL DISEASES REGULATIONS (ADMINISTRATION)
    Mr. Robert Boothbyasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to transfer the responsibility for administering the regulations with regard to diseases of animals, so far as Scotland is concerned, from the Minister of Agriculture to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: It is thought more prudent to keep centralised control at this moment.
    Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Secretary of State had similar powers to those of the Government of Northern Ireland he would be able to prohibit the importation of cattle across the Border from England whenever an outbreak of foot and mouth disease was confirmed? If he had had powers to do this, it might have prevented infected cattle from reaching Scotland, which is now regarded by the Dominions and the United States of America as one of the very few clean countries in the world.
    Mr. Thomas Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman not also aware that the chief veterinary officer for the whole of Scotland is in the Secretary of State's office in Edinburgh, and that the scheme has worked well for 15 years without any complaint from hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a torrent of complaints from Scotland at the present time?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure my hon. Friend would be fully capable of giving full vent to any such torrent, but the difficulty is that we are not sure that foot and mouth disease is as well educated on the subject of borders and questions arising out of them as he is.
    Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: Will my right hon. Friend adhere to the policy of single control of this epidemic disease, which has worked well in the past and is working well at present, and will certainly not be helped by splitting up control between contending centres in this country?
    Mr. Archer Baldwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no proof that the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Scotland is due in any way to the importation of cattle from England?
    Mr. Boothby: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to be present when this new red herring is drawn across the Border.

    PAYMASTER-GENERAL (DUTIES)
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Liptonasked the Prime Minister what are the present duties of the Paymaster-General; and to what extent they affect other Government Departments.
    The Prime Minister: The Paymaster-General's duties include those laid upon him by Statute and general duties as a member of the Cabinet. As I stated in my reply of 24th March to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), my noble Friend advises me on atomic energy questions and exercises general supervision over work in this field. In this he works in close collaboration with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, who retains his statutory responsibilities in regard to atomic energy. In addition, my noble Friend assists me in the analysis and interpretation of statistical data.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would the Prime Minister define more precisely the duties of the Paymaster-General? Can he give an assurance that his atomic duties will involve no diminution in the statutory responsibilities of the Minister of Supply—bearing in mind, of course. that the House prefers the evils it knows to the evils it does not know? Second. can the Prime Minister say what proportion of his noble Friend's time is taken
    186
    up with the discharge of his duties as official interpreter of statistics to the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I think it would be very hard to ask me to lay down the exact lines which divide a Minister's work and time between one branch of his duties and another. I have not heard of any such inquiry being made by any Opposition so far. I am bound to say. however, that I attach great importance to the help I receive from my noble Friend Lord Cherwell.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: Regarding atomic energy, would the right hon. Gentleman be so good as to say where the duties of the Paymaster-General end and where the duties of the Minister of Supply begin?
    The Prime Minister: It is difficult to draw an exact line, but the Minister of Supply is responsible for the discharge of his statutory functions. Apart from that, general supervision is exercised by Lord Cherwell. He has continued access to me, and I keep the Cabinet thoroughly informed.
    Mr. Morrison: May we take it that the Paymaster-General is exercising the duties of a co-ordinating and supervising Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I think that in this case "supervising" would be more appropriate than "co-ordinating."
    Mr. Lee: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the noble Lord advises him on the statistics, and the inferences to be drawn from them, in the local council elections?
    The Prime Minister: I receive advice on that aspect from another quarter.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory and still doubtful nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    Disabled Pensioners (Entitlements)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the front cover of the current issue of the "British Legion Journal" has caused disabled men who have read therein the incorrect allegation that they can only

    187
    receive 55s. for 100 per cent. disablement to be unaware of their rights under the new pensions scheme; and whether he will take action to inform all concerned the actual pensions payable.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): Yes, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden) after my statement in the House on 9th April.
    I am particularly anxious that all disabled pensioners should be in no doubt as to the benefits to which they may be entitled. Therefore, when sending disablement pensioners the increases in their pension payments effective from the first pay day in May, I propose to enclose a special leaflet giving up-to-date information about the pensions and supplementary allowances which are available.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that news will be received with great satisfaction and that the country will be very pleased indeed that he is following the line laid down by his predecessors in his present office? Would he not agree that it would be a great advantage in questions of ex-Service pensions if the British Legion were to leave politics entirely out of its consideration of the welfare of its members, and, in particular, if it were to have as its president a non-politician?
    Mr. Amory: The Chairman of the British Legion has seen me and given me an assurance that the British Legion had no intention of misrepresenting the position. I have accepted this assurance, and I am prepared to leave it there for the present.
    Sir Ian Fraser: Is my hon. Friend aware that the British Legion not only disseminates information—and correct information—in a widespread manner about pension matters, but also fights scores of thousands of cases to see that its members get their rights? Is he further aware that the only people who have been misled by British Legion propaganda are a few touchy politicians who are tender because they have not done enough for these men?
    Mr. Amory: I am grateful for the help that many members of the Legion give my Department on many occasions, and
    188
    I am more anxious than I can say that those friendly relations should subsist between us. As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's question, if I feel that misleading statements have been made, then I feel it is my duty to correct them.

    Widows' Pensions
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Pensions whether the pensions of widows of the 1914-18 war are being reviewed in the general consideration now taking place.
    Mr. Amory: As I told the House on 9th April, the standard rate of pension of 35s. payable to widows of both world wars is to be increased to 42s. with effect from the first pay day in May, and comparable widows of officers will receive an increase of £18 a year.
    Mr. Hynd: Is the Minister aware that some widows of the First World War have not been entitled to this increased rate, and will he look at that specially?
    Mr. Amory: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to those widows who are in receipt of what is known as alternative pension. It is true that out of the 99,000 widows of the 1914-18 war about 22,000 are those widows. In general, the alternative rate is higher than the standard rate, but where the new standard rate is to the benefit of the pensioner because it is higher then the pensioner will be automatically switched from the alternative pension to the new rate.

CO-ORDINATING MINISTERS (RESPONSIBILITIES)
At the end of Questions—
The Prime Minister: I will now make my statement in reply to Questions Nos 45, 46, 47 and 48.
Every Departmental Minister is responsible to Parliament for the policy and administration of his Department. This is a fundamental principle in our system of Parliamentary democracy. But it is an equally respectable and necessary principle that Ministers as a body are collectively responsible for Government policy as a whole. This means that a Minister's personal responsibility for his Departmental policy must be exercised in harmony with the views of his Ministerial colleagues.

189
The work of the so-called "co-ordinating Ministers" is an aspect of collective responsibility. In former days all reconciliation of Departmental policies was done in the Cabinet, of which all Departmental Ministers were members, or by the Prime Minister himself. But for many years past Prime Ministers have from time to time entrusted to a senior colleague the duty of keeping a general oversight, on the Cabinet's behalf, over subjects of special importance not falling wholly within the jurisdiction of a single Department of State.
These tasks have usually been assigned to holders of the old offices involving no heavy Departmental duties, notably the offices of Lord President and Lord Privy Seal. An early example of this was the arrangement by which in 1929 Mr. Ramsay Macdonald assigned to Mr. J. H. Thomas, as Lord Privy Seal, a special responsibility for co-ordinating measures for dealing with unemployment.
With the growing complexity of Government business, and the increasing extent to which policies have to be administered jointly by two or more Departments, Prime Ministers have found it increasingly convenient to ask senior Ministers to act in a co-ordinating role. And in recent times this arrangement has been more regularly adopted because, under modern conditions which have called into existence so many new Departments of State, the Cabinet no longer normally includes all Ministers in charge of Departments.
This has led to the development of the system of standing Cabinet Committees, which assist the Cabinet in discharging its collective business and include Departmental Ministers who are not themselves members of the Cabinet. The chairmanship of these standing Committees has normally been assumed by senior Ministers without Departmental duties; and it is mainly in their capacity as Chairmen of these Committees that these Ministers have exercised their co-ordinating functions, subject to Cabinet review. This is a natural evolution in the processes of conducting the collective business of Government, and there is nothing new about it.
During the war the Lord President of the Council, in particular, discharged extensive co-ordinating responsibilities on
190
this basis; and it is well-known that similar arrangements were in force during the period of office of the late Government. The responsibilities assigned under the present Government to Lord Woolton and Lord Leathers carry this development a stage further in one respect, and in one respect only, namely, that the specific area of co-ordination assigned to each of them was publicly announced on his appointment.
Indeed, so far as concerns my. noble Friend, Lord Leathers, it was made explicit in his title. Coal, gas, electricity, oil and transport represent a homogeneous group of subjects which call for co-ordination. Moreover, it includes the basic services which have passed under public ownership under Socialist schemes of nationalisation; and there is clear scope for co-ordination—I am sorry to use that hard-worn word so often—of the Government's relations with the public corporations administering those services. Lord Leathers' co-ordinating functions do not differ, in the constitutional sense, from those of my noble Friend, Lord Woolton.
The co-ordinating Ministers have no statutory powers. They have, in particular, no power to give orders or directions to a Departmental Minister. A Departmental Minister who is invited by a co-ordinating Minister to adjust a Departmental policy to accord with the wider interests of the Government as a whole always has access to the Cabinet; and, if he then finds that he cannot win the support of his Ministerial colleagues, he should accept their decision. No Departmental Minister can, of course, be expected to remain in a Government and carry out policies with which he disagrees.
Thus, the existence and activities of these co-ordinating Ministers do not impair or diminish the responsibility to Parliament of the Departmental Ministers whose policies they co-ordinate. Those Ministers are fully accountable to Parliament for any act of policy or administration within their Departmental jurisdiction. It does not follow that the co-ordinating Ministers are "non-responsible. "Having no statutory powers as co-ordinating Ministers, they perform in that capacity no formal acts. But they share in the collective responsibility of the Government as a whole, and,

191
as Ministers of the Crown, they are accountable to Parliament.
In conclusion, I should perhaps make it clear that the Minister of Defence is not in the same sense a co-ordinating Minister. His appointment was authorised by a Statute—the Ministry of Defence Act, 1946—which defines his powers and duties in general terms. Broadly speaking, his responsibility is to apportion between the three Services the resources—in men, materials and money—which are made available for them all. And, on this apportionment and on all the questions which arise from it, he is directly accountable to Parliament in the same way as any Departmental Minister is responsible for matters within his jurisdiction. But it is the Service Ministers, and not the Minister of Defence, who are responsible to Parliament for the use which each of them makes of his share of those resources and for the administration of the Service under his charge.
Mr. C. R. Attlee: Is it not clear that the difficulty has arisen in the naming of certain Ministers as co-ordinators? As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the Minister of Defence is responsible for a definite sphere of defence, as are the Departmental Ministers who serve under him—
The Prime Minister: A statutory responsibility.
Mr. Attlee: A statutory responsibility —but hitherto the practice of co-ordination, whether through chairmen of committees, or senior Ministers, has always been one which has been kept within the Government circle and not announced in public. The right hon. Gentleman has announced in public that certain Ministers have co-ordinating powers, and that has led to the difficulty of deciding where the responsibilities of one end and those of another begin. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has made it in the least clear who actually makes decisions on policy on such matters as these where they are co-ordinated by other Ministers. Who takes a decision on the transport question?
The Prime Minister: On the general question, I gather that the Leader of the Opposition thinks that all these difficulties would have been smoothed away if,
192
for instance, my noble Friend, Lord Leathers. had been appointed Minister without Portfolio?
Mr. Attlee indicated assent.
The Prime Minister: That, I think, is a much less precise and clear-cut solution than that which I have ventured to place before the House. The other question was on responsibility for transport. I have described quite clearly that all administration of the Transport Department is, of course, under the Minister and he is the prime mover in suggestions of policy. But transport is a much bigger thing than one Department alone. It has become a matter for which the whole Cabinet are responsible, and I am extremely glad that at an early stage in this business I entrusted the general supervision, including initiative in many ways, of this complex matter to my noble Friend. Lord Leathers.
Mr. Attlee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this attempt at over-precision is a source of the difficulty? if we attempt to be precise in laying down the exact responsibility in a Government where there is collective responsibility, we run into difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, excepting certain well-defined cases, such as defence, mention was never made as to what Minister presided over a Cabinet Committee, because Questions should be put to Departmental Ministers and not to senior Ministers, and we do not yet know what the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, does in respect of transport. No one can question him, and we cannot find out what he does; and so far as we can find out, decisions on transport are not taken by him nor by the Minister of Transport, nor by the Cabinet, but by the right hon. Gentleman.
The Prime Minister: If the gravamen of the charge against me is that I have not succeeded in hushing it all up as well as the right hon. Gentleman did, I can bear that with composure. I am of the opinion that one of the greatest things that lie before us at the present time is to try to effect a solution of our transport difficulties over the whole field of road and rail I thought that it would give it greater prominence in the public mind if it was assigned to the sphere of a Minister who had the powers of a Secretary of State, and the rank of a Secretary of State, and

193
who was specifically associated with this effort which, I trust, will eventually be considered not of interest only to one party but to the country as a whole.
Mr. Arthur Henderson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the indiscretion of the Lord President of the Council in another place indicates that he himself is not certain and clear as to his own duties, and would not all this difficulty have been avoided if the Prime Minister had followed the example set in 1936 when, I believe for the first time in this country, a Minister of Co-ordination was appointed, and when the Government of the day specified his duties in a White Paper which was published at the time of his appointment?
The Prime Minister: I hardly know how to accept guidance from the party opposite. The Leader of the Opposition was extolling the advantages of keeping it all vague and blurred, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is calling for a White Paper.
Mr. Henderson: As the Prime Minister is a very old Parliamentarian, we may, I hope, do what he has done himself in the past and ask him if he will not answer my question.
The Prime Minister: I thought I had answered it. I will not pursue the matter too far, or I might cause further differences on the Front Bench opposite.
Mr. George Thomas: I sympathise with the Prime Minister in the constant embarrassment which the speeches of the Lord President of the Council seem to cause him, but will he not say whether his statement this afternoon indicates that Departmental Ministers are not really the masters in their own house, and that the ultimate authority rests with the coordinating Ministers?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has not, I believe, served in any Cabinet so far. [HON. MEMBERS: "He will."] I am glad that is already arranged. If he had, he would realise that no Departmental Minister is entitled to run his own Departmental policy, except in proper deference to and contact with the Cabinet as a whole.
Mr. James Callaghan: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that. although we are not clear what coordinating Ministers are supposed to be
194
answerable to Parliament for, we are at least grateful to him for saying that they are answerable to Parliament? May I ask him whether it is not an astonishing fact that the holder of an ancient office, Lord Woolton, should not be aware in this respect that he is answerable to Parliament, and if he so misunderstands his duties is that not another reason why he should resign?
The Prime Minister: I have the greatest confidence in Lord Woolton. [Interruption.] I am certainly not likely to throw him over because of the hue and cry started on the benches opposite.
Mr. Herbert Morrison: As the Prime Minister has indicated, the case of the late Mr. J. H. Thomas was publicly announced, and he was held responsible to Parliament in respect of the broad policy regarding unemployment. As in the case of Lord Woolton and Lord Leathers their duties were publicly announced, including the implication that they were not only co-ordinating Ministers but, certainly in the case of Lord Leathers and, I think, of Lord Woolton, supervising Ministers, will the Prime Minister clearly tell the House that, as these have been announced as was done in the case of Mr. Thomas, he rejects the statement made by the Lord President in another place to the effect that in this respect he, the noble Lord, was not accountable to Parliament? Will the Prime Minister definitely uphold the doctrine that once it is announced that Ministers are responsible for certain things, it follows that they must accept responsibility to Parliament?
The Prime Minister: I am quite sure that Lord Woolton fully accepts accountability to Parliament. If any misunderstanding arose, it was in no way a challenge to that broad principle which is understood by all. It was in connection. as it were, with technical differences which arose between the co-ordinating functions and the statutory functions of Ministers. There was no intention of any sort or kind of disclaiming full responsibility to the authority of Parliament.
Mr. I. Mikardo: Did the right hon. Gentleman read what Lord Woolton said?
The Prime Minister: I assure the House that that is so. We should not

195
waste our time in plunging into the metaphysical refinements of the exact meaning of particular words in particular places. I am quite ready, as an old Parliamentary hand, to admit that there were some advantages in the hush-hush policy of the party opposite, and no one derives more benefit from it than the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), whose all-pervading influence on all sorts of matters was happily concealed from the public gaze.
Mr. Attlee: Does not the Prime Minister realise that what he calls the hush-hush policy of the Labour Government was precisely the policy followed by him when he was Prime Minister, by which exactly the same rules were laid down with regard to the chairmanship of the Committees and the responsibility of Ministers? It is not a new policy; it has always been the policy. May I ask him one other question? He said he had confidence in Lord Woolton. Was it as Lord President or as organiser of elections? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister: My confidence in Lord Woolton grew up in the days when the Leader of the Opposition and I watched with admiration his conduct of our food supplies during the whole of the war. He had, up till the end of the war, not taken any part in party politics. My confidence in him was not at all diminished when, confronted with the dismal scene which closed our victory, he chose to associate himself with the Conservative Party. [Interruption.]
Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the Prime Minister a question in relation to my second Question on the Order Paper? As he has described to us the functions of Lord Leathers and the important nature of the duties which he carries out, will he tell us what is the difference between them and the very minor role which Lord Woolton says he plays in co-ordinating food and agriculture?
Mr. Cyril Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you appeal for silence so that we can hear the answers?
Mr. Speaker: I have appealed for silence.
The Prime Minister: Will the hon. Gentleman give me his question again?
Mr. Callaghan: My question is this, if I may repeat it for the Prime Minister:
196
he has described to us that Lord Leathers exercises very important functions, but Lord Woolton says that his duties, on the other hand, are of a very minor character. May I ask how the Government reconcile those two things, and may I further ask the Prime Minister—
The Prime Minister: Try one at a time.
Mr. Callaghan: The last is a rhetorical question and will not need an answer.
The Prime Minister: There is no difference in principle between the duties exercised by Lord Leathers and the duties exercised by Lord Woolton, but it is a fact that the amount of work and business which has to be contemplated and advised upon and formulated by the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power covers far wider and more immediately controversial fields than the general adjustments of the relations between food and agriculture, which certainly ought to be the study of someone who is looking at both; and no one could be better chosen than Lord Woolton.
Several Hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Speaker: If the House wishes to pursue this interesting topic, I think hon. Members must arrange another opportunity.
Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. My point of order is based upon Mr. Speaker's duties. Am I correct in understanding that the duties of Mr. Speaker are to protect private Members against changes which may be introduced by the Government or by another place? If so, I want to ask Mr. Speaker whether he does not agree that there is a very dangerous tendency in these developments which are taking place? Will he remember that this is the people's elected Chamber and that the other place is a non-elected Chamber? Has Mr. Speaker taken note of the very serious statements made by the noble Lord in another place, and, if so, does he not feel that they conflict with Mr. Speaker's duties of protecting private Members in this House? Has Mr. Speaker considered this very serious development with regard to its effects upon the people's elected Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: I have thought of all that, and I have not in the least presumed to say that the House should not

197
discuss this matter. All I have done is to say that if a debate is desired on this subject, it would be more convenient and in the best interests of the House if a proper time were arranged for it and if it were not conducted by supplementary questions and answers.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Mr. Speaker knows that I have the greatest respect for him, but we also have certain rights, and I am using one of those rights now. Further to my point of order, may I ask that, if it is arranged that a debate should take place on this subject, Mr. Speaker will be good enough to consider the implications from the point of view of the elected representatives in this House?
Mr. Speaker: I shall take into consideration, as far as I can, all things that are proper for me.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The House will remember that on business last Thursday there was raised the question of time being made available to debate the Motion standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) relating to Mr. Speaker's action on the Closure. It is proposed that the Motion should be moved as first business tomorrow, Wednesday, and it is hoped that the matter will be disposed of in a short time.
The business already announced for tomorrow will follow and, in addition, the Motion to approve the Ships' Stores Charges Order will be moved.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Will the Leader of the House indicate whether at any time he will afford an opportunity for the House to discuss the advisability of the Government appointing a Minister to co-ordinate the work of co-ordinating Ministers?

BROADMOOR INSTITUTION (INQUIRY)
Mr. Crookshank: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make this brief statement. The Government have decided that the recent incident at Broad-moor has raised problems which require further independent inquiry, and the arrangements to this end will be announced to Parliament as soon as possible.
Colonel Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: May I ask two questions? First, has any Minister of the Crown visited Broadmoor in the last 25 years? Has the Minister been there himself, and if not, will he take the earliest opportunity of going there personally to see the condition of the work as it is done there?
Mr. Crookshank: Of course, the phrase "visiting Broadmoor" is liable to misunderstanding, but assuming that what my hon. and gallant Friend means is whether anybody has inspected it, it so happens that I did that six weeks ago myself. [An HON. MEMBER: "You were lucky to get out."] As I also found it within my duty, when I was Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department many years ago, then to inspect it, I have the advantage of being a Minister who has seen it working under the two systems, and I can say that I did not find the change had resulted in any diminution of the precautions previously taken.
Mr. Peter Remnant: I am afraid that I did not hear all my right hon. Friend's statement, but I understood that he said he would appoint an independent inquiry. If that is so, may I express gratitude to him for his quick appreciation of the serious issues involved in this and the decision reached, and inform him that his decision will do a great deal to temper the feelings of the people in that area? We shall await the terms of reference for the inquiry with interest. Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to give an assurance that, in the meantime, every possible step will be taken to prevent escapes and, if escapes. should take place, to give adequate warning to the neighbourhood?
Mr. Crookshank: I cannot prejudge matters which will be investigated, but it was because of the recognition of public anxiety in this matter that the Government decided on a further independent inquiry.
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: As I have a Question down to the Prime Minister for tomorrow about this, does the statement mean that my Question will be out of order, or will it still appear on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: It will still remain on the Order Paper, but the statement today may modify the answer which the hon. and gallant Gentleman will receive.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 30th April].
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  FINANCE BILL

    Clause 2.—(CLASSIFICATION OF ENTERTAINMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY, AND RATES OF DUTY.)
    4.0 p.m.
    The Chairman: The first Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 25, like the first Amendment to Clause 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), and the Amendments related to it are unduly wide, but do not quite amount to negativing the Clause. I shall, therefore, call the first Amendment on the understanding that when we reach the seven Amendments designed to make execptions, I shall take the widest of them, which stands in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), for a Division only, if that is desired. I respectfully remind the Committee that, under Standing Order No. 45, the Chairman may put forthwith the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," if he is of the opinion that the principle of the Clause has been adequately discussed.
    Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: We are glad that you are calling the first Amendment and the consequential Amendments that go with it, Sir Charles, and I do not think my hon. Friends would object to discussing together the various Amendments which come a little later on and which are designed to make exceptions in a number of cases; but is it not rather unusual to make the condition of selection of a particular Amendment that we shall only divide on some other Amendment? I should have thought that that was rare. I do not recall ever having been confronted before with a decision of the Chairman to that effect, and I must say that we would wish to preserve our right to divide, if we think necessary, on these other Amendments.
    The Chairman: I selected the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, because there are, I think, seven Amendments dealing with cricket, football and other sports and I thought
    200
    that, as there is one which covers the lot, it would be in order on the first Amendment to discuss all these different things and then have a Division on the hon. Member's wide Amendment. I thought that might be for the convenience of the Committee.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think there is any difficulty about the discussion, and I quite agree that the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) is wider than some of the other Amendments, but nevertheless we feel that we must have the right to divide on these other Amendments even if they are discussed together.
    The Chairman: It is not a question of rights, I have the power of selection.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I understood you to say, Sir Charles, that, although the first Amendment was, in your view, rather wide, nevertheless it did not amount to negativing the Clause, and therefore you were prepared to call it.
    The Chairman: I was not referring to the seven Amendments at all, but to the first Amendment and those in page 2, line 26; line 28; line 32; and in page 3, lines 1, 5 and 6, in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. The seven that I referred to were those about football, which number four in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu); there is the wide Amendment in the name of hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, and there are the other two including one on cricket and one on a number of other games. I thought that if we divided on the one which covered the lot, that was an adequate selection on my part. For instance, there are three on football, and I am not prepared to say which is the one which would be most suitable for selection.
    Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Am I quite clear in understanding that you propose calling the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell); that the debate will be on the subjects raised in the various other Amendments; and that later on you are going to call the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith)?
    The Chairman: That is the case, but before I get to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, there is one in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) about Entertainments Duty on cinemas. I shall call that Amendment, and I shall also call the one in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) dealing with amateurs who play games. These Amendments will both be called and can be divided on if the Committee so desires before we come to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: It is quite clear, Sir Charles, that you propose to allow a discussion on the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), as well as a Division?
    The Chairman: Certainly, that is covered in the first group. I though the one in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, was the one which I ought to call. It is almost in the same wording as, although a little wider than, that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The first Amendment standing in my name is designed to reduce the tax from the middle to the lower grade and applies to sports, games and racing. You are agreed, Sir Charles, that that is a clear and distinct issue and is worthy of discussion. I do not think it can be said to amount to negativing the Clause. But the later Amendments are different. As I understand it, the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), is designed to reduce the tax in the case of games and other sports, but not racing. That is quite distinct. I quite agree that the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), are embraced in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, but are quite different from the Amendments standing in my name.
    The Chairman: Yes, I think that will get over the difficulty.
    Mr. Gaitskell: We are clear about the discussion, but I still feel a great difficulty about the matter of the Division. If you will agree, Sir Charles, perhaps we can proceed to the first Amendment and consider the matter a little later, on the understanding that we shall have a discussion on these other matters as to what is to be done about dividing. On the issues of cricket, football and so on, there is a strong feeling in the Committee. A number of my hon. Friends have a great personal interest in these matters, and it is a little hard to expect them here and now to agree that they will not divide the Committee. We do not know what answer we shall get from the Government, and we cannot make up our minds until we hear.
    The Chairman: The hon. Members who have put down the seven Amendments to which I have referred will quite easily catch my eye.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: May I put a point to you, Sir Charles, with a view to clarifying the position? Your suggestion that we should have a discussion which would cover the whole field would be for the maximum benefit of the Committee, but, of course, in the event either of the Amendment down in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) or the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) being carried, then, of course, there would be no need to trouble the Committee with any of the specific Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu).
    In the possible event of both the first and second Amendments being negatived, it would be desirable to give the Committee an opportunity, if it so wants, of dividing on the specific question of whether the duty on, for example, cricket or football or other individual games be reduced from the second category to the lowest category. Therefore, we are asking you to enable us to have a general discussion, and we wish to reserve the right, if it is found necessary, to divide on some of these specific items.
    The Chairman: The difficulty I am in is this: the Chair is given the power to select Amendments in order to produce

    203
    the best debate. If we are to debate the various merits of Rugby League and Rugby Union football as compared with Association football, I ought to select all the Amendments dealing with those points. I therefore have selected the one which I think covers them all. I thought that course would meet the case. With regard to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, the reply is that if the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) is carried, all the others will be consequential, and the point he raised will not arise.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Am I to understand that you are not selecting the Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu)?
    The Chairman: That is my intention. Out of that group I am selecting one that covers them all, namely, the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South.
    Mr. I. Mikardo: Some hon. Members may take the view that the tax should remain as it is in the Bill on all sports, and other hon. Members that it should be lowered on all sports. There may be a third group who, while supporting the general idea of raising the tax, think that one particular sport has a special case for consideration. If we pursue the course that you are suggesting, Sir Charles, it will be impossible for a Member taking that view to record his opinion in the Division Lobby and to vote for a higher or a lower tax on a particular sport.
    The Chairman: That is quite true, but one can think of scores of examples of that sort, and if a Division is to be allowed on every conceivable game, there will be no end to the matter. I have come to my decision after a good deal of thought, and I hope I have done what will be best for the Committee to enable them to have a good debate.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 2, line 25, to leave out "three," and to insert "two."
    I should like also to move the Amendment in page 2, line 26, to leave out
    204
    "lowest," and to insert "lower," and the Amendment, in page 2, line 32, after "applicable," to insert:
    "in the case of any entertainment which consists of or includes racing, games or other sports and."
    I should like to move also two further Amendments: in page 3, line 1, to leave out "third," and to insert "higher," and in page 3, line 5, at the end, to insert:
    "and in the case of any other entertainment not falling within subsection (2)."
    As you have appreciated, Sir Charles—
    The Chairman: And the next Amendment, too.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged, Sir Charles. I should like to move also the next one, in page 3, line 6, to leave out subsection (4). For the sake of completeness, might I add one other consequential Amendment which is linked with this series? It is, in page 71, line 2, to leave out Schedule 1, and it is a consequence of the series of Amendments which I have mentioned.
    As you have appreciated, Sir Charles, these Amendments are designed to secure a reduction in the proposed rate of Entertainments Duty on all sports and games. They do not in any way conflict with the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien), which deals with the Entertainments Duty on cinemas, an entirely different issue.
    You will remember that since about 1935 we have had two differential rates of Entertainments Duty, although the actual rates have varied from time to time. Since 1935, the principle has been recognised of a reduced rate of duty for live shows such as theatres, concerts, ballets and so forth. It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who, in 1946, extended the scope of the reduced rate of duty so as to cover all games and sports. He did so for two purposes, first in order to give a much-needed relief to those interested in football, cricket, boxing, athletics, tennis, swimming and so forth, to enable sports clubs to recover from the effects of the war and to improve their facilities; secondly, he made the change in the general interest of the public because it was thought that to encourage outdoor sport was a good and healthy thing to do.

    205
    Two years later, Sir Stafford Cripps carried the matter a stage further when he removed the Entertainments Duty on all admissions up to 1s. in respect of music halls, theatres, sports and games. Last year, when we were considering the Entertainments Duty, there was considerable agitation for a reduction of duty in the case of speedway racing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, introducing his Budget, indicated that he had been influenced by the necessity of reducing the rate of duty on speedway racing.
    We do not object to that at all or to the reduction that the right hon. Gentleman made in his Budget. What we object to is the method by which he has done it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was a little less than ingenuous with the Committee when, after announcing his intention to introduce an intermediate scale of Entertainments Duty between the highest scale, applicable to cinemas, and the lowest scale, applicable to theatres, music halls, ballets and so forth, for the benefit of speedway and other races, he said:
    "I am afraid it means, of course, that sports, such as football and cricket, which are now on the lower scale and have been getting it for some time, will have to cost a bit more."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11 th March, 1952: Vol. 497, c. 1295.]
    We now find that in fact they will have to cost a great deal more. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us, in answer to a Question yesterday, the precise effect of the changes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes. We find that the effect of reducing the present rate of Entertainments Duty on racing—that is, horse racing, dog racing and speedway racing—will cost the Exchequer £1.6 million in a full year, and that almost precisely the same sum, in fact £1½ million, will be the additional amount recovered by the Chancellor from cricket, football and other sports.
    In other words, the Chancellor is reducing the rate of Entertainments Duty on horse racing, dog racing and speedway racing at a cost to the Revenue of approximately £1½ million a year, and is recouping almost precisely the same sum by imposing additional, extra rates of Entertainments Duty on cricket, football, tennis, swimming, boxing and athletics. We think that step is entirely unjustified. It is a retrograde step to
    206
    penalise such sports as football, cricket. swimming and boxing in the interests of horse racing and dog racing and speedway racing. We have no objection to the reductions made, but it is quite indefensible to pay for them by imposing these higher charges on healthy outdoor games such as cricket and football.
    Particularly so is this the case when it is remembered how seriously some of these games are suffering now. In the case of football, one finds that under the proposed arrangements of the Chancellor no less than £700,000 a year will be charged on football clubs next year. The result on the public will be that the present minimum charge of 1s. 6d. will have to be increased either to 1s. 9d. or even to 2s. As the Chancellor is probably aware, there has for a long time been a rule among all clubs forming part of the Football League that they must all make the same minimum charge for admission to the lowest priced seats in the ground.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Would my hon. Friend allow me to point out that he mentioned that the charge under these proposed arrangements is £700,000. That is an extra charge. The total is £1,100,000.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. The result, of the proposals in the Bill would be to impose on football clubs alone an extra charge of £700,000 a year.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): May I point out, to make it quite clear, that it is not the clubs who will suffer so much because, if the hon. Gentleman looks into the figures, he will see that the clubs may make a little out of it. It is a question of what they charge the spectators.
    Mr. Fletcher: I think the Chancellor will agree that it can be put in a way acceptable to us both if I say that the result of his proposals will be that from football clubs and from those who attend football matches there will be exacted in a full year by way of Entertainment Duty an additional revenue of £700,000. Of course, the precise effect on the clubs and on the public who attend football matches may vary. One effect of the increased rate of duty, and the increased price of admission which will flow from that, will be that gates may fall. In a number of

    207
    cases they certainly will fall. One thing is certain, that whereas at the moment if the public pay 1s. 6d. as the minimum price of admission to a football match, the tax is 1d. In future it will be 2½d. Therefore, it is inevitable that the price of admission will have to be raised.
    In the case of cricket, the position is even more serious. As hon. Members are aware, many county cricket clubs are in serious financial straits. I do not propose to give the detailed figures of any county cricket club or football club. There are a number of hon. Members who are interested in specific clubs and have allegiance to certain localities. Perhaps I ought to have disclosed the fact that, as the Member for East Islington, I take a pardonable pride in the achievements of the Arsenal, who put up such a very gallant fight on Saturday.
    Returning to cricket, some county cricket clubs during the last year or two have already had to increase their standard admission charge from 1s. 6d. to 2s., and they feel that any further increase as a result of this increased Entertainments Duty cannot be made without risking a lack of support, with the result that they will have to face increased losses. The position in regard to cricket is very serious indeed. I hope we may take it from an answer which the Chancellor gave two or three days ago to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) that he is not unsympathetic to the special claims of cricket. And now that the Prime Minister is taking such an interest in football, I hope he will not be unsympathetic to its special claims.
    I have moved this Amendment, not in the interests of any one game or sport, but in the interests of all outdoor activities, because it is deplorable that they should be penalised in this way to provide the additional revenue required by the Chancellor. The Romans subsidised public games. I am not advocating that policy, but the Chancellor is going to the other extreme of penalising sport and making it much more difficult for clubs to carry on. There is a happy mean, and that is the mean for which all the credit goes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland. He recognised the principle in 1946 that all outdoor games should be placed, as
    208
    regards Entertainments Duty, on the same rate as theatres and music-halls.
    Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: On a point of order, Sir Charles. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), as I understood him, claimed to move more than one Amendment at the opening of his speech. I hope we are clear that it would be quite out of order to move more than one Amendment at a time, even though the discussion is allowed to range over several.
    The Chairman: Only one Amendment can be moved at a time, but this one is linked with another five or six Amendments, and the discussion covers them all.
    Sir L. Ropner: Then I am right in supposing, Sir Charles, that you are not allowing the hon. Member for Islington, East, to move half a dozen Amendments at one time?
    The Chairman: Nobody could do that, even if he wanted to do so.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: I want to support what was said by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) about the grave result that this increased Entertainments Duty would have on our national games and pastimes. Like the hon. Member I speak on behalf of all games and pastimes which will be severely hit, but I shall confine my remarks to two or three of our national games. I hope to give such evidence as will convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer that our statements are founded on good cause.
    At the end of March the Rugby Football Union Committee, at a meeting at which I was present, passed the following resolution and sent it to the Chancellor:
    "The Committee of the Rugby Football Union draws the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the grave and harmful effects of the proposed increase in entertainment tax on Rugby Union Football which is a purely amateur game run entirely for the youth of the country. In view of the harmful effects it urges the Chancellor to withdraw the tax proposals."
    The Union's letter went on to state that there were 1,400 county unions, clubs and schools in membership with the Rugby Football Union, and, of course, there are many others as well not in membership. The letter said that except for a small staff at Twickenham adminis-

    209
    tration is carried out by voluntary workers. The Committee claim that the work done is a valuable national asset and is in accordance with Government policy of training youth at a vital age.
    4.30 p.m.
    What effect will this increased Entertainments Duty have on Rugby Union football? Take the Rugby Union itself. In a normal year practically the whole of the revenue comes from two international matches. The Entertainments Duty before this Finance Bill was introduced amounted to £4,000 on each match. With this increased duty that will be doubled. That is to say, in the normal season the Rugby Union will pay £16,000 in entertainments tax.
    Between the wars the Rugby Union was able to equip the ground at Twickenham and lend something like £80,000 to other clubs to help them buy their own grounds, at a nominal rate of interest. But before this Finance Bill was introduced that state of affairs had passed. Two years ago the Rugby Union increased the price of their tickets by 50 per cent.; otherwise, they would have made an operational loss. In spite of this increase in the price of tickets two years ago, the new Entertainments Duty, if it is implemented, will mean, so far as I can see, that there will be an operational loss in the normal year.
    That means that the Rugby Union will have to call in the loans from their clubs. It was said some time ago that no more financial help can be given to clubs. So it will be seen that the past valuable help can no longer be given, but reserves will have to be drawn on. I suggest that that is an unhealthy and undesirable state of affairs. That is the position with regard to the national body.
    May I give an example to the Committee which illustrates generally the position of most first-class Rugby Union football clubs? Take my own club, the Harlequins. For the last two or three years they have had successful playing seasons. Between the wars they were able to build up assets and buy their own ground for their reserve teams. Generally, they make a profit of a few hundred pounds in one year and a loss of a few hundred pounds in another year, owing to the incidence of home fixtures.
    Last year they made a profit of £400, and this year they made a loss of £500
    210
    in spite of the increase in the price of admission by 50 per cent. With this new Entertainments Duty that surplus will go and losses will be increased; the club will simply not be able to carry on in the years to come. I think that illustrates the sort of position in which many other first-class Rugby Union clubs find themselves. I apologise for giving these details, but I do want to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that what we are asking him to do is based on solid fact.
    Let me turn to cricket. I am privileged to have in my constituency the headquarters of the M.C.C., at Lords. What is the position of the M.C.C.? I have here, sent to me as a member of the M.C.C., the annual report. They hold their annual general meeting tomorrow. If that report is studied it will be found that in 1950 there was a loss of £2,637 and that last year there was a loss of £1,250. If the proposed new Entertainments Duty had been in force in those years, there would have been an additional £5,000 of tax to be paid, making a loss of £7,600 in 1950 and a loss of £6,250 last year.
    Over the weekend the Secretary of the M.C.C., Colonel Rait Kerr, told me that if this Entertainments Duty is maintained, in the next 10 years the M.C.C. will have ceased to exist. He stressed upon me the gravity of the situation. Take the Middlesex County Cricket Club. I have here a letter from the President of that Club, and this is typical of the kind of letters which I am sure all hon. Members have had from their county cricket associations.
    The letter says:
    "Our finances are such, and for that matter all first-class county cricket clubs are much the same, that this added burden cannot be met from our present resources, with the result that we shall be forced, to avoid a very serious loss, to pass the tax on to the spectator by increasing our admission charges. I would emphasise that the attendances to our county championship matches at Lords during 1951 show a decrease of over 28 per cent. on the attendances in 1947.
    By increasing the admission charge, my Committee consider there is a grave risk of further reducing attendances and county cricket clubs, already labouring under financial hardships, would therefore be faced with extreme difficulties. It might well result in the Treasury receiving less revenue than it has been getting from cricket in recent years."

    211
    I should like to stress that, because in the answer that the Financial Secretary gave me in reply to a letter which I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he suggested that the increase in this taxation should be passed on. I want to try to remove that misapprehension from the minds of the Treasury. It cannot be passed on without breaking up our national games and sports on the one hand and, I regret to say, giving a reduced income to the Treasury on the other.
    I have here figures for the Middlesex County Cricket Club which show that instead of a surplus of £1,600 of a year or two ago, there would be a loss. I have an estimated loss this year of £100, and with the new Entertainments Duty it is estimated that that loss would be increased by another £1,520. I have also been acquainted of the position of the Glamorgan County Cricket Club, to which, no doubt, attention will be directed by other hon. Members. Here again, in the last three years, small surpluses were made, but in each case if this new Entertainments Duty had been in operation there would have been substantial losses which would have been greatly increased because the county cricket clubs benefit from overseas tours and the surplus from these overseas tours given to county cricket would have been far less.
    The Secretary of the M.C.C. told me that there was less and less surplus coming from these overseas tours because of increased costs, and that with this proposed increase in the Entertainments Duty he foresaw that it might be impossible for overseas tours to take place. In the face of this evidence, which, I know, can be corroborated in all quarters of the Committee, I beg the Chancellor to revise—I do not care how—his views on the idea that this extra Entertainments Duty can be borne by our national games, sports and pastimes.
    I say to him: if you want to break them up, then charge this Entertainments Duty. If you think that it is a good thing for this country to have our great national games and pastimes in a flourishing condition, then give them an opportunity to struggle on, for it is a hard enough struggle as it is now, without any additional Entertainments Duty.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) and Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) have authorised me to speak on their behalf. I wish to make an appeal to the Chancellor, whom I am pleased to see sitting on the Treasury Bench. I should like him to listen to the facts and the evidence which we shall produce, and if he cannot accept the Amendment I hope that he will be good enough to consider our case. In that event he might prepare a manuscript Amendment which would enable him to go as far as he thinks he could; or he might consider some other course, because our case is a very strong one.
    It is 21 years ago since I first stood for election to this House. My wife and I still live in the same house as we then did and we still move among the same people. As a result of that we claim to be as closely in touch with the people as it is possible to be. I can assure the Chancellor that there is great indignation about the imposition of this increased tax among those who are rendering such service to our country and have such a great record. For 14 years the people in this country have had full employment, they have worked night and day and have worked as never before, particularly in some industrial areas, where they have not only worked hard but fast.
    As a result of that, people are more in need of relaxation today than ever. They need the sun's rays, fresh air and a change from the monotony of modern industrial production. That explains why they are more and more going on Saturday afternoons and evenings towards local sports, particularly football and cricket. The narrow-minded are constantly indulging in criticism because our people are going in ever-increasing numbers to these sport centres. That trend is understandable when one knows the daily lives of the people. They need relaxation and change from the daily monotony.
    Further, industrial managements are the first to admit that this gives the people something to which to look forward and something upon which to look back. Therefore, from a production point of view, it is a good business proposition that our people should have relaxation of this character. In the great industrial areas to which some of us belong, there

    213
    are 20,000 and more people employed in one establishment—80,000 are employed in Trafford Park—and these are the centres of great discussion as to the merits of one team and another.
    The virility which expresses itself on the football grounds on Saturday afternoons in winter and on the cricket grounds in summer finds expression in the relationships in these factories. It finds expression among those attending Association football and Rugby. I am not very interested in Rugby myself but, nevertheless, I believe in giving the facts and not speaking solely from an individual point of view. The same applies to cricket, both on county and club grounds.
    If the Chancellor or anyone else in any part of the Committee is not inclined to accept my reasoning, all I ask them to do is to consult the managements. I have no doubt what the reply of the workers would be, whether they attend those sports or not. Those who do not believe me I would request only to ask the police. Go into any large industrial area and consult the police about the very good work done by these sports organisations in such areas.
    4.45 p.m.
    I wish to avoid being provocative in this matter, but I say that this is increased taxation upon the workers of this country. First, there is the increased admission charge which will have to be made. One has only to make an analysis of the balance sheets of clubs to see the necessity for that. Second, the men and women travelling to the sports centres are already seriously concerned about the increased fares which they are having to pay. The cumulative effect of all this is very serious.
    Some hon. Members who may not accept my reasoning may say, "A game in which payments of £30,000 or £35,000 can be made as the transfer fee for a single player can easily afford to pay this tax." That is an understandable argument on the face of it, but when one comes to make a close analysis of the matter criticism of that character cannot be upheld. Such a transaction happens only in a very few cases. It has created great concern in the sport itself and everything possible is being done to discourage it, but it is not an easy matter to deal with. During the season of 1948-49 transfers totalled only 547 and only a few were made at a figure of more than £10,000.
    214
    That it is big news for the big daily newspapers, who make so much of that kind of thing.
    It is not well known that the Football Association rules fix a maximum dividend of 7½ per cent. before tax, and that all other income is used in the game. Some clubs have not paid a dividend for years. A report of P.E.P. for 1951 stated that the clubs of the Third Division have to follow a hand-to-mouth policy of struggling for existence year after year. [Interruption.] I am reminded that Port Vale are in that position.
    I know many of the players engaged in football and cricket. In the main they are a very fine body of young men who are doing great service. They are as good as ever previous generations of players were. There is a tendency for those who are growing grey to say, "The younger ones are not so good as we were." In my view they are in this case better than ever and deserve the support of this Committee. Most of them are rightly concerned about their future. It is time they were given more satisfaction about the future of their relationship with others.
    Instead of the Government placing an increased imposition on these games they should be considering the great service which these sports are rendering to the country. Those were the ideas of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and the late Sir Stafford Cripps when they were responsible for our finance. I am sorry that the Chancellor has gone out of the Chamber. I am not being critical—I know his responsibilities—but I hope that a note will be taken of what I am about to say. I very much doubt whether the Chancellor realised, when he introduced his Budget, the serious increase in the tax which is involved. Could a note be taken of those words so that he could consider them?
    I believe in playing the game in personal relationships, or I could go further than that. I have found in life that once one breaks confidence with other people one destroys the possibility of any future confidence. At the same time, I think I am justified in going as far as I have done. The whole tax paid in the seasons 1950 and 1951 average £400,000 in respect of Association Football alone. If this increased tax is applied it will mean

    215
    £1 million being paid—an increase in taxation of £600,000. Can that increase be justified? Will anyone stand at the Despatch Box and justify an increase in tax of that character?
    Last season, the country's finest football team—[HON. MEMBERS: "Newcastle."]—which is now earning a large dollar income for us—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the team?"]—Manchester United—paid £9,703. If the additional tax is imposed, they would pay £28,900. But in addition to that, as a result of having been in a great air raid in a large industrial centre—this is where the industrial centres are suffering—the total capacity of their ground is only 55,000, whereas before the war it was 75,000; and because of their success, they could now be catering for crowds of at least 100,000. This shows the seriousness of their position.
    Another team—Stoke City—this season paid £5,536 in taxation. Next year, as a result of remaining in the First Division, they will pay £15,225 under the new proposals. I have a few more interesting figures. I shall not give them all, but anyone who is sufficiently interested may see the list. In 1951, Arsenal Football Club paid £16,000 in taxation.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: And £800.
    Mr. Smith: I am not concerned about the odd hundreds of pounds; I want to be as quick as I can.
    In the present season Arsenal paid £16,000. Next season, if the Chancellor does not withdraw his proposal, they will pay £46,000. Bolton Wanderers paid £8,000, but with the additional tax next season they will pay £22,000. Burnley paid £5,000 last season. If the extra tax is persisted in, they will next season pay £24,000. Tottenham Hotspur paid £13,000 during the past season. Next year, if the further tax is insisted upon, they will pay £45,000. If any hon. Member wants the figures for his own team, I have the list.
    Let me read a letter which I have received from the Secretary of the Stoke City Football Club:
    "No doubt you will recollect that one of the conditions made by the Chancellor of the late Government when the former concession on account of 'live entertainment' was made to football clubs, was that a reasonable proportion of the ground should be available at
    216
    the then current minimum admission price of 1s. 3d. so that the public got the benefit of the reduction, and this condition was faithfully observed by this club, and incidentally, we are given to understand, by all clubs."
    I make just that point from a long letter, because it is a very good point.
    Mr. R. J. Mellish: My hon. Friend is making a very good case for First Division clubs, but would he not agree that there is a special case to be made for Third Division clubs, by reason, for example, of their smaller attendances and smaller grounds?
    Mr. Smith: I know that my hon. Friend is a great supporter of Millwall, and I can safely leave them in his hands, as I can leave other clubs to other Members who speak for their own areas. I hope we shall not make this a party matter, because so much is involved, and no one would be more delighted than I, Sir Charles, if all Members who can possibly do so are able to catch your eye so that we can put the matter properly before the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary with all the weight we can.
    Here are two brief extracts from a letter from the Manchester United Football Club:
    "You will no doubt agree this is a heavy burden to place on football clubs' supporters"—
    the burden, it will be seen, is on the supporters, the bulk of whom are the workers—the industrial workers, those who are saving this country—and management, who are playing their part.
    Mr. Osborne: That is typical of the hon. Member. He says "all the workers" and then, as a kind of second thought, "and the management."
    Mr. Smith: The only difference between the hon. Member and me is that I have been brought up in industry, not with a few hundred employees, but with 25,000 of them. Therefore, one is brought up to speak like that.
    The letter continues:
    "… so far as the lesser clubs are concerned, it may stop them"—
    that is, their supporters—
    "supporting their clubs, with disastrous results to those concerned."
    This letter is from one of the most prosperous clubs—or they would be one of the most prosperous if they could get

    217
    a licence to rebuild their ground, as it should be rebuilt. They go on to say:
    "You will probably recall that the Chancellor made a favourable decision in 1946"—
    I shall be excused, I hope, from remarking that it was a Labour Chancellor—
    "which classed football as live entertainment, and while one of the conditions made by him when the former concession was granted was, that a reasonable proportion of all grounds should be available at the then current minimum admission price of ls. 3d., so that the public got the benefit of the reduction, and this condition was faithfully observed by all League clubs, but the withdrawal of this decision brings the new rates of tax closely approximate to those in operation in 1943.
    From inquiries made we are of the opinion that clubs will have to give serious consideration not only to increases in prices of admission but also to reduction in certain of the cheaper accommodation to offset any possible fall in attendances."
    What I have said applies equally to Old Trafford, where the cricket is held, but because I know that other of my hon. Friends will concentrate on that aspect, I shall leave it to them.
    I intended to speak rather strongly, but I do not want to say one word that would create any difficulties. I have stated our case as reasonably as possible. I have confined myself to facts and figures, and I have quoted documents which have been sent to us. I hope that they will carry some weight with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that if he cannot accept the Amendment, he will produce a manuscript Amendment of his own, so that this imposition will not be as great as is proposed.
    Mr. Christopher Hollis: I join with other hon. Members in asking my right hon. Friend whether he can possibly look at this matter again. The particular Amendment to which my name and that of some of my hon. Friends is attached, in page 2, line 45, at the end, to insert—
    "(j) a cricket match."
    —is concerned solely with cricket. I appreciate, however, that we are discussing a wider Amendment, and for my own part I have no kind of hostility to the cause of other games.
    One of the reasons why I put down an Amendment concerned solely with cricket was because by a rare chance the case of cricket provided an opportunity for purely philosophical contemplation
    218
    which rarely occurs in a Finance Bill, and for this reason: The tax, as we know, comes on only on 31st August. Therefore, it is more or less a purely philosophic proposition for the moment, in this Bill and in this financial year, as regards what may be its effect on cricket.
    I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has meditated on the fact that, under the Bill, almost the only cricket fixture to have to pay the cricket tax is the Kingston-upon-Thames Festival, which takes place after 31st August. However, I do not want to cover again the ground which has been covered very well by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). I, too, have received a large number of letters, and I certainly do not want to be guilty of the vice of tedious repetition. We can take it that the case that the proposals in the Bill would deliver a very serious blow at the clubs engaged in these sports has been made out. That cannot seriously be denied.
    5.0 p.m.
    I do not like the principle of a tax on entertainment, because it is not, as other taxes are, a tax on profit or on income. It is a tax on receipts, which seems to me a very unfair form of taxation. It was put on as a temporary tax in the 1914-18 War, when none of these first-class sports were at that moment going on, so in the first instance it was never envisaged that it should apply to things of this sort at all.
    An attempt was very reasonably made to see whether a distinction could be drawn between different sorts of sports, and a distinction was drawn between what are considered live sports and what are not considered live sports. I raise no objection to the fact that those interested in speedway racing and such-like sports have now won their victory, in the sense that they have had their tax reduced. I certainly do not wish those interested in these activities anything but good fortune. Nevertheless, one of the things which I hope may emerge out of this debate is the recognition of two sorts of sports in this country, and what we have to think about is whether we can find some formula to give it legislative expression.

    219
    Everybody knows that there are some sports which do not form an integral part of our national life in the way in which cricket and football do. It may be that the phrase "live sport" is not a very happy phrase, and I am inclined to think that there was great force in the argument against it during the Finance Act debates last year. We must try to think whether there is a way of differentiating between sports which are a part of our national life and sports which are not. I see that the other day my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General complained that most of the British public turned to the sporting news in their daily paper before reading the political speeches. I must say it never occurred to me in the whole of my life to do anything else but that, so if that should be so I certainly belong to the great majority.
    I do not claim that cricket is the only sport which is an integral part of our national life, but I do claim that it is at any rate one of the sports which nobody could deny comes into that category. A distinction which I think it fair to keep in mind is the difference between sports which form a normal part of English education and those which do not, and it would not be ungenerous to say that it would be a great calamity if any of the sports which form a normal part of English education were driven out of existence. Therefore, if my right hon. Friend can say that he will reconsider the whole of this Clause I shall be delighted. If he does not feel able to go that far, I plead that there is a special case for considering cricket, for a number of reasons.
    The receipts to the Treasury from this tax upon cricket are quite trivial. About £40,000 out of £1 million came from cricket, and with this new tax £70,000 would be added—if the result of imposing it were not to frighten people away from the gates, although I think it would have that result. The amount of money the Chancellor gets out of the tax on cricket is, therefore, trivial. Indeed, it takes about three afternoons of football a year to take as much at the gate as in the whole of the first-class cricket season. There is no comparison between them. It may be argued that, if the public cares so little about cricket as all that why seek to defend it?
    220
    I do not think anybody would deny that, whatever the reasons, the influence of cricket is great, because of its literary appeal, and because of those who are able to make themselves national figures in a way not possible to those who take part in any other sport. It is a peculiarity of cricket that it occupies a place in our national life wholly beyond that which is reflected in the financial receipts from those who go to look at it. W. G. Grace is a national figure in a way that people in other sports are not. For that reason I think it is deserving of special consideration.
    It is also deserving of special consideration for the quite other reason that its finances are dependent on the weather to a unique extent. When the increased tax was imposed in 1944 Lord Waverley, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, had the power at that time to exempt from tax any national activities which were in need of revival. The M.C.C. spokesman pleaded that cricket should be allowed to take advantage of that escape clause, but Lord Waverley replied that he was unaware that cricket was a pastime which required revival. Well, there have been eight years of test matches since then, and I do not think that anybody who examines the struggle, both financial and athletic, which English cricket is having at the moment can deny the need for revival.
    County cricket, which is such an important part of our national life, is in serious and most desperate straits at the moment, quite apart from the Entertainments Duty. Doubtless, because my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) has retired from county cricket, and for other similar reasons, gates are not what they used to be. There are all sorts of other things wrong with cricket besides the entrance fees. Yet, there are only about three first-class clubs which pay their way in any sort of real sense. The rest are dependent upon their share of test match receipts—and there is reason to think that test match receipts will go down. Nor is a cricket club a profit-making concern, because such money as they can save is spent almost entirely for the purpose of trying to encourage the game among youngsters.
    I ask my right hon. Friend to believe that we are face to face with a very serious situation, in which there is grave danger

    221
    that one of the most important of our recreational activities is being driven out of existence by a measure which will bring into the Treasury no money worth talking about, and I appeal to him to reconsider this.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalien: Although the Committee is by now pretty well swamped with figures about individual sports, I am afraid that I must add a little bit to that swamping by referring to a sport not yet mentioned, the fascinating game of Rugby League football. It is a game which, unhappily, is not very well known in the South, but which is a very important game in the part of the world into which I was born. The conditions which, we have heard, apply to cricket, Rugby Union and Association football apply equally forcibly to Rugby League football, in which the gates are falling steadily, and have been for the past three years, and in which during the past season no fewer than 11 out of 24 clubs actually made a loss. With the exception of three, including my own club in Huddersfield, the whole lot will make a loss if this tax is imposed.
    I wish now to deal with the general principle underlying the Entertainments Duty.
    The speech of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis)—and I always listen to him on this subject with the greatest interest—illustrated one of the difficulties we always run against when we are trying to discriminate between one kind of enjoyment and another. The hon. Member for Devizes tried to say that the demarcation line would be to choose those sports which were an integral part of our national life. But he was rash enough to give examples of sports which in his opinion were not an integral part of our national life, and he mentioned speedway. If he will come to the West Riding of Yorkshire, where of course cricket is still the predominating game, there he will find a passion for speedway which makes it, at least to a very large number of people, an integral part of their national life.
    Mr. Hollis: I would love to come to Huddersfield with the hon. Member, but there is enough speedway in my own constituency to make it unnecessary for me to come. My point was with regard to the integral part of our educational life.
    222
    I have nothing against speedway, I was merely trying to make a formula.
    Mr. Mallalieu: I do not think the hon. Member meant the educational life of the nation; all he meant was an integral part of his own life. My point is that we cannot set an absolute standard and have a proper demarcation line which has any logic or principle about it.
    If we take a look at Clause 2 of the Bill, which was devised by the Chancellor himself, so far as I can see any principle in it at all, the kind of enjoyment to which he wishes to give special preference must first of all be classed as entertainment. But among the examples of entertainment given in subsection (2) is a lecture. I will admit that some lectures I have heard have been entertaining, but to imply that all lectures are entertaining is the kind of wild and woolly generalisation that I should have thought he, of all people. would have avoided.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: Would the hon. Member say that all cricket is entertaining?
    Mr. Mallalieu: Certainly—for those who are sufficiently educated to understand it. Much the same kind of difficulty applies to recitations which are also mentioned. I seem to remember that the Financial Secretary at one stage of his career had a recitation that was very much admired, which was entitled, if I have it right, "Eskimo Nell." That was certainly entertaining, but the majority of recitations, I should have thought, were very far from entertaining.
    The second requirement in this Clause is that the performer should be present. I see that the Chancellor includes menageries. The performers are certainly present in a menagerie—the performing bears and the rest. On what principle does he say that performing bears should get concessions, when, say, Rugby Union players do not? He also mentions circuses. That must mean not only the ordinary circus but such things as a flea circus. What possible logic is there for giving the benefit to a flea circus which he denies to county cricket?
    I suspect that this antipathy to county cricket must come from continually watching Essex, though I remember Essex, of course, once had Percy Perrin,

    223
    J. W. H. T. Douglas and his own Parliamentary Private Secretary. Indeed, Essex on successive days once put Yorkshire out for 35 and 33 runs, respectively. I am anxious to discourage that sort of thing, but I do not think that the discouragement should include taxation. The third principle underlying the selections of the Chancellor seems to be that on the whole he wishes to encourage things done on a stage as opposed to a field. The suggestion seems to be that the things one sees on the stage are perhaps better for one culturally. I object to that kind of ruling by Whitehall.
    I object very much to people who suggest special concessions for games on the ground that games are good for you physically. The only people who play games because games are good for them are those who have eaten and drunk too much. The great majority of people who watch a sport or play it do so because they enjoy it and because it is fun. Equally, I dislike the idea of saying that things done on the stage are perhaps culturally better than things done on the playing field. I would say that the experiences, in the poetical sense, which one derives from watching and playing in sports are every bit as deep and fine as the experiences which one can get from music and from the theatre. I do not believe there is any objective standard of enjoyment. It is entirely a question of what the individual gets out of the particular thing he is watching or doing. For that reason, I would say that in these matters the Government should be absolutely neutral and leave it to the individual to decide what kind of enjoyment he goes in for.
    5.15 p.m.
    In justification of the argument that there really is no objective standard, may I quote to the Chancellor an illustration which comes from completely outside sport? Many years ago a man called Chapman made a translation of Homer. The critics of that day said the translation was no good. It failed entirely to capture the spirit of the original. As such, it received no encouragement whatsoever. But when Keats opened that translation he derived from it the experience which he epitomised in one of his loveliest sonnets. The sort of experience which Keats had on reading
    224
    Chapman's Homer and the experience which he projected into stout Cortez was similar to an experience I had 32 years ago, when for the first time, I saw the exquisite flow of Reggie Spooner's batting.
    It is not only ordinary people like myself who find such deep delight in sport. One of the most appealing poems written by Francis Thompson was written about cricket. It was a poem which epitomised his nostalgia for the glories of Old Trafford and finished with the line:
    "Oh my Hornby and my Barlow long ago."
    That lovely poem was derived from sport. On that kind of evidence one cannot say that stage shows, whether it be music or ballet or anything else, are necessarily better culturally than are the experiences and enjoyment we get on the field of sport.
    So I would say to the Chancellor that in these matters the Government must be neutral. I am a great believer in the direct control of basic material things. I believe that is essential for a decent standard of life. I believe in a great deal of Government interference with the distribution of the products of industry, so that everybody can have a fair chance and a decent standard of life. But when it comes to how an individual shall use his income and how he enjoys himself, whether he digs in the garden, or watches Yorkshire—if he can get in—or Huddersfield Town—if he can bear it—what he does in his spare time is for his decision, and not a matter for the Chancellor either to encourage or discourage.
    I realise that the Amendment which I am supporting does make some sort of discrimination but it is a very much wider and looser discrimination than anything contained in the Clause before us. Therefore I support it because I think it is a step in the right direction, and I hope it is a step which the Chancellor himself will be able to take.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: It is a peculiar state of affairs that, when this country is in such a grim position generally and when our Chancellor is striving with every diligence and every ingenuity to balance his books, this Committee should be spending so much time considering our sports and the impact of one taxation proposal upon them. However, it will be generally agreed that most

    225
    of these sports contribute indirectly, if not directly, to the general well-being of the community and that no Chancellor could dismiss them as just the decorations and trimmings of our national life.
    Like so many others, I have been struck by the remarkable unanimity in the Committee about these matters. It is obvious that, whatever other things we may discuss, these matters cut completely across party lines, and it is obvious, too, that our differences here are rather whether we prefer soccer to rugby or rugby league to rugby union, and so on; we have our preferences according to games rather than politics.
    In general, I support much of what has been said, but I should like for a short while to refer to two sports with which I am more fully acquainted. County cricket has been mentioned a good deal, and I want to underline what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). The probable yield in this instance is terribly small and the position of the county cricket clubs is really bad.
    Fifteen out of 17 county cricket clubs made a working loss in 1951 if we ignore receipts from Test matches. Derbyshire made a loss of £2,900, against which one could set off a share of Test match receipts amounting to £2,268. My own county, Glamorganshire, broke about even, but only achieved that result by taking into consideration their share of Test match receipts. Hampshire made a loss of £820. Kent made a loss of £1,358 based upon a working loss of £4,328. Northamptonshire made a small profit of about £600, but their membership decreased by about 200.
    Even the great county of Yorkshire made a profit of only £640 after taking into consideration Test match receipts and a sum of £1,000 devoted to ground improvement funds. Nottinghamshire made a loss of £2,100, and that is a county with a great cricketing tradition and a ground set admirably in the midst of the largest city in the county; it is a county which normally showed a considerable profit in the past. Even Surrey made a profit of only £332.
    It is nothing new for county cricket clubs to make such working losses and to have to rely upon their share of test match receipts to bolster up their finances, but I am sure the Committee will agree
    226
    that these figures show a remarkable tendency, throughout 1951 anyhow, for their financial position to deteriorate, for their incomes to decline and for their receipts, both at the gates and by membership, generally to decrease. I should like to stress what has already been said, that they are not profit-making concerns. If the Chancellor finds it impossible to assist all sports he ought at any rate to consider some assistance to those which are not profit-making.
    I want to quote something concerning my own county cricket club from a letter which I have received from our captain, Wilfred Wooller. He writes:
    "From 1921 onwards, the year Glamorgan entered the Championship, to 1939 we survived a stiff struggle against financial difficulties by the grace of a series of flag days, dances, the generosity of wealthy patrons. After 1945, Wales became more cricket-minded and, with the aid of a seating and nursery appeal and excellent support at the gates, a modest reserve has been built up for the first time in the history of the Club. We have however been faced with a steady rise in expenditure and after much consideration of the facts, my committee decided the charges for 1952 should be raised at the gate from Is. 6d. per day to 2s. and in membership by an overall increase of 5s. to 35s. for gentlemen and 30s. for ladies. We are now faced with a severe increase in Entertainments Duty. Our support comes from the workmen of the Welsh valleys and towns and it is unreasonable to ask such followers of cricket to bear any extra tax on top of the present rise."
    He quotes figures to show that had this proposal been in force last year Glamorganshire would not have been able to balance its budget and would have been faced with a working loss.
    The other game in which I am particularly interested is rugby union. The Welsh Rugby Union—and also the English Rugby Union—is concerned with promoting a game which is, above all, for the benefit of the players. It is true that at international games and at some club games we have very large crowds but, generally speaking, even today, rugby union is still the game of the player, far more so than are other forms of football with the possible exception of amateur soccer.
    The situation is explained by a letter which I received from Dr. Rocyn Jones, President of the Welsh Rugby Union. He says:
    "At a special meeting of the general committee of the Welsh Rugby Union held at Cardiff on 1st May, 1952, it was unanimously

    227
    decided to draw the attention of the Chancellor to the serious effects which the new rates of Entertainments Duty, imposed by the Finance Bill of 1952, will have on this Union and its constituent clubs, and on amateur rugby in Wales in general.
    The Welsh Rugby Union feel very strongly that it is its duty to inform you that under the conditions obtaining before the passing of the recent Finance Bill the large majority of the Welsh clubs found it an extremely difficult task to remain financially solvent. Most of them have managed to do this only by means of dances, raffles and other methods of raising the necessary money to keep them going. All this has meant very hard work, done always in each case by the faithful few, upon whom the existence of most of our clubs depends. Apart from the Union Secretary and his assistant, the work in connection with amateur football in Wales is done everywhere voluntarily.
    Two years ago it became necessary for the Union to raise the prices of tickets for its international matches in order to avoid losses. The effect of the proposed tax on the Welsh Rugby Union and its 900 constituent clubs (which include schools and youth organisations) will be more than they can possibly bear, as it is felt by all concerned that further increases in charges are out of the question."
    5.30 p.m.
    There, again, we have the spectacle of a game which is sustained on a very fine margin, a game which is non-profit making in a true sense, because the money made by the Welsh Rugby Union, as in the case of the Rugby Union and Scottish Rugby Union, is generally ploughed back for the benefit of the constituent clubs. Some of the money is also advanced to them to enable them to improve their grounds and stands and to provide cover in bad weather. Rugby Union is a game which is in a truly difficult position. It is, as I say, a non-profit making game and one to which I think the Chancellor should give really sympathetic consideration.
    I shall not detain the Committee any longer except to say that although I have mentioned only two sports, I feel most sincerely, as do other hon. Members on all sides, that most of our games deserve some sustenance. They are part of our heritage and the means by which we can increase our efficiency as a productive community. I believe that they deserve all the support we can give them.
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I am batting for Surrey this afternoon and in doing so I achieve a lifelong ambition, even though such exploits as
    228
    may be to my credit by the time I have finished will only have taken place on the Floor of this Chamber. The Oval Cricket ground is on the edge of my constituency and in the Metropolitan Borough of Lambeth. I promise that my innings will be a very short one, although I hope to lay about me as well as I can in the time that you, Mr. Thomas, permit me to occupy the wicket.
    I have the accounts of the Surrey County Cricket Club for 1951 before me; they have just been issued to the members of the club. They show a turnover for the year of some £40,000. Out of that, the excess of income over expenditure was only £330 based on the old rate of tax which the Chancellor is now seeking to increase. If the rate is increased, the Entertainments Duty paid at the Oval will be in the neighbourhood of 115 per cent. In other words, the amount of duty will go up from £1,340 paid during 1951 to £2,900, and the tiny surplus of £330 will be transformed into a loss of over £1,200.
    It is quite clear that penal taxation of this character will put out of existence not only small clubs who are not so famous as the Surrey County Cricket Club, but even old-established and hitherto financially strong clubs like the Surrey County Cricket Club. Up to the war, the rate charged for cricket was the same as for the cinema. In 1946, as has already been mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) gave some relief, but, despite that, the charges now proposed will immeasurably increase the grave difficulties experienced by all cricket clubs in making both ends meet. It is quite certain that an increased charge to the public will have to be made, and that increase will not necessarily help cricket clubs to meet their commitments because it is bound to have a deterrent effect on the game.
    There is one further point I wish to make. It is well known, of course, that most cricket clubs are able to exist because of the share they receive from the proceeds of Test matches. The Surrey County Cricket Club were able to achieve the tiny surplus of £330 only after taking into account the sum of £4,700 which was their share of the Test match proceeds. If the proposed increase comes into operation the position will be aggravated by the great increase in the tax

    229
    on Test match receipts, and those also will go down with inevitable repercussions on the income of the county clubs. For example, the tax on a 19s. Test match seat, which is now 3s., will become 6s.
    For all these reasons, I hope that the Chancellor will be disposed to make some concession to what have rightly been described in the course of this debate as the national games and pastimes of the people of this country. They include not only cricket, but many other sports to which reference has also been made. As I say, I hope the Chancellor will find it possible, on this series of Amendments at least, to make a concession which will be most acceptable in every quarter of this Committee and throughout the length and breadth of the country.
    Mr. C. E. Mott-Radclyffe: I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will consider very carefully this group of Amendments, and in company with my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) and with other hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee I want to make a plea with particular reference to cricket. I believe that the argument concerning cricket comes, broadly speaking, under two headings, first, in regard to cricket as a whole, and, secondly, in regard to county cricket in particular.
    With regard to cricket as a whole, there are, perhaps, three things which ought to be said. The first is that it is one of the few remaining great games which have not yet become fully professional or commercialised. For that reason, if for no other, I think it is worthy of special attention. Secondly, I do not think anybody would deny the great contribution made towards Commonwealth relations by the interchange of the touring cricket sides between, for instance, ourselves, South Africa and Australia, and vice versa. Indeed, if the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations had no worse headaches to deal with than an occasional complaint about body-line bowling or a doubtful decision by an umpire at a Test match his task would be a great deal easier than it is today.
    The third point I want to make about cricket as a whole is in relation to the longterm plan to improve the general standard of cricket in this country. As many hon. Members know, the M.C.C. have set up a youth Cricket Association, the aim
    230
    of which is to provide more and better cricket for the youth of the country and to fill a much felt need by promoting a coaching scheme for the whole country. Despite the serious financial position of the M.C.C., to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) has referred, they have undertaken to carry the whole burden of the central organisation of this Youth Cricket Association, leaving the counties to accept financial responsibility for the scheme within their own areas.
    I come now to county cricket in particular, and it is really upon county cricket that the whole edifice of first-class cricket is built. I doubt very much whether any of the county clubs will be able to pass on to the spectators the additional sums they would have to find if the new rate of Entertainments Duty is brought into operation without running great risks of driving the spectators away, because I believe all the county clubs have already raised their admission charges from 1s. 6d. to 2s. I think it is true that the public have only a certain amount of money to spend on entertainments in any given summer and that with the rise in the cost of living that sum of money, set aside for entertainment, gradually becomes less and less.
    Indeed, figures of attendances at county matches during the last two or three years seem to bear that out. The figures for the County Championship matches have been in 1949, 2,100,000; 1950, 1,900,000; and in 1951, 1,800,000. I concede to the Chancellor that the summer of 1949 happened to be very fine. As hon. Members have already pointed out, and I hope the Chancellor will note it, it is the case that at least half the first-class counties only escape severe annual deficits by having a share of the Test match profits. Those profits themselves, substantial though they are, will be seriously reduced by the imposition of this duty and, therefore, the counties will have the worst of both worlds.
    In 1951, the published accounts for 13 first-class cricket counties show an aggregate balance of profit of £8,200. The proposed duty, on the 1951 admission charges, would mean a reduction of approximately £28,000, leaving an aggregate loss for these counties of over £20,000. That is a very serious thing indeed because, as has been pointed out

    231
    by a great number of hon. Members, the county clubs are not commercial profit-making undertakings in the ordinary accepted sense of the word. They really exist only by the support of their members.
    If, through financial difficulty, the first-class county clubs are unable to provide improved amenities, which both the public and the players quite rightly demand, the attendance falls off and when the attendance falls off, sooner or later, curiously enough, the standard of play is invariably affected. I suppose that happens in much the same way in our debates in the House. When the Chamber is full the general level of discussion is much higher than on those occasions when the Chamber is practically empty. Judging by their expressions many hon. Members do not agree with me.
    Mr. I. Mikardo: I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue that point or we may find Entertainments Duty levied on our proceedings.
    Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: In so far as any contribution from me is concerned I am afraid that the Chamber would empty very rapidly and the Chancellor would lose a great deal of Entertainments Duty. But I am sure that hon. Members will agree that in the highly charged atmosphere of a crowded Chamber the arguments come much quicker off the pitch. as it were, than is the case on a quiet day, when there is only a handful of hon. Members present.
    By this increase in the Entertainments Duty the Chancellor is dealing a great blow at our great national sport, which cricket can ill afford. The harm it will do is out of all proportion to the comparatively small sum of money—£70,000 in a full year—which he will recoup. If I may use the analogy, what the Chancellor is doing is to ring the county secretaries round with two short legs and a silly mid-on. He then bowls a whole series of balls off the wicket and expects them to make runs, and they hope he will change his mind.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I have risen now not with any intention of ending the debate, because I know many hon. Members in all quarters of the
    232
    Committee desire to speak but I hope for their indulgence to say a few words because of my great personal interest in the issue we are now debating.
    The longer I live, the more firmly I come to believe that our sports and games are something of which the whole nation ought to be proud. In my lifetime they have gone round the world, with immense benefit to other nations and to our prestige. They have become our modern British arts. As has been said already by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), they have become a healthy and continuing interest to millions of our people. They have done great things for the health, physical and moral, of our nation and they could do much more.
    Let the Chancellor reflect what drunkenness and juvenile delinquency costs the nation and set it against the crippling of sport which his tax might mean. Let him consider the effect on production, which again has been already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South.
    We all know that during the war Mr. Ernest Bevin took the strongest view about encouraging sport, even when we were at death grips with Hitler. It was my job to try and cut down the number of trains available for sporting events, and I always found him very vigorously on the other side, because he was convinced that it was in the interest of production to keep sports going and alive. I agree with the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) that there are sports which are part of our national life. If the Chancellor is striking a blow at them, as many of us believe, he is doing a very serious thing indeed.
    I make no apology for adding certain detailed information to the many details hon. Members have given so admirably already. In fact, the general case depends on details—the detailed finances of individual clubs and sports. I want to speak of four sports, not because I care less about Rugby football, or lawn tennis, or swimming or other things, but because I think I have important and authentic information about these four, two of which have not yet been mentioned. The first is boxing.
    The British did not invent boxing. It was invented by the Greeks, who also invented athletics, hockey and other things.

    233
    But it is an old British sport that we have pioneered in modern times. I have received from the licence holders of the Midland Boxing Board of Control an official protest about this proposed Duty. They say that, if it comes into effect, boxing in general will suffer a most demoralising setback. They say that the boxers' purses will have to be slashed severely. I am sure that the Chancellor would not wish to do anything so unsporting and mean as that.
    They say also that the added burden would probably mean the closing down of over 50 per cent. of the smaller promotions, and it would have a shattering effect on the big promotions. The increase in the tax which they would have to pay on seats is really formidable. It is more than 100 per cent. As far as the higher prices are concerned, the new tax on a 10s. ticket would be 4s. 4d. and on a 3 guinea ticket it would be £1 11 s. 6d. It is quite plain that the burden on boxing would be extremely difficult to bear.
    With regard to athletics, the Amateur Athletic Association would be exempt from this tax, and so would promotions designed to increase the Association's funds; but athletics, I am glad to say, is very highly decentralised. I am sure that the Government will approve of that. Much of the hard work is done through regional organisations and clubs and they are not exempt. Indeed, they will be very hardly hit. Athletics is a sport which is greatly increasing in popularity, but all the same the new tax will hit it very hard.
    It will hit especially hard the British Board of Athletics, which is concerned with arranging the international matches which do so much to prepare our athletes for the Olympic Games. In 1951 the Board paid £800 in Entertainments Duty, in addition to 9s. 6d. in the £ on their profits. On the same gate figures, they would have to pay £2,000, instead of £800. That for them would be a very serious matter, and it would undoubtedly curtail the important international activities in which they are engaged. As they exist to promote friendly matches with other countries, I am sure the Chancellor would not wish that to happen.
    234
    I should like to say a word about soccer. I hope the Chancellor will give close attention to the figures which were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. Stoke City, under the old tax, paid £5,000. Under the new tax they will have to pay £15,000. Derby County—the club with the best post-war Cup record—paid £9,300 last year under the old tax, and they will have to pay £18,000 under the new tax. I was in Cardiff a week ago, and I know how much it means to the people there that Cardiff City have gone up into the First Division. Last year Cardiff City paid £6,000, but under the new tax they will have to pay £18,000. If we take the figures for London clubs, Tottenham's payment of £13,000 will go up to £45,000 and Arsenal's from £17.000 up to £47,000.
    The Secretary of the Derby County Football Club tells me that already—money being rather tight—there has been a drift from the 2s. 6d. portions of the ground to what he calls the popular side—2s. and 1s. 6d. He says that the new tax will have a crippling effect on their sale of season tickets, that they will lose £4,500 on them if they sell as many season tickets as last year—and, of course, they will not sell as many as they did before. They are not a rich club, and I venture to think that the Secretary of the Derby County Club is quite right when he says that this new tax will deal them a crippling blow, and that the detrimental effects will not be confined to the professional League clubs, but will affect Association football as a whole, and all that Association football stands for in British life.
    I should like to give some more details about county cricket. The gross loss made by the Derbyshire County Cricket Club over the last three years was £1,857 in 1949; £4,000 in 1950, and £2,800 in 1951. Even allowing for the Test match profits in which they shared, they made a very heavy loss. Why have they not gone out of business? It is because they raised a special fund from their members and their friends which got them over £2,000. That was a splendid effort, but anybody who has been concerned—as so many hon. Members have—with the finances of sporting clubs knows that one cannot make an appeal more than about once in every 10 years.

    235
    Broadly speaking, the sport must pay its way. If, under this new tax, the Derbyshire County Cricket Club have to pay at least double what they were paying before—a sum which they simply could not find—I think it will probably push their heads under water. Attendances have already declined a little and a further increase in admission prices would very seriously reduce the number of spectators. The Secretary of the Derbyshire County Cricket Club tells me officially that, in his view, and that of his Committee the tax might result in some of the county clubs, including Derbyshire, ceasing their activities altogether.
    I should like to emphasise once more what was stated so well by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) about the Commonwealth importance of cricket. The M.C.C. do a splendid job. When I was at the Commonwealth Relations Office I asked the M.C.C. to try to send a team to India sooner than they planned. They said that the first possible year was 1956—the claims on them were so great—but in fact they sent a team last year. The Indians are here this year; the West Indians have been here, and no one would deny that the South African tour did an immense amount of good. Is it irrelevant to recall that the late Prime Minister of Ceylon, who did so much for the Commonwealth, was a passionately keen cricketer?
    The increase in the tax on Test Match cricket will be very formidable. If the attendances remain what they were last year, the tax paid to the Chancellor will go up from £26,000 to £57,000—an increase of £31,000. I venture to say that that is a tax on Commonwealth intercourse, on Commonwealth good will and on Commonwealth enterprise in organising this kind of competitive friendly sport.
    The most serious effect which this tax will have is that it will create great difficulties for the minor, smaller clubs, on which every sport depends. No one who lived his life in any sport doubts that it cannot flourish, unless it is sound at the bottom. The Chancellor will be striking a very grave blow at the general run of clubs if he imposes this tax. I hope that he will listen to the unanimous appeal which has come to him from every quarter of the Committee. Nobody has yet spoken in his favour. I hope
    236
    that he will listen to this appeal and withdraw this ill-conceived proposal.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: In listening to this debate, the thought that occurs to me is this. What will the Chancellor feel like if a county cricket club definitely has to shut down and go out of business because of this tax? What will be the feelings of those hon. Members who voted for this tax? I ask the Committee to remember that once a club or a sport has shut down, or is near to shutting down, it is very difficult to revive it. If the Chancellor insists on this tax, he will have some very uneasy nights, wondering what will happen to Derbyshire County Cricket Club or some other county cricket club. Even my own county of Surrey is seriously exercised by the possible effect of this new tax.
    Although this has been an interesting debate, I feel that it has been on the wrong lines. I do not think we should have attempted to say that such and such a sport is particularly part of our national life. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) stood up for cricket because it was educational. If that is all one has to say for cricket, it is not much. The truth is that all taxes are repulsive, and all sports and other forms of entertainment are desirable, even performing fleas, which we heard about from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), and which may indeed be educational for the fleas.
    6.0 p.m.
    My point is this. This proposal has been put in the Bill in rather a wholesale manner. I suggest that the criterion should be whether this tax will kill or severely damage any particular sport. If it will, then it is a bad tax and it should be removed from the Bill. I rose to speak in support of cricket, but enough has already been said to convince the Chancellor that the county cricket clubs are seriously worried about this matter. This is really a case of "morituri to salutamus."
    I hope the Chancellor will see reason and that more hon. Members will succeed in speaking in the debate to urge the same point of view. In that case, I beg my right hon. Friend to consider how silly and how sad he will feel if county cricket clubs have to shut down as the result of his attitude to them.
    Mr. John Dugdale: Like other hon. Members, I feel that this debate has one remarkable feature in that there is absolutely no party feeling about it. Some hon. Members are acquainted more with one particular sport and some with another, but we are not divided, as we so often are, on party lines.
    I want to speak on one particular branch of sport, and I must at once declare my interest, because I represent a constituency which has a not altogether unknown football club called West Bromwich Albion.[An HON. MEMBER: "Where is it?"] If the hon. Gentleman has not heard of it, he had better get himself educated, and, in fact, I will see that he does get educated, because I will give him a free ticket to go to see them play.
    I want to try to dispel the idea that, somehow or other, football is a tremendously money-making proposition, that it is in a different category from cricket and other sports, and that there are very rich clubs or very rich men who can afford to keep this great sport going. In order to do that, I must mention a few figures. The club which—I was going to say I represent—of which I am speaking, is half way down the First Division, so that it is not altogether one of the worst clubs in the country.
    Last season, it made a profit of £2,160. That sounds very good, and people may say that it can afford to pay the tax, but that profit was made up, in the main, of the difference between the amount which the club received in transfer fees for players whom it transferred to other clubs and what was paid out for people transferred to it. In other words, it was made up from capital. Allowing for that, the actual net loss which the club made was £700.
    Now I come to a most remarkable fact which, I think, very few hon. Members know about. It is that this club—and I think this also applies to other clubs in a similar position—pays a maximum dividend to shareholders in any one year of £24 10s.—not £10,000, not £1,000, not even £100, but £24 10s. That is not really a very large dividend, and it does not put the club in the ranks of the millionaire companies.
    Over and above that, I do not think it is generally known that the directors of these clubs receive no fees whatever,
    238
    and, in fact, receive very few expenses. The directors of West Bromwich Albion receive expenses when they actually go with their team to a match, but they do not receive expenses when they go to watch other players in other teams to see whether they are players whom West Bromwich Albion would like to include in their team. I do not think it can be said that this is a very profitable, money-making proposition for the directors, let alone the shareholders.
    This year's expenses have already increased on the average by 7 per cent., and this not only applies to this particular club, but to all similar clubs, and the increase is accounted for largely by transport, hotels and other unavoidable costs. Last year's tax amounted to £6,700, but, on the new rate which is proposed in this Bill, it would amount to £15,500, and that on a club which suffered a loss of £700.
    If this proposal is carried out, then quite obviously the one thing which this club and others will have to do is to raise their entrance fees. There is nothing else they can do. The probable increase would be 20 per cent., which is quite considerable. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), has said that this proposal would hit the poor. In my constituency, which is not among the richest in the country by a very long way, the principle occupation on any Saturday afternoon in the winter is to go and watch "The Baggies" play. Something like one-third of the entire population may go to watch a football match. They are not rich people, and this tax will affect them very seriously.
    It may be, in fact, that some of them will not be able to go unless they cut their expenses in other directions. I am sure that the Chancellor does not want them, for instance, to cut down expenses on their children's clothes, or sweets or toys, but it may well mean that they will have to cut down these or similar expenses or deprive themselves of the joy of going to a football match. I suggest that it is very unfair on these people to compel them to make this choice of cutting down expenses on their children or on their greatest pleasure.
    I have mentioned First Division clubs, but what of the Third Division? There are many Third Division clubs which under this tax will go out of existence

    239
    altogether. There is nothing else they can do. At the present moment, I am informed that they are not allowed an over-draft at the bank. It seems that the banks do not allow overdrafts, at any rate for Third Division clubs; I do not know whether they allow them to Second Division clubs. If that is so, there will be only one thing left for them—to go out of existence altogether; and I cannot think that it will be a good thing for this country if a large number of similar clubs should disappear.
    I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), in asking the Chancellor how it comes about that he gives a preference to menageries over and above football clubs. It seems to me quite extraordinary that menageries, to say nothing of performing fleas, should be placed in a specially favourable category, and that football, cricket and a great many other sports are placed in a less favourable one.
    I think that from what has been said today the Chancellor must realise that it is the feeling of the Committee that this is a foolish and hasty decision, and I hope that, having thought it over and having realised the feeling which exists on all sides of the Committee against it, he will see his way somehow to alter it and bring it more into line with the views of hon. Members.
    Sir William Darling: I shall have to strike the note for which I have listened in vain in our debate so far today. It astounds me that in a serious assembly like this Committee it should so far have been forgotten that what we are concerned with is something much more serious than sports. What we are concerned with is a crisis in our national financial affairs, which the Chancellor, I hope with the support of the country, will one day—and, I hope, at no far distant date—remedy. I think it astonishing that a succession of hon. Members, some of whom have always earned and merited respect, should have risen to make the sort of speeches they have delivered, and in which they seemed to deem the state of our national financial affairs of such importance that they must give place to cricket and football.
    We heard the romanticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis); and he and others with acute
    240
    minds have seemed to overlook that the issue before us is the solvency of Britain, which the Chancellor has been driven to every extremity to repair. He has been driven even to the extremity of raising the Entertainments Duty on sports—a momentous decision that has struck the imagination even of the
    "…flannelled fools at the wicket and the muddied oafs at the goals."
    Mr. W. E. Padley: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this tax has been imposed, not to solve the financial problems of the country, but to give some more money to dog racing? Does he justify that?
    Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in his observation. I deplore the fact. Even if I am alone in doing so, I deplore the relative mildness of the Chancellor's Budget. Indeed, in general, as I have said elsewhere, I had expected in toto a much more severe Budget than the one we have got. I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley), and if he will put down an Amendment asking for a tax on dog racing, or an increased tax on dog racing, I shall support him—even in the Lobby, if need be. I cannot understand the mentality of hon. and right hon. Gentlement who are concerned about the taxing of surgical belts and varicose veins and who are now competing in pleading for a remission of taxation of these games.
    What of our sport in Scotland, Mr. Thomas—a country not dissimilar, I think, from that from which you hail with such distinction? In Scotland the Church for years past has denounced—and denounced properly—in its annual Assembly the amount of time taken up in the mere watching of games, and has deplored that such millions of hours should be consumed in the idleness of the mere watching of these kinds of sports. If that is to be deplored in times of peace, how much more should it be deplored in times of war? And we are in a time of economic war. Surely such pastimes should be discouraged in such times as these by the common sense that used to rule and ought to rule our country.
    Not only the Church of Scotland and those who share its views have made these pronouncements. Let me mention the name of somebody whom hon. Gentlemen opposite used to respect, even

    241
    if they still do not respect him—Sir Patrick Dollan, a former Socialist Lord Provost of the City of Glasgow, and frequently a Socialist candidate, who enjoyed the support of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael). He has repeatedly told the Minister of Fuel and Power that the waste of time spent on football and other sports is a serious danger to the national economy.
    Anything which will discourage these games in the interests of the national economy, I strongly support. I hope the Chancellor will not weaken in this matter, because if he does weaken on this, surely that will give me the right to go into the Lobby against him on other occasions. I want him to stand fast against this united sportsmanship—this mass uprising of empty minds which have devoted all these hours of debate to the bolstering up of the finances of doubtful cricket clubs and questionable football clubs.
    I know just as much as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite of the commercial set up. I know the directors who take no fees. I know the directors who have no expenses. I am familiar with the whole set up of commerce. I suppose the directors who have no fees and who take no expenses are the kinds of directors who accord well with the Socialist doctrines of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    I return to my charge, that the country is insolvent. The country is on the way to bankruptcy. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite ran away from their responsibilities, and now my right hon. Friend has to take desperate remedies which have to apply even to sport. I shall go into the Lobby in defence of the Budget.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Will my hon. Friend explain how, by making cricket and football clubs insolvent, he is going to make the country solvent?
    6.15 p.m.
    Sir W. Darling: Cricket and football clubs may or may not be bankrupt, but what about the unfortunate people in the cotton industry, which is facing many difficulties, and what about the whole state of our national finances and the country's solvency? It is the Chancellor's duty to restore the national solvency, and no arguments, sentimental or critical, will dissuade me from doing my duty, which
    242
    is to support any measure, however disagreeable, that is likely to help to overcome the economic crisis. In seeking a solution of that crisis, nothing should stand in the way.
    Mr. George Porter: I am delighted at having an opportunity of entering this debate. My contribution to it has to follow the kill-joy contribution we have just had from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). The only thing I can say to him is that, in view of what he has said, I hope he will see that at a certain emporium in Edinburgh the usual things that sportsmen buy for their games are not to be found on sale to the people.
    Sir W. Darling: Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to make this attack on my personal activities in this fashion? I think it is deplorable. In any case, I wonder if he can give the address of the emporium he mentions?
    Mr. Porter: In view of the individual contribution the hon. Gentleman made, I take it that anything further in that connection will give him the advertisement he has been looking for.
    I want to offer one or two words about what I call real men's games, and to refer to Association and Rugby football. I have never seen anybody at those particular games asleep—a condition in which I often find people when I go to watch cricket. As for Association football, I think there is no other game that enjoys more support from the common people of this country. The team in the town which I represent has asked me to make the same sort of protest against this duty as has been made by various other hon. Members already.
    Leeds United Association Football Club has a fairly reasonable history in Association football. It has had its ups and downs. Probably, if this increased duty were to be agreed to, it would have more downs than ups in its finances. I am informed that its contribution to tax would rise from the present £5,850 to £13,130. It would hardly seem a good thing to call upon the people of Leeds and other towns who are engaged in the textile industry to pay this increased duty at a time when they are facing so many difficulties in the textile industry and have so many demands made upon them.

    243
    I speak now especially of Rugby League football. This is a game about which people living south of the Trent know very little. We had our final a fortnight ago down here in London, and one of the local London newspapers commented upon the fact that most of the support at that game came from the north, and thought that seemed to suggest that there was not amongst southerners the amount of stamina needed for the game that there is in the north.
    Mr. Mikardo: Nearly all the players are Welshmen, anyway.
    Mr. Porter: The lack of interest among southerners in this man's game means that when my duties compel me to remain in London over the weekend, I cannot find out how my team or any other team has got on until I get one of the northern papers at the House on Monday morning. There appears to be no interest south of the Trent in Rugby League football, but I hope that we shall have the support of those who are pressing the claims of other sports.
    I support a Rugby League club called Liverpool City, which ever since its inception has been fighting to create in Liverpool an interest in Rugby League football. If this tax is to be imposed, that team, together with others, may well go out of existence altogether, because the smaller teams in this type of football, which, in spite of lack of immediate financial assistance, are endeavouring to build themselves up, depend to an enormous extent on other clubs playing in the League. One of the notable things about Rugby League football is that the larger clubs are prepared to support the smaller clubs with financial assistance. If this tax is imposed, this club will not only lose the income it earns itself, but will also tend to lose the financial assistance it now gets from the larger clubs, whose own funds will be depleted.
    The supporters of the Liverpool City club turn up for matches every weekend, and work on Sundays and in the evenings in an endeavour to build up the club so that eventually it may be on a sound financial basis. It will be a nasty smack in the eye for the supporters of all small clubs if the work they are prepared to put in is offset by the imposition of this tax. I therefore add my support to the
    244
    plea which has been made, especially on behalf of Association and Rugby League football.
    Mr. A. C. M. Spearman: Unlike the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I have not been fortified with instruction from any of my hon. Friends. I wish to speak on only a very narrow point; not on the question of what the tax should be but on what should be the operative date.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) said he thought that Kingston-upon-Thames was the only place where an important cricket match took place after 31st August. I am astonished that anyone who says he reads the sporting news before everything else should be so ignorant as not to realise that the Scarborough Festival always takes place on 3rd September. I am sure that has not been overlooked by hon. Members opposite, whom we sometimes welcome there for their annual conference. I notice that it is always a constituency with a very strong Conservative majority which is chosen for the annual conference of the party opposite. For many generations now the Scarborough Festival has been the occasion when our greatest cricketers have met their most distinguished competitors from overseas. Therefore, if it is not the only match, it is at any rate an important one which takes place after 31st August.
    I understand that most arrangements for printing and selling tickets by cricket clubs are made during the winter season, and I know that the Scarborough Club had allocated seats and received considerable sums of money before the Budget was announced. They cannot now disturb those bookings, and they find that the force of the tax for 1952 over 1951 will be more than doubled. I therefore plead with the Chancellor to treat all these cricket clubs the same by postponing the date for any tax he may have to impose by a few days, so that all are treated alike.
    Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I very much regretted the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who I thought rather upset the harmony of our proceedings this afternoon. I found myself agreeing more with the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), who commented upon the

    245
    startling unity we have achieved this afternoon on the subject of sport—a unity which I welcome, and which I hope will be carried a stage further later when we may have to go into the Division Lobbies.
    I have a feeling, though—I do not know whether it amounts to intuition—that the Chancellor has a more or less open mind on this. He rather gave me the impression that he was listening to our arguments, and that he was prepared to examine the points made, in order to arrive at a decision upon the views we are endeavouring to put before him. I was interested, too, in the speech of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), particularly when he observed that our only hope is to base our case on solid facts. After we have given some figures to the Chancellor he can only come to a decision if he has solid facts upon which to form his judgment.
    I must admit that my primary interest is soccer. The only time I can really forget about people like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, is when I am at a soccer match; I forget everything there; it is a complete distraction from all the ordinary things of life. In Bristol there are two large soccer teams, one of which is perhaps more well known than the other. But they, together with teams throughout the country, are having a very difficult time.
    6.30 p.m.
    I would emphasise that in urging these individual parochial matters we are arguing the case for almost every team outside the aristocrats of the Association football world, such as those that I saw on Saturday at Wembley. Almost every Second or Third Division club is in urgent need of assistance. In the case of a team which I normally support, Bristol Rovers, the incidence of this taxation, based on last year's scale, will amount to an increased tax for them of something like £5,000. We have had a very great misfortune because we are unfortunately in very close proximity to a river which has a habit of overflowing its banks and flooding our ground. Last year, we spent £9,000 in trying to remedy that, without success. This year, we have to face an expenditure of another £7,000, and we have no resources left whatsoever. Yet we must do this if we want to continue to provide this sport and entertainment.
    246
    Bristol City Football Club are also in difficulties. Over the last three seasons they are £37,000 in debt, and in addition they were unfortunate enough to lose their stand accommodation during the war. Some proportion of that money will be paid, but it will be nothing like the sum required to meet the total cost. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give consideration to these points.
    There is one other point I want to stress so far as professional football is concerned. I think that it is exceedingly important, and it was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). It is the fact that at this very moment many of our professional clubs are placing their players on the "open to transfer" list because they realise they will not be able to retain them and pay the retaining wages during the summer months. That is happening now in many clubs. They are disposing of the services of players who in the ordinary way they would retain if they thought that they were not going to be faced with this increased tax.
    The aggregate of this tax for all clubs in the country based on the scales applied and the profits made on the turnover of last season was £400,000, and it will now be £700,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "More."] Yes, more. That means that the tax will be more than doubled. I am speaking for soccer alone at the moment.
    My final plea, because I know that there are several hon. Members who want to speak, is on behalf of the county cricket clubs. Cricket is my second interest. I do not think that there is a greater sport, although I enjoy the excitement of football. Many of our county cricket clubs are going to be in real difficulties this summer if this tax is imposed. Although I do not want to put one sport against another, I think that we ought to remind ourselves that the county cricket clubs are often deprived of revenue because of the inclement weather. On Saturday, for example, I had the pleasure of seeing the Cup Final, which netted a gate of £39,000, while county cricket matches could not be played because of the vagaries of nature.
    The county cricket club in Gloucestershire had a shock recently when it found

    247
    that it would have to pay £5 for 14 lb. of grass seed. That is a fantastic increase in price. These are the kind of things that our sporting organisations are up against day by day. I believe that in our appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer we are going to get some response because the feeling of the Committee is so unanimous on this subject, and I certainly hope that will be the case.
    Mr. Cyril Osborne: I should like, first of all, to defend my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) during his absence from the Chamber. I agree with much that he said, although perhaps I cannot agree with the vehemence with which he said it and some of his exaggerations. I think it is important that we should remember that this tax is one small item in a large Budget which was produced in order to deal with a great emergency which both sides of the Committee agree exists. None of us denies that last year we over-spent by £500 million, and it is against that background that these proposals should be judged.
    If we say that we do not like this tax, then, as responsible people, we should be able to say to the Chancellor, "We do not like this one, but take that one in its place." I have not heard one hon. Member who has suggested an alternative.
    Mr. James Hudson: Horse racing.
    Mr. Osborne: During the whole of this afternoon, there has not been one alternative put forward. We are here to try to put the country's finances right, and I must defend my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South, in his contentions.
    The rather narrow point which I want to put to the Chancellor was put to me a few nights ago by the directors of the Grimsby Town Football Club. They came to see me because they play their football in my Parliamentary Division. They say that the same tax is paid—either the present or future tax—whether a man watches the First Division or the Third Division matches. There is no difference in the tax, although there is a great difference in the quality of the football that is served up. I was asked to make a plea to the Chancellor on behalf of Third Division clubs, especially the northern clubs, which have smaller gates
    248
    than any of the other three Divisions. They suggest that if the Chancellor must raise a certain amount of money, it would obviously be fairer to put the extra bit on the wealthy clubs, like the Arsenal in the First Division, leave the Second Division clubs as they are, and give that extra bit of help to the Third Division clubs.
    Mr. Wilkins: I would suggest a simpler way of doing it. Why should not the Chancellor take the lunatic transfer fees and bust the transfer racket for us?
    Mr. Osborne: I am merely trying to put forward what I think is a small but serious point which has not yet been made this afternoon. Responsible directors say that clubs in the Third Division in the north have much smaller gates than any of the others. If the money is to be raised, it is only just that the wealthy First Division clubs should pay more in tax than the poorer Third Division clubs. Moreover, the people who go to see first-class football are getting better value for money than the men who go to the Third Division matches, and therefore the First Division should be prepared to pay. I ask the Financial Secretary to look at that rather technical point.
    Mr. Hector McNeil: I should have thought, but I do not really know, that the case for which the hon. Gentleman is pleading already exists. I imagine that if he went to Highbury he would probably pay a higher admission fee and, therefore, more tax than if he went to see a Third Division match.
    Mr. Osborne: As I understand it, if a season ticket is taken out averaging 5s. per match for the Arsenal and 5s. for Grimsby, the same amount is paid in tax. What I am saying is that one of the soundest canons of taxation should be observed in this matter, and that is that the heaviest burden should be placed on the broadest shoulders. It is reasonable to plead for the smaller Third Division clubs whose gates are so small that I am told that when they go away the 20 per cent. of the takings which they receive hardly pays the expenses of conveying the players. I hope something will be done about this.
    I have two figures for those who come from the north. The proposed change in taxation would make a duty payable this year by Hartlepools United Club of

    249
    £3,400 instead of £985, which would put them straight into the bankruptcy court. In the case of Grimsby Town, the Entertainments Duty would be £7,300 instead of £3,553.
    Nearly every hon. Member has talked about cricket and football. I believe that soccer is the finest social safety valve we have in our industrial centres, and I should prefer to go on the 2s. side rather than sit with the directors, because there one gets a much better flavour to the game.
    Every hon. Member so far has said that the gravity of the position of the cricket clubs is so great that unless something is done they will go out of business. But the gravity of the position of cricket and football clubs is in no sense greater than the gravity of the nation as a whole.[An HON. MEMBER: "Which side is the hon. Member on?"] I am on the side of the Chancellor.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Did my hon. Friend make that comment to the Grimsby Town directors?
    Mr. Osborne: That is a fair question, and the answer is "yes." No one can accuse me of having tried to curry favour during the seven years that I have been in the House by saying things which I do not believe.
    Though the clubs are in a difficult and desperate financial position, their position is no worse than the position of the nation as a whole. It is stated that we cannot afford to pay another 21d. or 3d. to go to a football match. As the nation spent £1,800 million on drink, tobacco and amusement last year, it is nonsense to say that we cannot bear an extra 3d. to go to a football match.
    Sir W. Wakefield: It is not nonsense.
    Mr. Osborne: It is nonsense. Since 1938 the internal purchasing power of sterling has dropped to one-third. I do not think the prices of admission to cricket or football matches have increased by 300 per cent. since before the war, and therefore, value for value, it is cheaper to go to a football or cricket match today than it was before the war. If I were the Chancellor, this is a fact which I should bear in mind.
    If there is something to be given away, I plead hard for the Third Division northern clubs, but I would rather we all had
    250
    to pay more if it meant that we were helping to solve our country's financial problems.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: We have just listened to a most impudent speech. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) began by delivering a solemn moral lecture on the finances of the nation as an introduction to a proposal which he hopes may give some particular benefit to his own constituents.
    Mr. Osborne: Surely I am not alone in that? I have been copying what I have seen opposite.
    Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman had frankly said that he was putting forward a proposal in which his constituents were particularly interested, I should have no criticism of him. What I object to is his prefacing it with a solemn moral lecture and trying to put himself in a separate class from the rest of the Committee; and to ally himself with his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), does nothing to strengthen his case. The suggestion that this Committee is being led on a path of wild and reckless frivolity by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), and has to be brought back to sobriety by the hon. Members for Edinburgh, South, and Louth is ludicrous.
    Mr. J. Hudson: Did my hon. Friend say that the Committee had to be brought back to sobriety? The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) raised the subject of the enormous expenditure on alcohol but did not suggest any taxation on that sort of thing.
    Mr. Stewart: I do not feel competent to discuss that subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), but I await with interest the work which I am told he is shortly to publish under the title of "In Place of Beer."
    Apparently until the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, was informed of it by another hon. Member, he did not realise that what is under discussion is not merely the Entertainments Duty as such but the balancing of the levels of Entertainments Duty between one form

    251
    of entertainment and another. When his attention was drawn to it, he made the astounding suggestion that hon. Members should put down Amendments asking for increases in tax, a most unconstitutional proposal. It is an essential part of the work of the House of Commons that we should watch with the greatest caution the attempts of the Executive to raise money, and it is most improper for hon. Members to try to curry favour with the Executive by suggesting that the House should actually propose specific increases in taxation. In past centuries people. have gone to the block for proposing that.
    The hon. Member for Louth has underlined a consideration which was very much in my mind. He says that it is very easy for people to pay 2d. or 3d. more to go to a football match. I am not sure that that is so easy at present. The Chancellor made an interjection in which he said that the clubs would actually be able to make on this proposal if they acted in a certain way, but that is only on the assumption that they get the same number of spectators as before, or more.
    Can we be certain that this is so? Money is not going to be easy for people who want to go to football matches. Although I do not want to imitate the example of the hon. Member for Louth and bring too much of a party note into this, we must notice that there are other provisions in the Budget which will make the cost of living difficult for a great many people.
    A moderate amount spent on entertainment is properly regarded as part of the cost of living, because a moderate amount of entertainment is an essential of life. If any hon. Member doubts that, let him consider how he spends his own leisure time. I dare say that many of us do not go to see football matches as often as we would wish, although the public may say that if we can come here for nothing every day of the week we do not need quite as much of that sort of thing at the weekends as the rest of the community does.
    We must realise that if the clubs do not suffer—the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that they might not—it will be yet another addition to the number of pennies here and pennies there
    252
    which have to be spent by quite poor people in order to live even a tolerable life. That must be one of our considerations.
    In many debates we are expected to declare our interest. On this occasion the fashion appears to be to declare our affections. Mine are with the Fulham Football Club, and I must admit that after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Louth, if I had had time to think it out, I should no doubt have addressed to the Chancellor a special plea for the reduction of duty in the case of teams which have recently been in the First Division and will not now be. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Louth means that in Fulham in the coming year the team has not only got to exercise its minds as to how it will get back into the First Division, but, if what he suggests comes about, it is going to have the gloomy reflection that if it succeeds it will have to pay a righer rate of tax. That does not seem to be particularly stimulating for the team.
    Mr. Osborne: Should it go to the Third Division, it will get a further benefit.
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member has spoken more about incentives than any other hon. Member in this Committee, and here he is supporting a proposal which would reduce football to a flat mediocrity.
    The point I want to make about football is this. There has been some discussion as to where we can draw the line between one kind of sport or entertainment and another and say that one is more deserving of encouragement than the other. I would not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) that we should not attempt to draw any such line. The consideration in my mind is that radiating from the great events of the football world, such as last Saturday's event, we get a national interest that sets every little boy kicking a football as soon as he is old enough to do it. The same consideration applies to cricket. As soon as boys are able, they chalk a wicket on the wall, and I know of one little boy who was given the care of his baby brother and used the baby as a wicket.
    I believe that little boys should be encouraged in this rather than that they

    253
    should consider how they should become the proprietors of dog racing stadiums. There is a distinction somewhere, and I know the Chancellor's difficulty is how to make that distinction—which all of us believe is there, though we should not define it in the same way—in an Act of Parliament. I do not know the answer; but although one cannot find for the purposes of an Act of Parliament the right dividing line yet we can be certain that one dividing line is worse than another, and I believe the present proposals draw a worse line than that which now exists.
    I would put it to the Chancellor that if his present proposals are carried through, a dividing line will be drawn which will have an unsatisfactory effect on our national life as a whole. There are other provisions in his Budget that add to the cost of living for very many people in this country. In this Committee we may disagree how necessary it is to have them, but we ought to agree that we should think twice before imposing yet one more addition to the people's cost of living and one that effects that part of their lives where they would seek some joy, some recreation and some stimulus to help them to get on with the work of production, which, in all our economic calculations, is what we want to encourage.
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who first drew attention to the serious difficulties of county cricket clubs in relation to these proposals, mentioned his special interest in the Arsenal team, which did not quite win the F.A. Cup last Saturday. I have a similar interest in the Warwickshire County Cricket Club, which won the county championship last year to the great delight of a large number of people in the Midlands.
    There is no doubt that this club—I only mention it because its particular case is typical of all the others—will find itself in very serious difficulties if the Chancellor cannot see his way to modify his proposals. Last year Warwickshire had to find £1,297 in Entertainments Duty, but this figure will rise to £2,840 under the Chancellor's proposal. Last year Warwickshire lost £5,390. Yet it is a cricket club which I believe is as well
    254
    managed as any other in the country, and certainly no worse managed.
    We have had many good speeches this afternoon, but I think that of the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart) contained the key reason why county cricket clubs have a special case. I believe that the number of players and the amount of money involved bears no relation to the immense influence aroused by the clubs. Almost every boy in the country plays cricket at school and has an enthusiasm for the game which is enormously increased by following the fortunes of the cricket side in which he is interested. I remember that my interest when I was nine or ten was in the county of Kent because of the attractiveness of a well-known player, Frank Woolley, and the same applies to every boy in the country. This, I believe, is important.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), in a very attractive speech, mentioned the amount of money which is involved. I have a different figure and I believe it is much less than he quoted. I believe the Chancellor's proposals would only mean bringing in an increased revenue from cricket matches of £31,000. What is that pitiable figure in relation to the sum of £4,000 million which is raised in taxation? This proposal is going to have an immensely serious effect upon these county cricket clubs and, therefore, upon the interest taken in the game throughout the length and breadth of the country.
    The fact that cricket is the main topic of conversation in this land in the summer and that the clubs are maintaining an old English game, which is typical of the British way of life, is something which should be seriously considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) suggested that football and cricket clubs had only to advance the price of the seats, which people can afford, to raise this extra taxation. I do not think that is so. Attendances at county cricket matches last year fell by over 10 per cent. compared with the year before. How can anyone think it is simply a matter to raise the additional duty by putting up the cost of the seats under these circumstances? I earnestly beg my right hon. Friend to look into this question once again, with special reference to the county cricket clubs.
    Miss Elaine Burton: I shall be very brief. I am quite sure that those not sitting here are unaware that it requires a lot more stamina to sit in this atmosphere than to play any game in the world, and, in passing, I should like to see the atmosphere changed.
    In support of this Amendment I should like to speak from a slightly different point of view, both from the top and from the bottom. Like the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay), I represent the county of Warwickshire, whose cricket club won the championship last year, but I have an advantage over him in that I am a Yorkshire woman so that I have the best of both cricket worlds, with all due deference to hon. Members from other parts of the country. Speaking, as it were from the bottom, my football team, Coventry City, has this season had the misfortune to descend from the Second Division to the Third Division.
    Mr. Mikardo: It was not a misfortune; it was their just deserts.
    7.0. p.m.
    Miss Burton: My hon. Friend would not expect me to agree with that and I shall continue to say that it was a misfortune although they have not groused about it. I might add that at the one match I went to they won 6–1, so it might be a help to them if I went again.
    The Chancellor will know that there are only 17 first-class county cricket clubs, and that last year Warwickshire did win the championship. It paid Entertainments Duty of £1,297. If the new rate of duty is levied, that amount will go up to £2,840. I hope that the Chancellor, in making his case later, will explain, even if he is unable to give way, why a game of cricket should no longer be classified under the living performance section. I assure him that while some people might think that some cricket games were not correctly described as "living," the county of Warwickshire is very much a team of live performers. I do not understand how the Chancellor can say that any games are not consisting of live performers. If the players were not there it is certain that the spectators would not be there either.
    Warwickshire has a reputation for playing good cricket, and it has obtained good gates. In spite of that, the club are running at a loss. Last year they
    256
    lost £5,396. If a county which wins the championship, plays good cricket and has had the foresight to have a professional captain—one of the first county teams in this country to do so—who has led them most admirably, what hope is there for teams further down the championship table who cannot provide that entertainment?
    County cricket clubs are non-profit concerns. They offer six hours of sunshine for Is. 6d. when we have a good summer, and even if we go there and get wet as well the rain provides a sticky wicket and good entertainment. There is no doubt that the county clubs will have to put up their prices of admission if the Chancellor means to stick to his proposals.
    Football clubs in the Third Division have to make a real effort to keep going. Unfortunately, the lower down in the hierarchy the club goes the more difficult it is to keep gates and players and pay their way. Last year, Coventry paid in tax about £5,000. Under the Chancellor's new suggestion they would have to pay £15,000, an increase of £10,000. That will mean increased prices, which will mean smaller attendances, and getting rid of players. I hope that the Chancellor will be able to give us some hope when he replies to this debate.
    Mr. Edward Wakefield: I read in the newspapers last week that the Ministry of Works had been making experiments with a footbridge on the South Bank site of the Festival of Britain. The object of the experiments was to determine maximum load that the bridge would sustain. The bridge was subjected to a gradually increasing load until at last, with protesting creaks and groans, it collapsed
    It seems to me that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have adopted the same experimental procedure in relation to British sports and pastimes. Dog racing, horse racing and speedway racing were all subjected to an ever-increasing burden of tax until the strain became intolerable and those sports began to collapse. The strain has been eased on those particular sports, but the Treasury have not learned by experience because they are now imposing on other sports exactly the type of tax which nearly broke down the sports connected with racing.

    257
    I intended to make specific points relating to the Derbyshire County Cricket Club and the Derby County Football Club but the financial position of those two clubs has already been explained by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker). In regard to the Derbyshire County Cricket Club, I want to stress one point only, and that briefly. If the additional tax, the increase of more than 100 per cent. on every admission charge, is imposed, it is inevitable that attendances will fall, and sharply. What good is that to the Chancellor? He will get less in tax, and at the end of another season, or two at the most, the county cricket club will simply have to close down and there will have been no advantage either to the Chancellor or to the sport itself.
    I am very apprehensive about the consequences to the Derby County Football Club resulting from this increased duty. Individual citizens, when they are unable to make both ends meet, tend to speculate, whether through football pools, on dog racing or on the Stock Exchange. I am absolutely certain that the increased pressure on first-class football clubs will make them speculate in the buying and selling of their players. That is the least attractive and least desirable element in professional football in this country, and it would be a pity if that element were encouraged while the healthier side of football were discouraged.
    I am sure that the Chancellor will have noted the almost unanimous feeling in the Committee that cricket and football are characteristic British national sports which deserve support rather than discouragement. During the Easter Recess paid a visit to the Sudan. There I saw in active operation two characteristic British institutions. One was Parliamentary democracy. In the Legislative Assembly in Khartoum I saw in action all the procedure with which we are so familiar in this House of Commons.
    Only a few miles away, at Omdurman, on a sandy ground which was once the arsenal of the Mandi, I saw a football match between two teams which were the Sudanese equivalent of the Arsenal and Newcastle United. That match was watched by something like 20,000 Sudanese spectators. There was a British institution which has taken root in foreign soil and is flourishing. Both football and cricket, like Parliamentary demo-
    258
    cracy are characteristically British institutions. We are proud that they have been copied abroad, but their foundations are in this country. It is up to us to see that those foundations are not undermined.
    Mr. Frederick Peart: I entirely support the last remarks of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. E. Wakefield). I was very glad when he stressed the need to discourage the type of transfer fee in the football world that we may now begin to witness. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins). Some clubs are now forced to put young players on the open transfer list. It is bad for the player as well as for the club.
    Many hon. Members have spoken of their particular sport, and that is all to the good. I hope, however, that if the Chancellor gives a concession this evening he will make it not for one sport only, such as, for example, cricket. While it would be right to make a concession for that sport, I hope he will apply it to all other sports mentioned today such as boxing, Rugby Union, Association football and, of course, Rugby League.
    I want to stress Rugby League because Workington, the constituency I represent, is proud of its Rugby League team. In five years we have won the Rugby League championship, and only a fortnight ago we provided a fine spectacle at Wembley when we won the Rugby League Cup against gallant opponents. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Sylvester) knows that I am referring to his team, Featherstone.
    All the strictures that have been applied to Association football apply to Rugby League. I have some figures to show that if this tax goes through there will be serious financial difficulties for some clubs. Already on an average there have been falling gates. The figure up to 23rd February this year shows that the average gate per team of Rugby League was 8,460. In the previous year the gate was slightly higher at 8,887, and in the year previous to that it was 9,957.
    This goes to show that many clubs are finding it extremely difficult and that already their losses are increasing. The figures for 1947 to 1948 showed that five Rugby League clubs made losses, the figure for 1948 to 1949 was four, by

    259
    1949 to 1950 it had increased to eight, and in 1950 to 1951 to 11. Thus, with increased running costs, and with this increased Entertainments Duty, many of the Rugby League clubs in the industrial North will face many of the same hardships as the association football clubs.
    We have in my constituency a new Third Division club and, like all other clubs in the Third Division, it will face serious hardship. I have a letter from the secretary saying that under the proposed tax clubs will have to give, first, serious consideration to prices, and secondly, to a reduction in certain parts of the cheaper accommodation. That would be a serious matter. So I hope the Chancellor will reconsider the effects of his tax on Rugby League, on soccer, and on the other sports mentioned today.
    I disagree profoundly with the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). I always thought he was a Pickwickian figure who enjoyed life and liked to see people enjoy their games and pastimes. I can remember on many an occasion the hon. Member railing against the austerity of a Labour Chancellor. Yet today he is supporting the point of view of the Chancellor and the argument that because there is a serious financial and economic crisis we should increase this Entertainments Duty and therefore increase the admission prices. He must recognise that a wider view has been expressed in this Committee.
    7.15 p.m.
    We are a nation of sportsmen. I do not want to get involved in clichés, but sport is essential to our national character. Even during the war it was important, not only for increasing the production of the industrial workers, but for our troops abroad. I know that in Italy we welcomed the opportunity to see the Eighth Army touring soccer side led by Stan Cullis; it gave the troops grand relaxation and was invaluable from the point of view of morale.
    I recognise that there are abuses in regard to sport. I think there is too much commercialism and sham amateurism which is a blot upon sport in general. From the point of view of education of character, the basis is laid in our schools. Of course, that is linked up with the wider sports field. Therefore, we need our
    260
    sport. We have provided many ambassadors to other countries in those who have represented us at the Olympic Games, and by giving games to other countries we have helped to spread goodwill. I hope, therefore, that in his reconsideration of this matter the Chancellor will not single out one sport, but will bear in mind all those mentioned today.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he tell us whether he appreciates that there are other sports, which have not been mentioned in this debate, which have made no complaint because they do not depend on the gate? I am thinking of sailing, rowing, and so on.
    Mr. F. Peart: I am only dealing with sports affected by the Entertainments Duty.
    Mr. I. J. Pitman: It is difficult at this time of the evening to claim to introduce novel points, but there is a novel factor about some points which have not yet been made but which ought to be made. I am sorry I did not follow the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), the sparkling Achilles, because the points I have to make are rather more appropriate to the crafty Ulysses.
    Particularly I start off with a point of Income Tax, because the Committee has not appreciated that in many cases wherever a profit is made out of sport in this country—in other words, wherever there is a prosperous club—the Chancellor will be getting rather less than half of the increase in tax for which this Budget provides because there will be a reduction in the receipts of the club and, as such, a diminution of the balance on which Profits Tax and Income Tax is paid. This point emphasises clearly what we would like the Chancellor to bear in mind, namely, that it is on the clubs at the bottom that this tax will really fall. I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for Derby, South, that it is on the clubs at the bottom that the real foundations of British sport lie.
    There has been a lot of constituency talk. Bath has a Rugby Football Club. There are not many hon. Members in this House who can claim that they played for many years for their constituency club and captained it. Perhaps, therefore, I may be forgiven if I quote it

    261
    as a club which is particularly suitable for the compassion of the Chancellor. It had its rugby grandstand bombed in the great blitz on Bath, and it cannot get a licence to build it again. Up and down the country this tax will fall most heavily on those who can least afford to bear it, and that is a very bad principle of taxation.
    My next plea to the Chancellor—I might almost say my Machiavellian plea instead of my Ulyssean plea—is that he should ask the Minister of Education what she thinks about the teaching of swimming and other educational activities under the Butler Act, and to bear in mind that masters quite properly take their classes to the cricket grounds and the swimming baths and show them real performance at its highest level. I would agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), who feels deeply that there is educational fulfilment in a really sweet and lovely half volley taken smoothly and perfectly.
    Why they call them visual aids I do not know, but schools go to the trouble of getting expensive equipment to show moving pictures of these sports in action. How much better it is in all cases to show the real thing as a living entity. I would ask the Chancellor to remember his great past in respect of education and not to neglect the educational aspect of spectating.
    The hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), raised a very important issue of where we were to discriminate. May I suggest two kinds of discrimination? First of all, there is the issue of whether it is a human being or an animal. A greyhound or a horse on the one side is a perfectly clear discrimination from a human being on the other. I attend Henley Regatta, and I do not think that rowing or sailing are necessarily exempt from this tax. One method of discrimination is the human versus the animal aspect, and possibly the activity of betting is another. Wembley Lions, for instance, and the other dirt track racers are no different from cyclists merely because they are mounted on mechanically-propelled vehicles instead of on vehicles which they propel themselves. There is still the same element.
    That leads me to my final point. I think that where all these sports differ fundamentally from racing—whether
    262
    greyhound racing or horse racing—is that they constitute a social act on behalf of the community they represent. When the Bath Football Club is in action it is a band of human beings associated together in a good and lawful purpose, and they bring into the ambit of that social group the whole of a community in which they live.
    The way in which Newcastle came up to London in such force and the welcome they were given when they returned home with the Cup emphasises that it is a group effort. Everybody identifies himself with his group, and I do not think that the free association of free Britons in a group for a good action is appropriate for taxation at all. If we must tax it at all, let us tax those group activities on the lowest and not the higher scale.
    Mr. I. Mikardo: I do not think the Treasury have ever been very good or understanding about sport. Perhaps that is natural. Perhaps one of the qualifications for being in the Treasury is that one should feel that life is real, life is earnest, and perhaps that is why the Treasury appear to consider that if a person spends an afternoon on a cricket ground he is frittering away his time but if he spends an evening in a stuffy theatre watching a play called "A Trolleybus named Lechery" he is having some moral uplift and, therefore, he should get in on the cheap.
    I feel that there is not much hope of this lack of Governmental understanding of sport being greatly remedied by the interest recently exhibited by the Prime Minister in Association football, because I am told—I do not know with what truth—that right through the proceedings at Wembley Stadium last Saturday afternoon he insisted on calling the referee the Minister for the Co-ordination of Arsenal and Newcastle United. I am quite sure that we shall have to go on persuading the right hon. Gentleman very hard indeed if we are to soften the Treasury attitude towards sport. I am quite sure that any Treasury official who plays cricket eschews altogether the drive and the pull and confines himself entirely to the chop and the cut; and any Treasury official who referees a football match will never give a free kick, because nobody in the Treasury likes

    263
    giving anything free, though doubtless he will be very liberal with his penalties.
    To be serious, I can well understand the sort of thought within the right hon. Gentleman's Department which precipitated the present proposals. There were his higher and trusted officials sitting around in the pre-Budget conference. They had a look at some of these games in which, on paper, a great deal of money is involved, and they said, "This is obviously an inelastic commodity. These clicking turnstiles represent an inelastic commodity. When we get 135,000 people at the Scottish cup final, when we get people nominally paying £39,000 to go to the F.A. Cup Final, and when we have stories in the papers about tickets being sold on the black market at five, six and eight times their face value, then," say these economists of the Treasury, "this is really a terrifically inelastic commodity; we can go on walloping it."
    When they read in the newspapers of £35,000 being paid merely to transfer a gentleman a few miles from Nottingham to Sheffield—much more than the right hon. Gentleman could get for transferring from Saffron Walden to Reading, South, and much more than I could get for transferring from Reading, South, to Saffron Walden—they say that this is obviously a business with a great deal of money in it.
    I want to add my voice to those of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have pointed out to the Chancellor that one Cup Final does not make a winter and one Arsenal does not make a Football League. When we get away from the sphere of this very small number of very prosperous clubs who can pay large amounts of money and who deal in very large sums, and when we get down to the little provincial struggling Third Division football team, we are in a very different situation. There are these clubs running on a shoe-string, as hon. Members have pointed out, at present not allowed to borrow any money, or at least finding it very difficult to borrow money, some of them at their wits end to pay summer retaining wages, which, in all conscience, are very low indeed. There the picture is entirely different.
    264
    The Chancellor ought to reconsider this matter for a reason not so far given in this debate—a reason not more important than those already given, but a fresh reason. That is that I believe that by his proposals he would actually reduce and not increase his revenue. What the Chancellor is doing is to let some sports off more lightly and to make up that loss of revenue by charging other sports more. The calculations on which he has worked out that the increase from some sports will offset the decrease in the case of others are wrong, and will, in fact, lead very rapidly to diminishing returns so far as county cricket and League and Rugby football are concerned.
    7.30 p.m.
    We should not think too much in terms of Tottenham Hotspur, who can attract a gate of 60,000 people from almost within a stone's throw, certainly within a 2d. or 3d. trolley bus ride. If I may refer to the club in my constituency as a not untypical instance, one finds the situation in which on every alternate Saturday people come into Reading from all parts of Berkshire, from half the county of Oxfordshire and a third of the county of Hampshire, to see Reading Football Club play. It is the only club in a large area.
    It is very noticeable that the falling off in attendances at football matches in the last two years has been very largely accounted for by the falling off in the numbers of out-of-town people attending. I notice, for example, a sharp reduction in the number of motor coaches which have come from 10 or 15 miles away. It is understandable; the men who use them have not only an extra 3d. or 6d. to pay, but their fares have also gone up, and when they have to consider the cutting down of their marginal expenditure, that is clearly a factor much greater than obtains in a great city such as London, Birmingham, Liverpool or Glasgow.
    I beg the Chancellor to disabuse himself of the idea, to which he has given expression even this afternoon, that the clubs will recoup themselves entirely from the spectator. I am sure they will not. I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), who, among his many distinctions, numbers the distinction of representing me in this House, was absolutely right when he

    265
    pointed out to the Chancellor that there would undoubtedly be a shrinkage in gates at many sports. Therefore, the Chancellor is defeating his own object. He will be reducing the amount of extra taxation on which he is relying to offset the reliefs he has given.
    I beg him to consider, as he and previous Chancellors have considered in regard to liquor and tobacco, for example, whether further taxation might not reduce instead of increase the amount of revenue obtained. I beg him to consider whether the proposals which he has made do not fall into that category. It would be a great pity if we got the worst of all worlds, if poor football clubs were made to suffer, if they could not pay their players proper wages, if sports' spectators were made to suffer, and on top of all that the Chancellor got less revenue as a result. That would be a bad lookout.
    I think that is a real danger with which the Chancellor is faced, and I add my voice to those of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have begged him to reconsider his proposal.
    Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: I wish to express a further opinion from Scotland. In the course of three and a half hours of debate this afternoon, I have heard only one voice from Scotland raised—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). I do not propose to comment on his remarks one way or the other, but will devote myself to directing, I trust, the Chancellor's attention to one particular phase of the Amendment which we are considering, that is, in relation to Rugby Union and its associated larger and smaller teams.
    My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and other of my hon. Friends representing Wales have spoken on behalf of the English and Welsh Rugby Unions. I should like to add my word on behalf of the Scottish Rugby Union. Scottish Members of Parliament on both sides of the Committee have undoubtedly heard from that body and have given thought to what they have heard. It may fall to me to support two of my hon. Friends in pleading with the Chancellor to consider the impact of this form of taxation on Rugby Union football.
    266
    In fact, I should like to extend my remarks to all amateur games. I was brought up in a belief in the amateur game. My father was a member of the original Queen's Park football team. That was an amteur team—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I think the hon. and gallant Member said that he would direct his remarks to amateur sports. An Amendment dealing with them is being called later, and discussion of amateur sports is not in order on the Amendment now before the Committee.
    Sir W. Wakefield: On a point of order. Is not my hon. and gallant Friend in order in discussing the point he has raised, whether the sport be amateur or not'? Throughout this discussion references have been made to professional and amateur sport. Surely the hon. and gallant Member is, I submit with great respect, in order in discussing amateur sport.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member must not deal with that matter expressly because there is an Amendment on the Order Paper dealing with it which will be called later.
    Commander Donaldson: I should like to support the remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in relation to the smaller teams. We have had references to the well-known and popular teams and the financial return which they attract, and to which the Chancellor's attention has been drawn in proposing this additional taxation.
    I wish to make a point in relation to the character-building which comes from the supporting of the smaller and less effective teams. In my constituency, in the Scottish border counties, which consider themselves to be the cradle of Scottish Rugby football, there is much concern about the application of increasing taxation and its effect on clubs in the six burghs in my constituency. They have worked hard for many years to acquire grounds and to support teams in each of those burghs. The increased tax will have an effect not only on the burghs but on the lives of the young men there who go to learn to play that form of sport.
    I ask the Chancellor to consider, when he is replying to the debate, the effect

    267
    on the character of such young men, disregarding altogether the financial aspect. We have grown up as a nation of sportsmen, as has been argued from both sides of the Committee. I should have liked to argue another point, but you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, have ruled that I should not do so. I make my final appeal to the Chancellor to consider the character-building angle of sport in this country, and particularly the more junior clubs and associations, whether of Association or Rugby football or other forms of sport. I beg my right hon. Friend to consider his reply in the light of that appeal.
    Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: This has been a debate very largely about sport, and if I may begin with a sporting analogy, I would say that if I were the Chancellor's second instead of his predecessor, I should certainly throw in the towel. We have had an overwhelming torrent of argument, all in one direction, all directed to convincing the right hon. Gentleman what a bad proposal this is.
    I think he will realise that the speeches we have heard have not been made in any party sense whatever. They have come from all sides of the Committee and from all parts of the country. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will take them seriously and think again about this Clause.
    I think we have had only one dissentient from this general view. I refer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), and he tried to drag in to his rescue Sir Patrick Dollan. In defence of Sir Patrick Dollan, I must say that when I was in Glasgow not long ago Sir Patrick arranged for me, in company with himself, to go to an international football match, so I do not think that he can be quite so much against sport as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South.
    The rest of the hon. Member's point of view seemed to me to be largely to this effect: that the country was insolvent and, therefore, the more insolvencies and bankruptcies that could be produced at home, the sooner we should become solvent. That might by some people be regarded as a fair description of the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I should not have expected somebody sitting on the benches
    268
    opposite to stab him in the back quite so hard.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) dealt very fully with the history of the tax. There is no need for me to go over it again, except to say in defence of the Treasury that I do not think they can be held responsible for anything that is wrong with the tax as it is now, or for what the Chancellor is proposing. The first breach in the principle of a single tax for entertainments was made, as my hon. Friend pointed out, way back in 1935, when special concessions were made to theatres. The second breach in the principle was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), when he put games and sports—I think, very rightly—in the same category as theatres and those other entertainments which paid the lower tax.
    Last year, much attention was drawn to the difficulty of drawing a line precisely between games and sports like cricket and football and racing, whether it be horse racing, speedway racing or dog racing; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), explained the rather, perhaps, tenuous line of distinction which was then employed in the Treasury, whereby the lower tax was levied where, as he put it, human performance was not aided by mechanical power or the speed of animals.
    This year, the Chancellor has been trying to remedy, or at any rate, to improve upon, the previous demarcation lines, but in trying to put right one alleged injustice, he has undoubtedly perpetrated another, which we regard as wholly indefensible.
    Many hon. Members have spoken most powerfully in defence of the various games and sports which which the country is associated. I do not intend to spend much time on that aspect, but I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that this afternoon we have had, not merely people who watch sport, but some very distinguished players—for example, the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker). All of them were extremely dis-

    269
    tinguished athletes. We have had only one other athlete of great distinction in the Committee who has remained silent, his lips sealed, sitting immediately behind the Chancellor, and, no doubt, feeling very frustrated indeed because, as the Chancellor's P.P.S., he is unable to speak in the debate and give voice to his feelings. We all know what those feelings must be on this occasion.
    The Amendment—the first of those we are discussing—was put down by my hon. Friends and myself to bring down all the middle group in the Chancellor's proposals to the lower level of tax. I am inclined to the view that racing and mechanically-aided sports cannot be very easily distinguished from the other games and sports of which we have been speaking, and therefore I am rather inclined to share what evidently is the Government's view that they must be treated together.
    7.45 p.m.
    There is, however, an argument the other way, which my right hon. Friend put very well last year. He said that we would think the matter over; and there was an inquiry, and so on. But, on the whole, my view is that these things probably go together. I certainly take the view that one cannot distinguish between cricket, on the one hand, and football, on the other hand. Hon. Members have spoken in favour of one game or sport and not another, and have made very powerful cases in each instance; but I do not think that one could draw that sort of distinction; and I am doubtful, from a long-term viewpoint, at any rate, whether one could draw the distinction which, I admit, existed in the previous state of the tax. On that basis, therefore, I propose to argue that the Chancellor should accept our Amendment and reduce the tax, not only on games and sports, but on racing also, to the lower level.
    First, how much revenue is involved? It is perfectly natural for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to look first to this aspect and say, "Am I going to lose a great deal?" All of us, whatever we say, realise that that must be a matter of importance to him. But how much is involved? According to my calculations, if our Amendment were accepted the loss involved could not be more than about £2 million. Nobody could say that that was a very large amount of revenue to lose.
    270
    The Chancellor in his Budget speech did not give a very precise form of accounting in which every exact million pounds was counted. In presenting his Budget, he finally gave back in reliefs, I think, some £24 million more than he took from the public, and I did not get the impression that he was very much concerned about £1 million one way or another.
    We know—at any rate, we hope and believe—that the Chancellor will make some important concessions on Purchase Tax, and I should be surprised and shocked if they do not amount to a great deal more than £2 million. That being so, I should not have thought that the argument, which he will no doubt put forward, that he cannot afford to lose £2 million, was very convincing to anybody.
    Sir W. Wakefield: In his estimate of £2 million, has the right hon. Gentleman made allowance, in view of possible and likely decreases in "gates," for a decrease in Income Tax where losses occur instead of profits?
    Mr. Gaitskell: No; mine is a gross figure. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I always think it better not to make those allowances for losses in Income Tax, and so on, because they arise in so many cases. If one tried to make them, the whole thing would become complicated. I agree that there will be such losses, and, therefore, £2 million is the limit, although the actual figure may be very much less. That strengthens my case.
    The real issue is this: why should the tax on games, sport and racing be higher than on theatres and all other entertainment except films? What is the basis for the new distinction which the Chancellor is drawing? My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East and other Members have drawn attention to the ridiculous nature of the proposition.
    Is there, for example, some moral difference? Is it better for people to go to theatres than to watch a cricket or football match? Obviously not, because the lower rate of tax applies not to any particular type of play or performance; it applies to every stage performance except films, and therefore of course embraces all sorts of things that could not possibly be defended on any moral grounds. For that matter, in so far as there is a cul-

    271
    tural argument, it is already catered for by the special provisions of the Finance Acts, under which, under certain conditions, complete freedom from Entertainments Duty is granted. That, therefore, cannot be the reason.
    If, for example, one thinks of a sport like ice hockey, which happens to be played at the same place, in the same stadium where, I understand, "Puss in Boots on Ice" is also performed, there cannot be any possible reason for charging the ice hockey game more than is charged for "Puss in Boots on Ice."
    I think it was Mr. Bernard Shaw who said that an Englishman only feels really moral when he is uncomfortable. There may be something in that, but it certainly cannot be used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in defence of this discrimination, because, for the most part, watching sport is not a particularly comfortable affair. The benches are very hard and one often has to sit in the open, and sometimes in the rain also. The argument of comfort cannot, therefore, be put forward.
    Some hon. Members have drawn distinctions between something that is arranged for private profit and something that is non-profit making, but here also the argument falls completely. Quite obviously, from what many hon. Members have said, a great many of the clubs are not making any profits at all—they are making losses—and we all know, except in a very limited number of cases, that most sports and games are not organised for the private profit of individuals. It is simply a question of their paying their way. Then we may say, and this probably is the Treasury argument—as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo) said—"Well the market can stand it; you can afford to increase the tax here because, after all, people will pay; it is so popular." But I think enough evidence has been produced from all sides of the Committee to show that that is an extremely flimsy argument.
    I do not think it necessary to add more; I could quote the figures of football clubs in my division. I want to underline one thing which hon. Members have said. I think we are in very much less of an inflationary position at home than we were a year ago. There is a
    272
    tightness of money and a great danger that an increase in tax on games and sports of this kind will lead to a fall in gate money, as has been suggested by a number of hon. Members.
    What else can one find to justify this distinction? I find it hard to think of anything. I suppose one could say, in trying to draw this particular line, that these sports and games are always con tests. If one asks what distinguishes them from the theatre or ballet, perhaps it is that they are teams and individuals competing with each other. If that is a distinction, it seems to me a bad excuse for a differentiation against such contests and it certainly does not come very well from any Englishman who believes in sport of this kind.
    A great deal has been said about the value of sport and our national character. I hesitate to say much about that. I was extremely bad at cricket and not much better at any other game. I managed to get myself appointed on two occasions as captain of the cricket second XI, but that was on grounds of seniority in age and not on grounds of ability. Therefore, I certainly cannot in any way rank myself with the giants who have spoken this afternoon. But I do like watching these things, and I do profoundly believe that sport has been of enormous value to the development of our national character. I also think, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South, said, that the fact that sport has spread from this country to others is probably of considerable benefit to the world generally.
    Earlier I referred to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton), and I appeal to him. After all, he is sitting there and can surely influence the Chancellor. Here is a man whom we know, to the great delight of the whole country, was the first to knock up a century against that famous Australian team of 1921. It seems to me a monstrous thing that he should be carrying briefs to the Chancellor to advise him how to withstand an appeal to take off a tax on cricket. I must say to the Chancellor that we shall certainly look forward, if he does not give way on this, to another —and this time a genuine—resignation from the ranks of the P.P.S.'s. I hope that the hon. Member for Chelmsford and the hon. Member for St. Marylebone —a very powerful combination between them—
    Mr. Hollis: A family quarrel?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Not at all, a family appeal—I hope they will together make the Chancellor see reason in this matter. This is not really a party issue. Indeed, if the Government take our advice and drop the whole tax, they will regain some of their popularity in the country. That would be a very nice thing for them, and we offer it to them on a plate. We hope very much that they will accept our Amendment. I am bound to say that if they do not accept our Amendment, we shall press it to a Division and will welcome and expect all hon. Members who have supported us in the debate to come into the Division Lobby with us and vote down the Government.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) did not expect my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) to take my place on this occasion, but I hope that after I have concluded my remarks—which I shall keep as short as possible—my hon. Friend will continue to live happily by my side giving me the service he does with such skill and devotion. The right hon. Member referred to my throwing in the towel. I assure him that I have no intention of doing any such thing. That is one of the articles we shall be discussing when we discuss Purchase Tax, and we had better wait for that later in the debate.
    1 am very regretful that on going to the Treasury I inherited two taxes so complicated and difficult to defend as the structure of Purchase Tax and the Entertainments Duty, as bequeathed to me by my predecessors. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) spoke with such ability on behalf of Stoke City and his colleagues in it, and doubted whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew the effect of this proposal. I can assure him that I do know the effect and do not particularly like it.
    But I thought it was my duty to put before the Committee now, as I did at the time of the Budget debate, the results of an inquiry which was started by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, after very considerable pressure from the Committee and the House last year on the subject of speedway racing and the need to reduce the duty. What I have laid before the Committee now, and previously in the Budget
    274
    debate, is no more nor less than the result of a most careful inquiry conducted by the entirely independent Customs and Excise, who have reported direct to me. But the responsibility—
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to mislead the Committee into thinking that he is simply reporting something which his officials put in front of him, for surely he has some views of his own and is taking responsibility for the opinions given.
    Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Member would be less impatient and more calm in watching the "cricket match," he would know that I was going to use the word—and was actually saying it, as the Official Reporters will bear witness—that the responsibility is entirely mine, as it should be, and thus the responsibility of the Government. Nevertheless, as this inquiry was made by an independent body, a body we all respect, the position is that I have put before the Committee the report of a general inquiry into the Entertainments Duty and it is one which I thought was, on the whole, on lines which would be valuable for the consideration of the Committee.
    I cannot refer to all the speeches which have been made, but I think it helpful that in this Finance Bill we are giving hon. Members—in this case 25 of them—an opportunity of representing quite clearly the constituencies for which they sit and if we go on at this pace the beautiful book of hon. Members' names and constituencies, with its pictures, will not be necessary to any of us, because we shall immediately be able to put a name to each hon. Member. I have listened as patiently as possible and with considerable interest to the debate, but I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), should imagine that I am about to encourage drunkenness and juvenile delinquency by coming down so hard on sport. I can only tell him that my motives are not as evil as he imagines.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course not. The right hon. Gentleman's motives are all right, but what I am concerned about are the effects of the actions. Does he realise that sport is in fact much our greatest safeguard for the youth of the country against alcoholism and juvenile delinquency?
    Mr. Butler: I think I realise that as well as the right hon. Gentleman, although, unfortunately, I am similar to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, in that I do not practise it with as much skill as the right hon. Member for Derby, South. Nor, I hope, do I practise the other vices to which the right hon. Member has referred.
    8.0 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) positively wished me, from this side of the Committee, uneasy nights. So it is the case That I have very few friends on this occasion. However, I do not think it is at all a bad thing for the Chancellor to be quite impersonal before the Committee and the country, and that when he has to put matters upon which he thinks the national interest should come first, he should put them in as impersonal a manner as possible. When my hon. Friend talks about uneasy nights, I can assure him that I have many subjects which give me a great deal more uneasy nights than this one. Although this is a matter of great importance and moment, it does for all of us have a certain amount of entertainment value.
    Mr. Nicholson: I am sure my right hon. Friend will realise that the least I wish him is the peaceful sleep of an innocent mind, which I should hate to be disturbed by twinges of conscience.
    Mr. Butler: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, but when I make up my mind, I do not have trouble about my conscience, because my conscience has dictated the right course.
    After this little interlude, I think it would be right—and I shall come to the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), and other hon. Members in the course of my remarks—for the Committee to realise that the idea that emerged from this inquiry was that there should be three rates of duty. I think it very disappointing, if the House of Commons is to be taken as the ultimate jury in matters like this, if the Minister is to take a decision from the House direct—and this has been a real House of Commons day—that no reference has been made to the improvements in the duty proposed in the Bill; and no thanks have been given, so far as I am aware,
    276
    by those Members representing the speedway interests, who exerted such pressure with such skill last year, and that almost the whole of the pressure should have come from the football and cricket enthusiasts, without any regard to the efforts which have generally been made within the scales to achieve some sort of compromise in that matter.
    Mr. Malcolm McCorquodale: I am sure everyone would have liked to thank my right hon. Friend for the various concessions he has made on horse racing, and all that kind of thing, but I was advised on high authority that it would be out of order on this Amendment.
    Mr. Butler: I am very glad by my remarks to have restored the balance, and to have elicited, almost by force, at least one acknowledgment that some good has been done; and I hope that you, Sir, Charles, will excuse it on this occasion.
    The scales which have been suggested are the scales which are known—first, broadly, the living theatre and all that that means; secondly, all sports and games not chargeable in either the first or the third scales; and thirdly, the scale from which the major part of the duty comes and in which is chiefly the cinema. That is the general arrangement to which we have come, and it seems to me to be a much more scientific approach than the right hon. Member for Leeds, North, suggested when he spoke on 12th March and said that just to put up the tax on football and cricket and bring it down on speedway racing was not scientific.
    A great deal of trouble has been taken about this and the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the very kernel of our case in the remarks he made, when he acknowledged that he sees no easy alternative to putting all sport together in one scale of Duty. That is the conclusion to which the Government have come. As it is, our proposals do involve a small extra cost to the Exchequer of about £250,000 in a normal year and it will come to as much as £500,000, in 1952-53, because the increases in duty this year have been put off hitherto until the end of the summer, whereas the benefits operate from 30th March.
    It is a matter of great regret to me, among others, that the losers in this case under the plan submitted would be soccer,

    277
    Rugby League and Rugby Union—rugger generally—cricket, tennis and so forth, for which I personally feel a great deal more sympathy than for any form of racing, speedway or otherwise. In order to establish the constituency from which I come, and to keep in fashion with the rest of the hon. Members who have spoken, I would say that at Halstead we have a particular football problem, in that we have just established a stand. I am myself the president of the football supporters league, and I can assure the Committee that I have gained no popularity from the stand I am taking on this matter.
    I now come to the hon. Member for Reading, South. If he wishes to arrange a transfer, I shall be only too glad to come to Reading, South, where I should win his seat, but he would not be able to win mine.
    Mr. Mikardo: If the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to relieve the transaction from the betting tax, I would not mind having a small bet with him about that.
    Mr. Butler: What have we asked the followers and supporters of these clubs to do? It is to put on, roughly, 3d. more, and certainly not more than 6d., per admission in most cases. I understand the appeal made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), in a perfectly human manner, and by many hon. Members, in favour of production, and the appeal made by those who say that enough imposition has already been put on people. It is my business to take a human view of these things. I understand perfectly well that it does mean extra sacrifice, but at the same time it does not mean quite such a sacrifice to the clubs themselves as has been made out.
    Let us examine the proposal made by the Opposition to deal with this very difficult problem. The Opposition Amendment, supported by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, and moved by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), would cost more than £2¼ million. I cannot be expected to join in the siren song of the right hon. Gentleman about the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to share out a million pounds here and a million pounds there. He knows perfectly well that if he were
    278
    standing in my place and adopting, as he would have to do, a responsible tone, instead of enjoying the delightfully irresponsible atmosphere of opposition, he would shield the public money and not throw it away in the manner he suggests. The position about the Budget is that while, naturally, concessions may be made here and there, we must treat the public money with care, and I regard the cost of £2¼ million for this concession as too high.
    The next mistake which I think the right hon. Gentleman makes in this Amendment is that the higher scale would become the residual scale, instead of the intermediate scale. The result would be that entertainments, if they are so-called, such as exhibitions, mannequin parades and bathing beauty contests, would come in the highest scale of all; and so the votes which the right hon. Gentleman would win from football fans he would lose from those more attractive sources. That, in my view, is not a vital consideration.
    But what is a vital consideration is that the Amendment, which is supported by the right hon. Gentleman, by putting horse racing, dog racing and speedway racing in the lower grade, would give an unsolicited concession of no less than £800,000 to horse racing, dog racing and speedway racing on top of the concession which the Committee extracted last year from the Government for those very sports. They have already had over £1 million concession and it would be absolutely wrong that the Committee should support this Amendment to give an extra concession on top of what we have already given to the racing interests. For those reasons, I believe that the structure of the tax would be upset by the compromise suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that because he does not want to give any more money away to the horse racing people, he must make football and cricket pay more?
    Mr. Butler: No.
    Mr. Gaitskell: But that is the argument.
    Mr. Butler: No. The right hon. Gentleman has not heard the concluding portion of my speech. I was about to

    279
    say, when he interrupted, what is the alternative, because I am able to think in the positive almost as well as the right hon. Gentleman.
    The difficulty the Committee is up against here is how to differentiate between the various types and sorts of sport. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone has an Amendment on the Order Paper which brings out very clearly the very great difficulty of differentiating between the different types of sport. If, for example, one is simply going to move down football and cricket, one then leaves hockey, lacrosse, tennis and baseball in the higher scale. How is one to differentiate between one of these sports and another?
    Can one try and lay down some, shall we say, artistic test, as I think the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), might invent? Would one have a song in one's heart if one saw the flashing bat of Spooner, and would one put cricket in the artistic scale? I do not think the artistic test would do. Would one try the team test'? If so, one would have to put in the lower scale many other sports.
    Mr. Ellis Smith: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are discussing my Amendment also, which covers the point he is making and is worded accordingly?
    Mr. Butler: The trouble with that is that it leaves out certain sports and does not carry them to the lower group.
    Mr. Smith: Racing can afford that.
    Mr. Butler: If so, why is the hon. Member supporting his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South. in giving an extra £800,000 to racing by this Amendment? If the hon. Member supports giving another £800,000 to racing, he will be in an inconsistency himself. What other means are there of differentiating? My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) has said that sports that are educational should be separated from others. I do not think we should ever have agreement on what sports are educational.
    Mr. Hollis: Not exactly educational, but in point of fact play a part in education, which is a very different thing.
    Mr. Butler: I am very doubtful whether one could say that racing took a part in education or not. I should have thought one would learn more about criticising national finance from a little experience of racing than in any other way.
    Then there was the scheme put forward by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. E. Wakefield) for which I have great sympathy, namely, that there are certain national sports such as football and cricket which are particularly associated with our national life. I must warn the Committee that if we were in a hurry to make a differentiation for these sports and leave untouched others. such as boxing and athletics to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South, drew attention, we should get into trouble for that. And if we were to make differentiations of that sort, we should rapidly upset confidence in the structure of the duty as a whole, which brings some £47 million to the Exchequer.
    Therefore, in approaching this question of how we are to make differentiations, we should be very careful indeed. Let us tie up in a scientific way how the Government's plan affects these different interests. The average incidence of duty on dog and speedway racing should fall from 40 per cent. on duty-inclusive admission prices to just over 20 per cent., and in the case of horse racing from just under 50 per cent. to about 30 per cent.
    The reason horse racing is a little above the others in our final plan is because of the much higher admission prices on which the duty falls. After the increase, the duty on football will represent on average about 20 per cent. of duty-inclusive admission receipts compared with about 10 per cent. at present, 17 per cent. in the period 1946-48 and well over 30 per cent. prior to 1946.
    8.15 p.m.
    I think the best criticism of these proposals has been on the human side, but scientifically this plan the Government have put forward is not so unfair or shattering as the Committee appears to believe. Nor do I think it a particular imposition on people at the present time who go in for the pools or who are willing to spend any amount of money on smoking cigarettes, which I hope they will do to help

    281
    the Exchequer. I know this is an unpopular thing to say, but if Chancellors of the Exchequer are not unpopular they do not do their job properly, and I do not think it is impossible for people to be able to pay this extra sum on football if they are asked. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has already drawn attention to the attendance at matches.
    The position of cricket seems to me to be quite different. Attendances at first-class matches have been falling steadily since 1947, when the total admission numbers were over 8 million. Last year the corresponding figure was only about 31 million and this must have been partly due to the bad weather. As one hon. Member has pointed out, cricket unfortunately depends on the weather a great deal more than do most sports.
    I therefore fully understand the anxiety cricket clubs feel about the increase in duty. That was one of the reasons we decided to defer until the later part of the year the introduction of the duty. There are, of course, other factors outside the duty which have a bad effect on cricket attendances. The secretary of the M.C.C. a few months ago suggested that the increasing slowness of the game was having a depressing effect on public interest. I believe that view is borne out by the relatively successful financial results achieved by some clubs who have deliberately encouraged brighter cricket and have gone out for victory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Ashton) will do tonight, rather than risk a game deteriorating into a draw. I believe that brighter cricket will do far more to improve gates than higher Entertainments Duty will do to reduce them.
    At the same time, I am desirous of giving what help I can without departing from the essential principles underlying the duty as it stands. Therefore, in the case of cricket, I propose first that, at the appropriate time, Clause 2 (7) should be amended so as to defer the date on which the increase in duty comes into effect from Sunday, 31st August until Saturday, 13th September. That will meet the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) and others, because it will mean that all cricket this year will be exempted from the payment of the extra duty. It will also mean that for
    282
    football the first Saturday of the next season, which will fall on 6th September, will not now come into the increased rate of duty. That is not a big concession to football but it is a considerable concession to cricket. It will mean that for the whole of this summer cricket will not pay this extra duty.
    I want to say to the Committee that, in view of representations made to me about cricket, I undertake during this year and prior to the next Budget that we shall watch carefully the gates and the position of the cricket clubs on the old duty; and we shall have an opportunity to consider this before the next cricket season, if on close examination we find that the situation is really bad for the future of this great national game.
    Now for football. As I explained to the Committee, we are in a real difficulty here because if we start accepting the view tonight that one can push football down to another scale, we shall get into trouble with all sorts of interests and sports. We shall get into trouble with the main sources of this duty and upset its structure. Therefore, I am prepared to go only so far as this: as there has been almost a remarkable unanimity in the Committee tonight, I shall do my duty by undertaking to review this aspect of the tax in the light of the evidence I can collect—evidence from clubs as to what the effect will be on their future and evidence from them on their ability or inability to pass on the taxation to their supporters. I should undertake to do that before the Report stage. I can give no specific undertaking of a definite concession, but after what I have heard I think it would have been wrong of me tonight not to undertake to look at this matter again in order to see the effect of what has been suggested.
    This is the way to conduct business when there is a general feeling among Members; but I must say that I cannot advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South, for the reasons I have given. It would be very expensive for the Revenue and, although the spirit in which it has been put forward and the speeches in support have been perfectly reasonable and constructive, I frankly do not think that it is the right way out of our difficulties.
    Question put, "That 'three' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 288; Noes, 266.

    Division No. 115]

    AYES

    [8.23 p.m.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Fell, A.

    Low, A. R. W.

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

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Luoas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

    Arbuthnot, John

    Fort, R.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Foster, John

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S

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

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

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

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

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

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J M.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

    Banks, Col. C.

    Glyn, Sir Ralph

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Godber, J. B.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Barrow, Sir John

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

    Baxter, A. B.

    Gower, H. R.

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

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    Gridley, Sir Arnold

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R E

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Grimond, J.

    Markham, Major S. F.

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

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Marples, A. E.

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Hare, Hon. J. H.

    Maude, Angus

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Maudling, R.

    Birch, Nigel

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

    Bishop, F. P.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Medlicott, Brig. F.

    Black, C. W.

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

    Mellor, Sir John

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Bossom, A. C.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Bowen, E. R.

    Hay, John

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Heald, Sir Lionel

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Heath, Edward

    Nabarro, C. D. N.

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

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

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

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

    Odey, G. W.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Holt, A. F.

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

    Butcher, H. W.

    Hope, Lord John

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

    Horobin, I. M.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

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

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Osborne, C

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Partridge, E.

    Channon, H.

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

    Perkins, W. R. D.

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Clyde, Rt Hon. J L

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

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A

    Cole, Norman

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Pitman, I J.

    Colegate, W. A.

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Jennings, R.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Profumo, J. D

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Raikes, H, V.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Johnson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

    Rayner, Brig R

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

    Kaberry, D.

    Redmayne, E.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Remnant, Hon. P

    Crouch, R. F.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Renton, D L. M.

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Lambton, Viscount

    Roberston, Sir David

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Russell, R. S.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

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

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Donner, P. W.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Linstead, H N.

    Sandys, Rt. Hon D.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    Llewellyn, D. T.

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

    Drayson, G. B.

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

    Scott, R Donald

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

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Shepherd, William

    Duthie, W. S.

    Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

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

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Longden. Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Erroll, F. J

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Snadden, W. McN.

    Teeling, W.

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Soames, Capt. C.

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

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Wellwood, W.

    Speir, R. M.

    Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    White, Baker (Canterbury)

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

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Tilney, John

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Turton, R. H.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Stevens, G. P.

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Wills, G.

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

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Vaughan-Morgan, J K.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Vosper, D. F.

    York, C.

    Storey, S.

    Wade, D. W.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

    Mr. Drewe and

    Studholme, H. G.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Mr. Richard Thompson.

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    NOES

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Adams, Richard

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Keenan, W.

    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Kenyon, C.

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Ewart, R.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Kinley, J.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Fienburgh, W.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Baird, J.

    Finch, H. J.

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Balfour, A.

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

    Follick, M.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Bartley, P.

    Foot, M. M.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Forman, J. C.

    Logan, D. G.

    Bence, C. R.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    McGovern, J.

    Benson, G.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    McInnes, J.

    Beswick, F.

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

    McLeavy, F.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Gibson, C. W.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Blackburn, F.

    Glanville, James

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H

    Blyton, W. R.

    Gooch, E. G.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Boardman, H.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Bowden, H. W.

    Greenwood, Rt. Hon.Arthur (Wakefield)

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

    Bowles, F. G.

    Grenfell Rt. Hon, D. R.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Brockway, A. F.

    Grey, C. F.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Brook Dryden (Halifax)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Mellish, R. J

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Messer, F

    Burke, W. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Monslow, W.

    Callaghan, L. J.,

    Hannan, W

    Moody, A S.

    Carmichael, J.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Morgan, Dr. H B. W

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hargreaves, A.

    Morley, R

    Champion, A. J.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hastings, S.

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

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Moyle, A.

    Clunie, J.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Cocks, F. S.

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

    Murray, J. D.

    Coldrick, W.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Nally, W.

    Collick, P. H.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Cook, T. F.

    Hobson, C. R.

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

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Holman, P.

    O'Brien, T.

    Cove, W. G.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Oldfield, W H.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Orbach, M.

    Crosland, C. A. R.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Oswald, T.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Padley, W. E.

    Daines, P.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Paget, R. T

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Pannell, Charles

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Parker, J.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Paton, J

    Deer, G.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Peart, T. F.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Janner, B.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Dodds, N. N.

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

    Poole, C. C.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Porter, G.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Proctor, W T

    Edelman, M.

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Pryde, D J.

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    286

    287

    Rankin, John

    Sparks, J. A.

    West, D. G.

    Reeves, J.

    Steele, T.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

    Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

    Richards, R.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Wigg, George

    Robens, Rt. Hon A

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Swingler, S. T.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Ross, William

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Williams, Rev. Llyweiyn (Abertillery)

    Royle, C.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)

    Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Thurtle, Ernest

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

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Timmons, J.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Short, E. W.

    Tomney, F.

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Shurmer, P. L. E

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Usborne, H. C.

    Wyatt, W. L.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Viant, S. P.

    Yates, V. F.

    Slater. J.

    Wallace, H. W.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

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

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Weitzman, D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. T. O'Brien: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out from "in," to the end of line 31, and to insert:
    "the First Part of the First Schedule to this Act and the highest (to be known as the third scale) shall consist of the scale set out in the Second Part of the First Schedule to this Act."
    The question of Entertainments Duty has been discussed in this House and Committee for many years, and it might be advisable to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as many Chancellors have been reminded in the past, that the Entertainments Duty is really a dishonest tax, because the Chancellor who first imposed it promised faithfully that it would be for the duration of the First World War. Since then, the temptation of succeeding Governments, including two previous Governments of my own party, has been to condone the financial sin committed after the 1914-18 war. It is just as well to put on record that this tax, as such, was born of and has thrived upon political dishonesty.
    This Amendment seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to eliminate the duty up to 9d. on cinema seats; second, it seeks to restore the popular ls. 3d. seat; and, third, it seeks to give greater flexibility to exhibitors in their charges of admission.
    The Committee is aware that the Entertainments Duty on all other forms of entertainment and sport—excluding the cinema—is free up to 1s. I shall not criticise that. As a matter of fact, the organisation which I represent took a
    288
    foremost part in lobbying in previous Parliaments to protect the living stage—the living theatre. We believe that an act of justice was done to the theatre, to the living stage, when Entertainments Duty was lessened for it. Indeed, the action of the Government in those days saved the living stage from threatened extinction. So I shall not use the argument of what was done for the theatre, because I think that the theatre, the living stage, should be completely free of Entertainments Duty.
    As for sport, I listened to the previous debate from time to time. How the Government can justify discriminating against the cinema in favour of sport is beyond my comprehension. If sport can get away with it, all well and good, but I think the time has come when the Government should not regard the cinema industry as a sort of permanent and continual El Dorado.
    We are inclined to fall into the belief, because of writers of the gossip columns in the newspapers, that the film industry is a financial paradise. That is not so. There are many hundreds, if not two or three thousands, of exhibitors, of cinema owners, who find it extremely difficult to make a living today. All those in the industry do not form a huge corporation. Indeed, there are about 3,000 exhibitors—between 2,500 and 3,000—who own only one cinema. They are the small exhibitors, who find it extremely difficult to make ends meet. When the Government think in terms of the Entertainments Duty on the cinema they must once for all cease to discriminate against the

    289
    cinema. This adverse discrimination against the cinema, as compared with other forms of entertainment and sport, I suggest to the Chancellor, should end.
    The Government should not regard the industry any longer as a much cow. There are too many responsibilities before this industry, and, while I recognise that it is difficult for the Committee to be expert in the complicated and ramified compartments of the film industry, it can take it from me—and the Government can take it from me—speaking on behalf of the industry as a whole, that half the cinemas will find it quite impossible to manage to run their business even at a loss unless something is done, and done very quickly.
    We are, therefore, asking in the Amendment that seats up to 9d.—the 9d. seat—should be free of tax. Surely it is fair, if we allow the 9d. seat at football or cricket matches, or at dog racing, and so on, to be free of tax, that cinema exhibitors should be allowed to have the 9d. seats free of tax. The people who will benefit by the 9d. seats without Entertainments Duty in cinemas are not the huge corporations at all. They will be the small exhibitors, the individual owners. They will benefit by the concession, if it is granted, on the 9d. seats.
    When we had 1s. 3d. seats, there were nearly 230 million admissions a year to those seats. It was the most popular admission price it appealed to the vast masses of the workers and their families; it appealed not only to the older folk, who find in the cinema a considerable source of pleasure and relaxation, but to the young courting couples and to the middle aged. It appealed to all sections of the community, and the disappearance of the 1s. 3d. seat did a great deal of harm, not only to the cinema-going public but also to the industry. If my Amendment were accepted the 1s. 3d. seat could be re-introduced by exhibitors. Today, it is not worth their while to have the 1s. 3d. seat, because they get the same return with a 1s. seat.
    I shall not weary the Financial Secretary with detailed figures, because he already has them. He knows the case and has all the facts. The Customs and Excise can give him the charts, and so on. It is not my intention to detain the Committee longer than is necessary. If I were to
    290
    quote chapter and verse and go into the figures I would detain the Committee for about half an hour. Our plea is that favourable consideration should be given to this Amendment so that large and small cinemas, particularly cinemas serving working-class areas, can re-introduce the popular 1s. 3d. seat.
    Study of the proposed Schedule will show that exhibitors could adjust their prices of admission within a penny or two so as to give greater flexibility for certain exhibitors, especially in highly competitive areas, who may find it difficult to operate at present prices. That should be seriously considered, and the desire for flexibility is one of the main reasons why this Amendment has been tabled. If I might anticipate the reply, I think it might be argued that it would cost a lot. In his Budget speech the Chancellor said that the original proposals of the industry would cost too much. Probably the industry was too ambitious. Show business is an ambitious industry; it rests on ambition.
    The Chancellor said that their proposals would cost up to £5 million or £6 million. I personally advised the powers that be in the film industry to drop it, because on our present financial state, and in the general difficulties through which we are passing, it would be difficult for any Chancellor to make a concession up to £5 million, £6 million or £7 million for one industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), was faced with a similar difficulty when he was Chancellor.
    This Amendment, if accepted, would cost up to about £500,000. When the Chancellor thinks in terms of £400,000 or £500,000, I appeal to him to bear in mind that the idea of flexibility to exhibitors, especially small exhibitors, is worth while. In my view, it is impossible for the industry to produce a plan for greater flexibility without it costing something at the initial stage.
    The Amendment is not designed to put extra money in the pockets of the exhibitors. If it were I should not have moved it. It is designed to assist the industry, and particularly the independent cinema owner, by having a flexibility of price admissions which will enable him in future to please the public of his area and to give a slight advantage to himself

    291
    8.45 p.m.
    That can only be done by the Treasury or the Government giving some encouragement in the initial stage. The initial stage would cost about £300,000 this year and not more than £500,000 in succeeding years. For these figures of costs I quote the greatest authority on Entertainments Duty in our industry, Sir Alexander King, who is known to Members on both sides of the Committee. He has very carefully worked out the figures, and he assures me that the cost this year and next year will be £300,000 and up to £500,000 respectively.
    There is one more point which I would like to make, and it is this: The highest paid worker on the trade union rate in our cinemas receives about £8 a week. There is no trade union rate for workers in cinemas over £8 a week. It may be astonishing to Members on both sides to learn that the comparatively high rate of £8 a week is enjoyed by fewer than 1,000 workers in the cinemas out of about 75,000 to 100,000 employees.
    The cinemas—and this is relevant to what we are seeking to do in the Amendment—are divided into as many as 10 categories for purposes of wage payments. There are 10 classifications, and each has a separate trade union rate of its own. They descend from £8 a week to less than £4 a week for full-time employees. That is the position. I am talking about highly-competent technicians—men on whom depend the efficient and successful running of cinema performances. The highest trade union rate is £8 a week, and the lowest, for the small cinemas in the 5,000 category, is less than £4 a week.
    When we come to the case of the wages paid to the non-technical male staff employed in the cinemas we have a more dismal picture. The highest rate is less than £6 a week descending to about £3 15s. for the majority. The highest rate for girls and women employed full-time is an average of £3 2s. 6d. descending to slightly over £2. These are the facts which I am giving of the 10 categories of wage payments in the cinemas.
    Those who are on the higher rates are in the minority because the higher class cinemas are few and far between. It is safe to say that the all-round average of full-time trade union rates for males in
    292
    the cinemas is less than £5 a week, and the all-round average for full-time females is less than £2 5s. a week It may be argued that there is something wrong with the trade union itself or something wrong with the industry.
    My hon. Friends on this side of the Committee remember the Questions asked in this House about 15 or 20 years ago by various hon. Members about the conditions of the cinema industry. All through, Entertainments Duty has played a very adverse part in the question of wage fixing. I am not suggesting to the Financial Secretary that it is his responsibility to adjust taxation in such a way as to provide better wage payments to employees in any industry.
    I beg the Chancellor to take note of the fact—this is the reason why I mention the wage rates—that, apart from being a Member of Parliament, I am satisfied about this as a leader of the union concerned. While I should not make this admission round the negotiating table for obvious tactical reasons, honesty demands that I should make it on this Amendment. Thousands of exhibitors are paying low wages, and although they are trade union wages they are cast on a low standard because we are satisfied that the exhibitors cannot afford to pay more.
    Sometimes we are tempted to believe that the film industry is the dazzling munificence that we call the West End. It is nothing of the kind. We must think of the cinema industry in terms of the villages, small towns and suburban areas which cater for ordinary people. Exhibitors would gladly pay higher trade union rates and meet the demands of my organisation if they were allowed to retain a little more of their box office income. In effect, my plea is on behalf of the workers in the industry. My plea is based on the fact that if the Amendment is accepted—it may be said that this is a selfish idea, but it is not—it will help most of the exhibitors to settle rightful demands for higher trade union rates.
    I have every confidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the Amendment carefully for more reasons than one. He will set against this background the fact that concessions are being made to industries which have not such a strong claim as the cinema industry has. He will also keep in mind that the cinemas are almost the sole source of

    293
    finance for the production of British films through the British Film Production Fund. The Amendment will aid the fund. Many exhibitors are reluctant to concede the ¾d. per seat voluntary levy to this fund, which is almost the sole source of financial backing for films with the exception of the aid given by the National Film Finance Corporation.
    The Chancellor should keep in mind that if exhibitors are expected to subsidise British film production it is psychologically impossible to get hundreds of small exhibitors to give thousands of pounds per year out of their takings towards the fund if they are operating at a serious loss in their own cinemas. The fund is a very important and necessary one, and the exhibitors are the only people who are contributing to it on a voluntary basis.
    By and large, we can present a very strong case for the exhibitors, for the community and for the workers in these industries. This ought not to be a party political matter but should be faced as a national issue. Dogs, horses and even football clubs do not return some of their takings for the progressive breeding of dogs, horses or footballers, but the cinemas return a substantial part of their takings for the promotion of British films and the maintenance of the British film industry.
    No other section of the industry provides that amount, not even the live stage. The cinemas are the only part of the industry where the Entertainments Duty applies on that scale and something goes back out of its takings to subsidise the magnificent British film industry of which we are proud and from which we see excellent pictures from time to time. I hope that the Financial Secretary will keep these simple but very factual points in mind when considering this issue.
    Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay): I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien), who speaks with a much greater knowledge of this industry than I have. There is, however, one point he made which I should like to follow up and that is the effect which this Entertainments Duty is likely to have on the small class of cinema. Unless the Financial Secretary considers this is a much more positive way than has been done in
    294
    the past, he will inevitably lose a great deal of revenue in the future.
    There are many small cinemas in small towns which have benefited from the concession which was made because they were agricultural and, therefore, qualified for it. There are others who by the purest accident of boundaries did not qualify. Those people are doing just as good work for agricultural purposes as some of those who are qualifying today, but that is not the only point.
    The real point is that the small owners, whose cinemas accommodate about 500 people, have to bear a burden of something like 40 per cent. of their takings for taxation, another 40 per cent. for the cost of films, and they are left with something like 20 per cent. for wages and their profits. It has been pointed out to me that that is the reason why wages are so small in these small cinemas. I have also received evidence that the losses for the last year or two have been considerable, and these small people cannot go on as at present. If they have to close there will be unemployment and the advantage of a small cinema in a relatively small town will be taken away. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would also lose a certain amount of revenue.
    I am not asking for any concession for the big groups of cinemas who can afford one or two cinemas losing here and there, but I am appealing for the small cinema proprietor who has only one or two cinemas. I would not like to use a word in this connection which might cause a lot of ill-feeling, so I shall not say anything about monopoly groups, but refer to them as larger groups. These larger groups can average up and they have a much better hope of spreading the burden of taxation in different ways. The small cinema is not only being hard hit by the existing taxes, but will be even harder hit if this duty is introduced.
    9.0 p.m.
    I would not dream of asking from the Exchequer at this time a concession for the whole of the cinemas. I ask hon. Members to realise that if we put people out of business we shall get no tax from them, and we shall add to unemployment as well as to the difficulty of getting better wages for the people in the cinema industry. Can we not extend to the small men who may own one or two

    295
    businesses of this kind, especially in the smaller towns, a concession on the tax, or so widen the agricultural provisions as to help them?
    If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury were to put his ingenious mind to this matter I am sure that he would find many ways in which he might do this. There is nothing that he cannot do, because he is skilful and able. I ask him to look at the matter which we are raising between now and Report stage, and try to do a thing on which our party are most keen. Let him bring in a concession for the small cinema man, who is now being driven out of existence but ought to be encouraged because of the valuable amenity he brings to the smaller towns. It is always a good thing to help small people who are struggling with difficulty against big combinations. I ask him, as a good Tory, with far more thought for the workers of this country than have the plutocrats opposite, to remember those who are struggling in this industry.
    I have not been controversial in any way but I have spoken out of the great depth of feeling which exists on this side of the Committee. We know the poorer people better. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to support our plea for this small section of the people and those who work for them.
    Mr. Thomas Cook: I would direct my appeal to the Financial Secretary, since I understand that he is dealing in the main with this matter. I hope that he will listen to the blandishments of his right hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).
    On the last Amendment, the Chancellor gave the figures of the incidence of this tax as 20 per cent. on dogs and 20 per cent. on football. On cinemas, it is 40 per cent., and that shows a tremendous discrimination against the cinema industry. We are not making this case out for the large cinema circuits, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien) referred to the dazzle of the West End. We do not get the dazzle of the West End in Dundee and places like that. If this concession were granted 90 per cent. of working-class cinemas would benefit from it. The proposal is not that we should wipe out the
    296
    tax on admissions up to ls. but only up to 9d.
    I would urge this warning. A very serious position is developing under the Eady plan. From an estimated loss of £690,000 last year, the National Film Finance Corporation have gone over to a profit of £10,000 this year. As has been pointed out, this is a purely voluntary levy, and Sir Alexander King and his associates have fought a hard battle with the small cinema owners to continue this levy because of the losses they will face. Because we all want to see a thriving British film industry, they agreed last year to make a contribution towards our film production. I suggest they have done a first-class job in this respect, but there is a grave danger that because of the losses they are facing this may go by the board.
    I urge that this issue be dealt with on a non-party basis. The cinema industry has been treated as a milch cow by successive Chancellors. The Amendment involves only £300,000 this year and £500,000 next year and it would pay dividends to introducethe 1s. 3d. seat. As it is, attendances at cinemas are tending to fall because people have less money. It is said that television is affecting the cinemas to some extent, but very many people cannot afford television so I do not think there is much validity in that argument.
    In view of the discrimination in the present financial structure I urge that this small concession be granted. I was interested to hear the Chancellor say that he had examined the tax structure set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). It seems that concessions have been made to speedways and dogs and horses on pressure, not on justice. I hope I am wrong, but that was the impression I had from the statement of the Chancellor. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will concede the justice of our case by accepting the Amendment.
    Mr. W. G. Bennett: I support this modest Amendment. I am sure that we can all agree that it will cost the Exchequer very little this year, if anything, if the request is granted. As the Committee knows, £10,000 has accrued as a profit, whereas we might have looked forward to a loss

    297
    of at least £500,000 on the production of films.
    We have listened for hours today to appeals for one cricket club and one football club after another. The people who attend football matches are largely the male members of the family, whereas the bulk of the cinema patrons are female. It seems wrong that if the lady of the house visits a cinema she should contribute 6d. to the Exchequer from the price of her 1s. 6d. seat, while if the husband goes to a football match after this season he will contribute only 2½d.
    In the constituency I represent we have eight cinemas in working-class districts and the highest price they want to charge is 1s. 6d. If they could provide a seat at 9d. without any tax there would be some justice. If they have a seat at 1s. 6d. with a 6d. tax, there is no justice whatever. It would help the industry to balance their accounts if the Exchequer would consider revising the tax on the seating accommodation by allowing a 1s. 3d. seat to bear a smaller tax than it does at present. The suggestion has been made that with the necessary adjustments, there would be very little loss to the Exchequer, and I think that on examination this would be found to be the case.
    It appears extraordinary that the Treasury should now agree to revise and reduce the tax on dog racing and horse racing and, at the same time, increase it for football, but not consider cinema seats at all. Cinemas have for years borne far too heavy a tax, and I ask the Financial Secretary to give the matter his very earnest consideration. His decision will be very greatly appreciated if this small adjustment is made.
    Mr. John Rankin: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was replying on a previous Amendment, he admitted that the cinema provided the great amount of the tax which is raised from entertainment. He went on to point out that the position about the Budget was that concessions could be made here and there. I would merely say to the Financial Secretary that I hope this is one of the occasions to which the Chancellor referred. Whether it is "here" or "there" is a matter of detail if he acquiesces in what, I am sure, is the will of the Committee.
    298
    We admit that if the concession suggested in the Amendment is granted, exhibitors will benefit to some extent, and in my estimation it is necessary that they should. In my constitcency, most of the cinemas charge sums varying from 7d. up to 2s. 1d. They are the small cinemas, owned either by individuals or, perhaps, by a small company. Because of their present condition, through making very little profit from year to year, the state of the cinemas, both externally and internally, is depreciating very considerably. Maintenance, so far as seating and redecoration are concerned, is very bad indeed. That in itself, for the comfort of those who go to the cinemas should be catered for, is one reason why the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will, I hope, give every consideration to the Amendment.
    Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien), pointed out, the wages position of employees is another matter which must cause grave concern. We want to maintain reasonable conditions for cinema employees, for a great variety of reasons. They are employed in an atmosphere that in many cases is not always of the best. They are in darkness all the time or, at best, in an artificial light, and because of this their conditions must be looked after very carefully. The same thing applies to wages. I hope, therefore, that exhibitors, if any benefit accrues to them from the Amendment, which, I hope, the hon. Gentleman will accept, will see to it that the wages and conditions of employees are very carefully looked after.
    We claim that the public ought to benefit and I think particularly of the public in my division, where the ls. 3d. seat is now lacking for reasons which my hon. Friend detailed and which are appreciated in every part of the Committee. If this charge is established, as it could be established if the Amendment were accepted, then benefit would accrue to the public.
    9.15 p.m.
    Of course, we realise that the Chancellor would lose. I have indicated those who would gain. We accept the fact that the Chancellor would lose. The amount he would lose in the part of the year which lies before us is small—£291,000—and, in a full year, £500,000. But, when

    299
    we consider that the cinema contributes no less than £40 million in tax every year to the Chancellor, I submit that £500,000 returned to the industry is not a very serious loss to the Exchequer.
    There is a feeling that there is discrimination against the industry, and horse racing, dog racing and the speedway have been trotted out. We make no objection to the fact that there have been concessions given to those sports but whether those concessions are of much benefit to horse breeding or not is very doubtful. We are told that we have to keep up the quality of our horses and keep up the breed, but, in spite of that, millionaire Frenchmen like M. Boussac come here and carry away all the main events. I have been told, but do not pass this on as sound information, "Keep your eye on Boussac for the Derby." If anyone takes that advice and it does not come off, I wash my hands of responsibility.
    We do object to the discrimination which is being shown. We have no objection to the consideration given to these other sports, but we feel that while they are entitled to it there ought not at the same time to be discrimination against the cinema industry. I know that the Chancellor may say that, as a result of last year's concession of ¾d. to the exhibitors when the 1s. 10d. seat was raised to 2s. 1d., they were well treated, but I want him to look at the effect of that concession. In 1950-51 there were 355 million 1s. 10d. tickets sold, but up to March this year, on the 2s. 1d. seat, which was formerly the 1s. 10d. seat, only 257 million tickets have been sold and, as a result of that concession, the loss has been 98 million tickets during the year in which it has operated. That is a loss to the Chancellor, and I suggest that he might recapture some of that if he listened to us tonight and supported our Amendment.
    There is a final word I wish to put on behalf of the exhibitors. We are agreed, I hope, that the cinema performs other useful functions. It is a ready and willing medium for every type of appeal and announcement. I believe that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend will pay tribute tonight, as does the whole Committee, to the great work the cinema does in advertising National Savings,
    300
    which the hon. Gentleman himself wishes to encourage. Surely this is one small way in which he could show his appreciation of the work which they do on his behalf.
    Those of us who patronise the cinemas know that they make appeals for Civil Defence. Through them millions of people learn about rationing—[Interruption.]—oh, yes, there is no doubt about these things. People learn the dates on which ration books have to be collected, and so on. These things are all made readily and easily available through the cinema, when possibly they might pass the scrutiny of many people if we relied solely on the daily Press.
    We can agree that the cinema is doing not only entertaining but useful work, and in view of all the arguments put up, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will indicate that he is prepared, if not to accept this Amendment, at least to consider this matter before the Report stage is reached.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien), will acquit me of any discourtesy if, before I come to his speech in moving the Amendment, I deal with one or two points raised in subsequent speeches.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) raised an issue which is not perhaps in a very great degree affected by this Amendment, but which is, of course, one of very substantial importance, the position of the smaller cinemas. In our present tax provision there is no existing concession for the small cinema as such. There has sometimes been a little confusion between the position of the small cinema wherever located and the position of the small cinema in a rural area, for which a special concession was made in the Finance Act of 1948 by the late Sir Stafford Cripps. That was designed, not for the particular purpose of benefiting the cinema or its proprietor, but with the idea of securing that in a scattered rural area encouragement should be given to the provision of entertainment.
    The difficulty of dealing with the small cinema as such is accentuated by the fact that during the recent review of the Entertainments Duty which was referred

    301
    to by the Chancellor on the previous Amendment, no evidence was submitted that the small cinema as such was in a particularly bad position. I say, therefore, to my right hon. Friend that we will gladly consider any material submitted on that general point, but at the moment there is nothing before us to suggest that the smaller cinemas scattered over the country are in such a position as to call for any particular and special treatment. But, as I have said, in certain circumstances which are not covered by existing concessions, if any material can be submitted on this point the fullest consideration will be given to it.
    The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Cook), said—and I think this rather follows from what I have said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torquay—that he was not arguing the case for the large circuits but for the small independent cinemas. The difficulty is that the Amendment now before the Committee would benefit alike the large circuits and the small cinemas. Therefore, the Committee have to deal with this on the basis that what is proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West, is a general provision affecting the structure of the duty over the industry as a whole.
    While dealing with the hon. Member for Dundee, East, perhaps I might correct a small misapprehension on his part when he indicated that, generally speaking, cinema audiences were falling. The latest evidence is to the contrary. During the last quarter of 1951, the last quarter for which there are statistics, the number of dutiable admissions to cinemas was actually one million more than for the corresponding quarter of 1950. While I do not put any great weight on that, so far as it goes it indicates that perhaps the hon. Member was going a little far when he said there was a falling off in audiences.
    Mr. Cook: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My information was that there was a tendency to fall. I hope I did not exaggerate. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has given an assurance that that is not so, but I assure him that I have information to the contrary.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged. The difference between us is small. The increase is not very much.
    302
    I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West, for overcoming the difficulties he had initially with the rules of order, because I think the Committee will regard it as satisfactory that the problem of this great and important industry should be discussed on the Floor of this Chamber. The hon. Member, with his very great experience of this industry, has put forward detailed proposals not only in the form of the Amendment which we are now discussing but in the form of the Schedule attached to it for an alternative structure for this duty. He advocated it on the grounds, among other things, that in his view it would give greater flexibility in the pricing of seats. I must concede at once that that is a desirable state of affairs if it can be properly attained. But the real difficulty is that whatever merits these proposals may have they amount, as the hon. Member himself stated, to a system under which there would be an appreciable loss of revenue.
    I think the hon. Member put the figure at £500,000. My advice is that the loss involved would be substantially larger—something like £2 million a year. That, obviously, would be a very serious matter, because anything like £2 million of revenue in the present economic circumstances of the country is obviously a thing to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has to give very serious consideration.
    My right hon. Friend has made it clear, and I think the hon. Member is aware of this, that he is prepared, has been prepared, and will be prepared to consider any proposals which may be put to him for adjusting the structure of this duty which will not involve an appreciable loss to the Revenue. But I am afraid that the proposals of the hon. Member do not come into that category because they would involve an appreciable loss.
    I think that the difference between the figure which the hon. Gentleman gave and the figure which I have just given arises from the fact that the hon. Gentleman has assumed—and something he said in his speech confirmed that assumption—that there would be a substantial increase in the number of seats in the 1s. 3d. category—some of
    which had been raised from the 1s. category—and that is how he arrived at his

    303
    calculation that the loss to the Revenue would be about £½ million. Here we are in the realm of speculation, because we do not and we cannot know what charges would be made in the case of individual cinemas.
    9.30 p.m.
    There is, however, one factor which perhaps throws a little light on that matter. Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals, if the duty were adjusted as he wishes, of the extra 3d. to be obtained by raising the charge of a seat from 1s. to 1s. 3d. the Exchequer would get 2d. and the exhibitor 1d. In those circumstances it appears at least doubtful whether any large number of exhibitors would, in fact, make that alteration in charge and, unless they did so, I think the hon. Gentleman would probably not dispute that his estimate of the amount of loss involved would prove to be too small.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, these matters have been discussed at considerable length during the last few months. We are as anxious as he is to arrive at a solution which, while paying due respect to the needs of the Exchequer, does suit the needs and the general wishes of the industry so far as the structure of the duty is concerned. All industries would like reductions in taxation, of course—indeed, that feeling is not always confined to industries. It is sometimes felt by individuals.
    But so far as the structure and the effect on the prices of seats is concerned, my right hon. Friend's undertaking to give full consideration to any detailed proposals which do not involve an appreciable loss to the Revenue still stands. I think that that undertaking does meet the point raised, certainly by one hon. Member opposite, whether we were still prepared to consider alternative schemes. With the greatest good will in the world to this industry, however—and Her Majesty's Government's good will to this industry has been shown very substantially in other directions—it really is not possible for my right hon. Friend to accept the loss to the Revenue which is involved in these particular proposals.
    It would be very difficult for my right hon. Friend to accept such a loss, quite
    304
    apart from the general economic position of the country, in view of the receipts of this industry during the last few years. It may interest the Committee to know that the gross box office receipts from dutiable admissions rose from £99.7 million in 1949-50 to £101.1 million in 1950-51 and £106.7 million in 1951-52. At the same time, the net amount remaining after duty had been paid rose from £62.9 million in the first year to £65.8 million in the last of the three years.
    Therefore, whatever may be felt by the industry as to the weight of taxation—and I willingly concede that all industries feel the burden of taxation—it does appear that the system has operated to prevent an increase neither in the gross nor in the net box office receipts of this industry and, with regret, my right hon. Friend really cannot accept the loss to the Revenue which would be involved.
    Mr. McNeil: I am sure that the Committee is indebted for the very reasonable exposition on this subject from the Financial Secretary, but he has left us in some doubt. No one disputes his proposition that the receipts of the industry have shown some buoyancy, but the Financial Secretary will not disagree that even such a buoyant commodity as beer reaches a stage at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say, "I cannot overload it any further." It may very well be that the buoyancy of cinema receipts has reached this stage—I cannot think what the scientific term would be to indicate the limit of its floatability.
    What the Financial Secretary said was that his right hon. Friend would consider any scheme which does not involve an appreciable diminution in his revenue. That is quite understandable, but what is difficult for the Committee to understand is what exactly is meant, in arithmetical terms, by "appreciable." The Committee will have noticed that there is a very great difference between the calculations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien), who presented his case so reasonably and with such a mass of documentation, and the calculations offered by the Financial Secretary. My hon. Friend says the figure will be £500,000 in a full year; the Financial Secretary says £2 million.

    305
    The Financial Secretary will not think me doubting his sincerity in the least if I suggest to the Committee that his figures probably should be doubted a little. My reasoning is this. As I understand, predictions were made last year as to what the revenue would be in terms of the revised Schedule, and what the gains to the Treasury and the exhibitors would be. The only people who do not lose were, of course, the production side, because I am sure the Financial Secretary is right in saying that the actual number of seat payments did not drop.
    I am told that the calculation last year was that, on the revised Schedule, the gain for the Treasury would be about £6,500,000. I am told that, in effect, the gain on the figures available—a full year's figures are not available—will run out at about £3,750,000. I am told that I can speak with a little more certainty about the exhibitors. It was calculated that the gain there would be a little more than £2,500,000, but I am sure that the gain for the exhibitors will run out at just a little above £1,500,000. If the basis of the calculations for last year is as trustworthy as the basis of the calculations of the Financial Secretary in his observation that this would cost £2 million, the Committee must swing round to the calculation offered by my hon. Friend, but I confess that not one of us is in a position to argue with any great emphasis upon this point.
    There is, of course, a great deal of difference between £500,000 and £2 million. If the Financial Secretary said that £500,000 was what he meant by an appreciable loss of revenue—or thereabouts—I would feel that I was entitled to say to my hon. Friends that they should not press the Amendment but should permit the conversations to go on on the terms which the Chancellor has offered. I would not try to tie anybody down to an exact figure, but if £500,000 is what the hon. Gentleman was thinking about then he is talking in terms comparable with those offered by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment.
    I do not want to go over the ground which has been very moderately traversed by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee, but I would say a word to the Financial Secretary. Considerations on both sides of the Committee have shown that primarily the thinking has
    306
    been with the small exhibitor. I think the Financial Secretary is quite right to say that no one has offered precise figures as to how the small exhibitor has fared in this way. That is a legitimate complaint, and if I or my hon. Friends and the industry are to prove the case, then they must offer precise figures on that subject; and, no doubt, they will.
    I have seen some figures which persuade me that the average gain per week—I do not mean the average profit, but the average gain per week—on this year's takings, on the figures I have already quoted, as compared with last year's, will work out at somewhere between £6 and £7 per week. If that is the average figure for the country it is very plain to the Committee that the figure of the average gains in the current year per week for the small exhibitor, who, I think, is shown to be the primary concern of the Committee, will be very low indeed, and a strong case must, therefore, be made out. But we should wait for the detailed figures.
    Finally, I would say that we are all concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West, has said, for the production side of this industry. That is something that outruns the normal commercial concerns. If these gloomy predictions about the failure or the near failure of the small exhibitor—the exhibitor who has 500 or 400 seats and fewer—are at all well founded, then everyone in the Committee must be concerned about the Eady Plan and the production levy. It would be no consolation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he saved £500,000 for the Revenue by adhering to his present principles and forfeited a substantial amount in terms of receipts from seats. I wonder if he would press the Financial Secretary to say whether he does really mean that this scheme—or a scheme—with around £300,000 or £400,000 or £500,000 loss to the Chancellor, and with the flexibility which, he admits, is highly desirable in the industry, would be acceptable? I am sure that, if he were to give this explanation, he would find that my hon. Friends, who are eminently reasonable, would not want to press their Amendment.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In reply to what the right hon. Gentleman has said in his very reasonable and helpful speech, I would say that I do not want, for

    307
    reasons that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. I am sure, fully, to appear to prejudge, or to be tied to any rigid figure in, the discussions which, I hope, will continue; but I would not dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's idea of the size of the problem on the Revenue side.
    I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman very fairly said about the small exhibitors. As I told the Committee when I spoke a few moments ago, we have not had during the course of the very prolonged review which has taken place their particular difficulties supported by either detailed evidence or statistics, but I think that what I said earlier as to my right hon. Friend's attitude to the whole problem covers this, and if particulars, evidence, statistics, documents are submitted, they will be given just the same degree of careful consideration which my right hon. Friend has already promised for the problems of the industry as a whole.
    9.45 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: The Financial Secretary has, I think, fairly met the case which was laid before the Treasury, but perhaps he might be a little more exact about the degree he means by "no appreciable loss." It was suggested that perhaps £500,000 might be the figure; and the Financial Secretary came a little below that. I am sure he does not wish to be too narrow in his interpretation of "no appreciable loss" on not merely a revenue of some £30 million or £40 million—and this is rather important—but on the levy which is being paid into the revenues of British film production. I am more interested in the problem from that point of view.
    I have been interested in this for a long time, ever since, with Sir John Grierson, we embarked on the original film policy which led to the production of British documentaries. The whole quota system would inevitably break down if there is an inadequate production of first-class British films, and it is in these tentative and experimental lines that progress towards first-class British films is made.
    Some of the revenue figures may be affected by the fact that there is this extra £3 million being found, which does
    308
    relieve the Treasury, because it relieves the Film Finance Corporation of large sums which it has been finding and would have to continue to find if some alternative source of revenue were not opened up. The levy is paid by good will, and it is important that good will should be maintained. As long as this can be left as a voluntary levy paid by the consent of the exhibitors, we are on very much sounder ground than if an attempt is made to raise this money in some compulsory form.
    Let us consider this, not merely as a problem of taxation but as a problem of good will by which a levy is raised from film-goers by way of the exhibitors, and used for the purposes which we all desire, which is essential if we are to have a sound British film producing industry, producing better and better films. We all sympathise with the complaint of technicians in the film industry that they do not receive an adequate amount of work. Unless we are able to produce the ideas upon which the technicians can work all our legislative compulsion will be in vain. I am sure it is most satisfactory for all concerned if we succeed along the lines of voluntary co-operation.
    I therefore hope that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary will pay special attention to that aspect in considering the conversations which, I understand are to take place. I am sure that it is not impossible to produce a flexible scheme which will enable the desires of the exhibitors to be met at a relatively small sum. But it will require much good will on both sides, and it is for that reason that I have ventured to make this plea.
    Mr. O'Brien: I have had a word with my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil), and I have listened very carefully to the reply of the Financial Secretary. I thank him for at least his sympathetic understanding of the case, although sympathy by itself is not a very powerful medium of persuasion. If I understood him rightly, while he could not commit himself—and I understand that fully—to a figure of £500,000 or any other figure, he said he was prepared to consider further representations between now and the Report stage.
    If the industry could produce a scheme which would not cost the Treasury an unreasonable sum of money, would the

    309
    Chancellor be prepared to consider it? The Financial Secretary astonished me when he mentioned that the Amendment which I moved would cost about £2 million. If nothing else has come out of this debate, it is very important that we on our side should look into that point. I also ask the Financial Secretary to look into it. His advice probably comes from more accurate sources than mine, but if it comes from his Department all I can say is that the Department has calculated on the most pessimistic basis. I do not accept the figure of £2 million, and I went into this matter very carefully before allowing myself to be convinced by a certain figure.
    If I understand the Financial Secretary rightly, he is willing to consider the matter again and to receive further representations from us on the whole of the problem—and it is one which affects not only the small but the large exhibitors and is inherent in the whole structure of the cinema tax. I accept his view that if the small exhibitors can produce certain facts and figures. so much the better.
    I assure the Financial Secretary that while it is true that the tax operates mostly against the small exhibitors, some of the large concerns, which may on the surface appear to be prosperous, have lost millions of pounds in the production of films, so all is not well with the industry. If I can interpret what he said as an assurance that he will continue to receive representations from the industry on this matter, and that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be reasonable so far as figures are concerned, and bearing in mind that there will be a Report stage during which we can have another look at this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I am in order and if the Amendment has not yet been withdrawn, I need only say to the hon. Gentleman that I have already, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, made it clear that we will gladly consider, in the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman has said, any detailed scheme or proposals that those responsible for this industry care to submit to us.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Miss Burton: I beg to move, in page 2. line 32, after "applicable," to insert
    "to any game played by amateurs and."
    This Amendment deals specifically with the question of amateur sport. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), who will speak in support of the Amendment, has played football both for the Corinthians and the English Universities, and I therefore do not propose to trespass upon his preserves with regard to that section of amateur sport.
    I am hoping tonight that, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been able to offer some concessions in respect of football and cricket, he will look with a benign eye on this particular section of sport which can, I think, be separated from the others by the definition of amateur players. I think that anyone with any knowledge of amateur sport knows that the receipts, if any, which come from amateur games of any description are used mostly for training people and for educational purposes. In addition, I should like to make the further point that in amateur games most of the officials are voluntary workers. I am sure that many hon. Members who are interested in one form of amateur sport or another know of people who give up all their spare time to the running of amateur games and get no money for it. They also get all the kicks and very little of the praise.
    The more I have gone into the subject of the Amendment, the more I wish that we had asked the Chancellor whether amateur games could have complete exemption from Entertainments Duty. It is only right to say that in the various inquiries that I have made I have met nothing but praise for the attitude of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in these matters. I want to ask the Chancellor whether it will be possible for the Treasury and the Customs and Excise authorities to work out a formula by which recognised amateur bodies doing a good deal of coaching and educational work could pay the tax only at the lowest rate.
    I do not know whether the Chancellor can tell us how much money is collected in Entertainments Duty on amateur sports. None of the associations which I have asked was able to give the figure, and it may well be that it is not collected separately, but it must be a very small

    311
    amount. Knowing the tidy mind of the Chancellor, I think he will agree that we should have some definite arrangement about this. There are many anomalies.
    I wish to deal with some sports which hon. Members will not be covering, and all of them are sports which I have played all my life, so I am not speaking from hearsay. I want first to deal with the question of the Amateur Athletic Association. I expect the Chancellor knows as well as I do that in 1948 the A.A.A. were formed into a company limited by guarantee. They made an application for complete exemption from Entertainments Duty and that was granted.
    We now have the anomalous position that meetings run by the A.A.A. are exempt from Entertainments Duty but meetings run by their affiliated organisations, the county or area A.A.A.'s, are not exempt. It seemed to me, from the inquiries that I made, that the Treasury's argument might be that the county and area associations had not the legal status of a company which the parent body had and were, therefore, not bound quite so rigorously as to how they should spend any proceeds from their meetings. Being a company limited by guarantee, the A.A.A. must spend their money as laid down in the objects of the company.
    Another anomaly is that international matches run by the British Board—which consists of the A.A.A.s of England, which includes Wales, of Northern Ireland and of Scotland—are equally not exempt. I put it to the Chancellor that the position requires tidying up, and tidying up in the right way; they should all be exempt or should all pay at the first rate, and not the other way round. It is a curious position that the A.A.A. themselves are exempt, whereas the county and area associations and the British Board are not.
    I should like to know whether the Chancellor feels that the Women's All-England Netball Association have found a way round this difficult problem. It usually seems to fall to the lot of women, whether in sport or any other category, to be pioneers in this country. The All-England Netball Association, whose permission I have to quote this example, found themselves in the position of a great many amateur bodies; they had very little
    312
    money, and it was impossible to pay the Entertainments Duty at the old rate, much less the new. Knowing this, the Customs and Excise authorities—I have stressed their very helpful attitude—suggested to the All-England Netball Association that they should add two clauses to their constitution. I should like to quote these two clauses because they are important. They are:
    "All funds or other property of the Association shall not be paid or distributed among members of the Association, but shall be applied towards the furtherance of the Association's object or for any charitable purpose.
    In the event of dissolution, the funds remaining will be devoted to other organisations whose objects are similar to that of the Association or to other purposes approved by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise."
    On including those two clauses in their constitution, the All-England Netball Association found themselves in the position of being exempt.
    10.0 p.m.
    I want to move on from that to the All-England Women's Hockey Association and to tell the Chancellor very proudly that this is a game that British women play better than any other women in the world. [HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have such wholehearted approval from hon. Members, but that is quite true. That is a game in which we have led the world, and we still lead the world. I think the Chancellor would agree that British prestige demands that this game should be fostered and our standards maintained.
    The All-England Women's Hockey Association rely almost entirely on "gates" for their income. They have, in addition, a small income derived from the affiliation of clubs. I ought to tell the Chancellor, or the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, if he is going to reply, that for the year ending 5th March, 1951, the income of the Association was only £2,832. That does not leave a very great margin.
    I should like to stress that a great deal of this money goes on educational work for the training of people and the development of the game. If we were to look at a normal year's work of this Association, we should find that these are not extreme figures but normal ones; we should find that approximately 70 tournaments are held of which more than half are for schools only. A large part of the money is used for schools and young

    313
    people. The coaching for schools and clubs is arranged by the counties and no fee is charged. All of it comes from this small amount of income. The coaching of umpires is arranged by the counties. Anyone interested in sport knows that there have to be good umpires if a game is to be well played. This coaching scheme in hockey has been extended right down to the schools. Finally, an educational hockey film is sent round for which no charge is made.
    The Chancellor will agree that from the small income of £2,832 it would be quite impossible to pay the new duty which is suggested. It would cripple the game. Last year, when the English Reserves played the Netherlands over here, a charge of 1s. was made for admission to the ground and a further 1s. was charged for the privilege of sitting down in the ground. The hockey people had to pay on the 2s. and not on the additional ls. This greatly detracted from their revenue.
    We now come to the Women's Cricket Association. I do not know that I would be rash enough to say that the English women lead the world in cricket, but a good many of the women could show a good many of the men one or two useful things in cricket. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have this wholehearted support from hon. Members, and I hope the Chancellor will join in afterwards. In a normal year the Women's Cricket Association manage to make ends meet. It is a pioneering task which they have undertaken. Last year we reached a new high level when we were allowed to play the Australian women on some of the famous grounds in London. If this increased duty is demanded from this Association, it will be quite impossible for the game to be developed as it should be.
    My last example is the Women's Amateur Athletic Association. They are in a category of getting no help at all. The men's A.A.A. have had some relief, but the women's have had none at all. We are faced with the position that in the world of amateur sport the men's A.A.A. get exemption, while the county and area authorities and the Board do not. Hockey, cricket and the Women's Athletic Association are not exempt at all. When the Chancellor gave those concessions earlier I listened very hard, and I hope I was not wrong in understanding that he
    314
    gave a considerable concession to cricket and some concession to football. I am raising this point only because the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) raised the question of Rugby Union, which is an amateur game.
    I ask the Chancellor to look at the points I have raised and to agree that the development of amateur sport in this country and the training of our young people merits that all amateur games should be included in the first category.
    The Chairman: Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed with this Amendment that which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), in page 3, line 11, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that in the case of an amateur entertainment (as hereinafter defined) which consists of or includes games or other sports the rate of Entertainments Duty applied by the second scale shall be reduced by fifty per cent."
    When the time comes, if the hon. Gentleman wants a Division, it can no doubt be arranged.
    Mr. Cyril W. Black: I am very glad to have an opportunity of taking part in this debate on Entertainments Duty as applied to amateur sport, and I agree that it is convenient to include in the discussion my Amendment, because it has considerable similarity with the one that has been moved.
    I think it is proper that I should declare an interest in this matter, in that I happen to be a vice-president of the Wimbledon Football Club, one of the leading amateur football clubs in the British Isles. I am somewhat embarrassed in this matter. In my constituency I have the Wimbledon Football Club on one site and the Wimbledon Speedway Club adjoining. Last year I put down an Amendment to secure relief for the speedway track. On that occasion it was not successful, but some concession has been granted this year. Having played some part in securing a measure of justice for one of the two main sports carried on in my constituency, I have the difficulty now about the Wimbledon Football Club, which is greatly penalised by the new proposals.
    There is a very good case for differentiating between professional sport and amateur sport in regard to Entertainments Duty. It is right that that

    315
    differentiation should be made. The suggestion has been made that there should be a different rate for football between professional clubs in the First, Second, or Third Divisions, but that is a proposal which does not appeal to me very strongly. There is a very good case, however, for differentiating between professional clubs, where there is a strong commercial interest, and amateur clubs where that commercial element does not exist, at any rate to anything like the same extent.
    I have no great inclination to shed many tears on behalf of the professional clubs which can afford to pay transfer fees of £10,000 or £20,000 or £30,000 for a single player. Clubs which are in the financial position to make payments of that magnitude for a player can probably well afford to bear any increased Entertainments Duty to which they may be subject. But the amateur clubs are in an entirely different category. It is right in principle that there should be some differentiation between the two types of clubs in the rate of Entertainments Duty they are required to pay.
    Not only do I suggest that it is right in principle but, as a matter of expediency, the case is a good and strong one. There are at least two reasons for that. The first is that it is definitely in the interests of the country that the amateur spirit in sport should not only be preserved but should be encouraged. One of the things from which the country suffers today is an excessive degree of professionalism in all forms of sport. In my judgment it would be a wise move for any Government so to adjust its fiscal policy as to give encouragement to the amateur game and the amateur spirit in sport as distinct from the professional and the commercial game.
    The second point is that there is a real danger, if the increased Entertainments Duty is insisted upon in the case of the amateur clubs, that many of them will be forced out of business. If that is the result of the increased duty then the Treasury will be in the position of suffering and not of benefiting from the imposition of the increased duty as far as the amateur clubs are concerned. So my submission is that, as a matter of principle and as a matter of expediency, there is a strong case for making a concession to
    316
    the amateur clubs in some form or another as far as the rate of Entertainments Duty is concerned.
    My final point to the Chancellor is that the cost of the concession could, in any case, only be infinitesimal. I do not know whether we are to be given any estimate of what would be involved, but I am certain that whereas the concession would have practically no effect upon our budgetary position, it might mean the difference between the continued existence or extinction of some of the amateur clubs.
    I have gone into this matter from the standpoint of the money that would be involved in the case of the amateur club in my own constituency. I find that the increased rate of duty would involve the Wimbledon club in about £250 a year. That may not sound a large amount. It is infinitesimal as far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned. Yet it makes a tremendous difference to an amateur club, as I am certain hon. Members will agree who have had any experience of amateur sport.
    10.15 p.m.
    May I make the further point that if the concession were granted and the rate of Entertainments Duty were halved. about half the concession would be recouped by the Treasury by way of Income Tax. Amateur football clubs are liable for Income Tax on any small profits they make, and therefore, if the profit is increased, no matter by how small an amount, as a result of a diminution in the Entertainments Duty from what is proposed, half of that diminution comes back to the Treasury in the form of Income Tax. I think I have said enough to make the point that the concession would cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer practically nothing, but that it is a concession that would be a powerful encouragement to amateur sports generally.
    The Chancellor has been good enough to indicate today a sympathetic attitude to some of the submissions made to him. I have always found it a very good rule in business, when one is involved in a complicated negotiation in which a number of points are outstanding, to make concessions, after a certain show of resistance, on all the concessions where there is very little involved in terms of £ s. d., but to take a very firm stand

    317
    indeed on a few important items where a lot of money is involved.
    I suggest that what has been generally found to be a very good rule in the business world, is not a bad rule as far as my right hon. Friend is concerned. Here is a merely infinitesimal concession for which we are asking, and I commend it to my right hon. Friend with every confidence.
    Mr. James Johnson: I am happy to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton).
    About 8 o'clock, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking, I thought that perhaps we would be wasting our time to speak upon an Amendment of this nature. Towards the end of his speech, however, the right hon. Gentleman became a little more accommodating and human, and I thought that, after all, we should not waste our time when we reached this subject at about 10 o'clock.
    Let me say at once how much I dissociate myself from my own Member, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), in his comparison of amateurs and professionals. I may be mistaken about what he said, but I have played both amateur and professional Soccer and I assure the hon. Member that there is no difference in sportsmanship on the field, and in comradeship off the field, between the two. I disliked his constant use of the word "business" in connection with professional Association football.
    Mr. Black: The hon. Member is imputing to me statements that I never made. What I said was that the professional clubs had a large commercial element in their business, and that that was evidenced by their being able to pay huge transfer fees for players. I was not condemning the practice, but I said that from the viewpoint of taxation they were in an entirely different category from the amateur clubs. I was not condemning one and encouraging the other, but was merely pointing out that one was much more highly commercialised.
    Mr. Johnson: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Member, who now, I believe, like myself, says that the atmosphere in professional sport is as good as, if not sometimes better than, in many branches of amateur sport, as many of us know.
    318
    My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South, spoke on behalf of the ladies' games—hockey and the like. I want to make a plea not only for my own game, which is the national game—Association football—but for all the games that we play.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) spoke about the value of sport in connection with teams touring the Commonwealth. Like many other Members, I have been on a Commonwealth Parliamentary delegation of good will overseas, and I have also been in a football touring side. If we send out more sporting teams, particularly in football, to places like West Africa, we gain as much good will as we get in sending out the more orthodox delegations that we often send from the House of Commons to the Commonwealth. [An HON. MEMBER: "We should get more good will."] I should not like to argue that, nor to argue about body-line bowling in connection with Australia. It is an interesting thing that we subsidise activities of the British Council overseas when I think we might with interest send overseas many amateur sporting teams.
    The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Sir Arthur Salter): Is the hon. Member addressing his argument to sports, whether professional or amateur, or to this Amendment which deals with amateur sport?
    Mr. Johnson: I am speaking in connection with amateur sport and I say it is rather anomalous that we almost lavishly subsidise the British Council overseas, whatever its merits, yet in this Bill we are taxing somewhat viciously a sport, and I think we might send an amateur team overseas.
    The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) spoke of Rugby and I represent the town from which that game got its name, but soccer is my first love. It is one of the few sports which has conquered the whole world—I had better qualify that and say the non-American world—and it has even conquered beyond the so-called Iron Curtain.
    I wish to reinforce the appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South in reference to small clubs. They are the lifeblood of this sport and are amateur in the true sense of the term. Many of the players have to change behind the hedge, but without many of

    319
    these teams clubs such as the Arsenal and the Spurs would not be able to live, as these smaller clubs feed them. Although we had no success earlier in the evening, I hope that we shall have some success in pleading for the smaller amateur clubs which give new blood to the big clubs which get headlines in the daily Press.
    I wish to comment on the speech of one whom I would term a gloom-monger, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). His speech depressed me, but I wish to assure him quite sincerely that we are not a nation of watchers of games. The Football Association has more than one million amateur players signed on form B, and that is more than the number of those who watch.
    Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member can make my speech better than I can, but I did not say we were a nation of watchers of games. I said that a poet once described us as:
    "… flannelled fools at the wicket or the muddied oafs at the goals."
    Mr. Johnson: I could comment about a famous goal-keeper on the other side of the Committee, and for the benefit of the hon. Member I say again that there are more people today who play games in amateur football than who watch professional clubs play week by week. That is a commentary on many of those who speak about the welfare State sapping our backbone and the like. While speaking of the welfare State, I may point out that there are many hon. Members opposite who say that people would do less if they were paid more for the job, but in amateur sport we have literally millions who slave in the interests of their teams. Their job is fearfully difficult without heavier taxation.
    The hon. Member for Wimbledon spoke about his club and there are good clubs in the Isthmian League. Wimbledon is not perhaps the best, but I believe that on these figures they will have to pay something like £250 more in Entertainments Duty and that is a heavy load to have to pay from the annual balance sheet. It would be possible to quote statistics in connection with all these sports, and amateur games will have a heavy load to bear in the coming winter.
    320
    I make no differentiation between different sports. There is the case of the Amateur Athletic Association events. We have had immense difficulty in getting sufficient finance to send a team to Helsinki and we have had to appeal for donations in order to send them. In the Rugby Union they are all amateurs, and we should not forget that in the Rugby League there are many amateur players as well as professionals. They will need help this winter if this tax is imposed.
    We speak of boxing as a manly sport. I think that if we had more amateur boxing clubs, and gave them more help, or if there were less taxation imposed upon them, we should perhaps have less juvenile delinquency. I am sufficiently old-fashioned to think that the old type of boys' club is a very much better thing than the more modern type of youth club, and I should like to see many more old fashioned boys' clubs. Amateur boxing clubs will be penalised.
    What will the Chancellor get from this new tax? Will it be sufficient to compensate for the goodwill he will lose and for the loss to amateur sport? Is it worthwhile when we think of the millions of amateur sportsmen and of their families and those people who follow them? Is it worthwhile having a tax of this kind? I do not think it is, and I am happy to support the Amendment.
    Sir Ian Fraser: In the rural districts of England there are a great many people who cannot enjoy the amenities and amusements of the towns. There are many villages in which the local game is enjoyed by most and is one of the attractions of the countryside. As the clubs which organise these games provide no profit for anybody, but everything is done for the love of the game, they should be encouraged. I therefore support the suggestion that those games and sports, arranged by amateurs, where no one gets any profit or fee out of them. should be free of tax.
    There are two analogous entertainments in the countryside which may come in, directly or by implication, the hound trail and amateur theatricals. Both of these are entertainments of particular value in remote rural districts. Anyone who is familiar with a constituency like mine, with its many scattered villages, will realise the importance of

    321
    these amenities and amusements. There cannot be much revenue in them, but there is great pleasure, and I hope the Chancellor will make that concession.
    Sir W. Wakefield: I suppose one of the greatest spectacles in this country, or indeed in the world, is the Boat Race. Rowing is an amateur sport and does not attract much revenue, but it may be of interest to the Committee to know that it would have been impossible for university rowing to take place had it not been for the funds available from Rugby football played both at Cambridge University and at Oxford University. Surplus funds from that amateur game have greatly helped the amateur sport of rowing, and, therefore, in this proposed tax we are not only going to hit the amateur game of rugby football, but also the amateur sport of rowing as well.
    10.30 p.m.
    I strongly support what was said about the Football Association by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Johnson). I spoke to Sir Stanley Rous, the secretary of the Football Association, at tea after the Cup Final on Saturday, and he said, "I do hope M.P.s will stress the fact that Association football is not really composed of a few big League clubs. It is true that they attract the money and the tax, but what I am so deeply concerned about is the effect of the Entertainments Duty on thousands of amateur clubs up and down the country, with their million players or so." He also said to me, "I do not quite know what the effect of this Entertainments Duty will be, but it certainly will be very serious"
    It is these clubs on which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have laid so much stress. It is a matter of a hundred or two one way or the other whether they make a profit or a loss, and that small amount cannot make one iota of difference to the solvency of this country, while it makes all the difference to these amateur clubs, whether they be Association, Rugby Union or Rugby League, and there are many junior clubs in the Rugby League which play 13 a side and whose players receive no payment.
    These are the clubs that ought to be considered, and I do urge that this country is more likely to remain solvent and come through its difficulties if
    322
    encouragement is given to these clubs, if the young men working in our factories and fields are helped in their sport and enabled to play their games, and not find it such an uneven struggle to keep their clubs solvent, when the hundred or two they make is taken away in extra taxation.
    I want to conclude by stressing the importance of overseas tours by amateurs. Two years ago, when the British touring side visited his country, the Prime Minister of New Zealand said that that team were the finest ambassadors which the United Kingdom could ever have sent to the shores of New Zealand. That amateur side included 13 Welshmen, was captained by a grand man from Southern Ireland and also included Scotsmen and Englishmen as well. He said it did a great deal of good, and I am quite sure that, if more amateur teams could tour the Dominions and Colonies than is now possible, there would be a resulting advantage in good relationships, which it is the desire of both sides of this Committee to promote throughout the Commonwealth.
    Sir A. Salter: We are dealing with a limited Amendment, or, perhaps I should say, with two rather similar but limited proposals. We have had a debate which has ranged over a very wide sphere, and has covered requests for much wider concessions, and we must consider this particular proposal in the perspective of the debate which has preceded this discussion.
    First of all, we have had the case put for placing in the lower scale racing and games. Then, we had a proposal for placing in the lower scale, not racing, but all sports. Now, we have a proposal for putting in that class one section only, namely, the amateur section of sport. I think everyone will regard the speeches we have heard as having been moderate, reasonable, persuasive and very interesting.
    I would refer first to the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), who moved the Amendment. She asked what was the magnitude of the sum involved. I can give no precise answer, because I cannot give an exact definition of what would be covered by "amateur" in the sense that the Amendment uses it. By and large the total would be about £200,000. It is

    323
    not the magnitude of the sum we have in mind but certain other difficulties which give cause for thought.
    The hon. Lady referred to the case of a club which had been able to get exemption, and she generously acknowledged the help that the authorities gave her and those working with her in securing that. She will consider, in regard to some of the other cases she mentioned, that possibly some of them might similarly qualify for exemption if they are sponsored by the A.A.A. and have the educational element to which she referred.
    As regards some of the other cases she mentioned—for instance ladies' cricket—an answer has been given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The general proposal is that cricket as a whole will not pay the increased duty this season and the Chancellor has promised to give careful consideration to the subject before the season of next year with a view to dealing with it in the next Finance Bill.
    Our difficulty is that we do not think that the definition of amateurism in this Amendment is adequate or suitable by itself to decide what should go into one class or another. In saying that let me point out at once that I have the greatest possible sympathy with those hon. Members who have emphasised the importance of the amateur element in our sport. I would go so far as to say that so far if a particular sport is being considered for relief or preferential treatment of any kind the fact that it is largely amateur will be a relevant factor in that consideration.
    But when one comes to ask the question whether a sport, which on other grounds would be in the intermediate scale, should be moved to the lowest scale solely because it is a game that is amateur one runs into great difficulties. I would like to mention some. First of all, I am not sure whether the Amendment means that a sport should be exempted because it is amateur, or whether a particular contest or a match on a particular day, should be in the lower class because it is regarded as amateur.
    Putting that aside, I would like the Committee to consider the great anomalies and difficulties in the definition of amateur in different sports. In tennis one ceases to be an amateur if one plays
    324
    with a professional in the same game. It is not so in cricket. In the case of rowing, I believe, one becomes a professional if one sells any of the equipment of that sport. In rowing, in fact, the definition went further than that. I remember when I was at Oxford, a regrettably long time ago, it required a special meeting of the authorities of the University Boat Club to consider whether I should be allowed to row. Not that I was disqualified by anything affecting me personally, but because my father was a partner in a firm which made rowing craft. It was decided in my favour, and doubtless that question would not be raised.
    Mr. Ede: That position was altered as a result of a debate in this House in 1937.
    Sir A. Salter: I regret to say that the days to which I refer when I was an undergraduate were a long time before 1937, so I think the matter was decided many years before then.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) has suggested a definition of "amateur," but that definition is different from that which is adopted in, I think, any sport. If we adopted his definition we should have for every sport, first of all the definition of "amateur" framed by the authorities governing that sport, and secondly a separate Treasury "amateur," which would be a very confusing state of affairs. For all those reasons, I cannot believe that this is a suitable criterion by itself.
    Let me mention some of the other difficulties which would arise. Suppose a completely amateur university football team plays a professional team. Is that an amateur or a professional contest? I do not know. The difficulties of that kind are innumerable, and whatever may be the solution of what is a very difficult problem—which is amply illustrated by the debates today which have covered one sport after another—the problem will not be solved by attempting to apply this criterion in determining that sport otherwise in the intermediate scale should be put into the lower scale.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Would it not be possible for the definition of an amateur to be that of the Olympic Association, for example? They have a pretty clear definition of what is an amateur. Perhaps that definition could be used.
    Sir A. Salter: Even if there were an adequate definition, I do not think that would meet the main case put by so many hon. Members, who have produced arguments which have related to the smaller clubs, some of which may have financial difficulties, rather than to the mere question of the amateur status.
    For all those reasons, while many of the difficulties and hardships put before us are affected by some of the proposals made by my right hon. Friend, we do not think that this criterion would be a suitable one for putting sports into the lowest class, and I am therefore unable to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I think that my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), and Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) are to be congratulated on raising this matter, and upon the extremely able and knowledgeable speeches they made in support of the Amendment. I am bound to say that I found the right hon. Gentleman's reply extremely disappointing, and very unconvincing. We all know the difficulties of precise definitions, and I do not think it is reasonable, when we consider all the facilities that the Treasury have at their disposal, to expect us to be able to produce straight away a watertight definition. There may be difficulties of that kind, but I find it very hard to accept that it is impossible to define the term "amateur."
    If we take the right hon. Gentleman at his word, if it is impossible in any Act of Parliament to define the word properly, that only shows how utterly unsatisfactory the whole of this Clause is. If we accept the right hon. Gentleman's view, it means that the Chancellor is insisting on taxing women's netball more heavily than the music-hall. Now what on earth is the justification for that? Can the Chancellor or the Minister of State give any reason why a heavier tax should be imposed on these amateur games, whether played by women or men, than on music-hall shows? I cannot see that there is any argument for that. I will not pursue that matter further because I might be getting rather wide of the Amendment.
    The Chancellor told us on the previous Amendment that he would, as I understood it, think over the whole question of how football was to be treated. I was not quite sure whether he meant football only, or all those sports and games. I very much hope that he meant all sports and games, including those mentioned in this particular debate; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, in order to expedite the proceedings, could give the Committee an assurance on this?
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: My observations had particular regard to football, but it is impossible to consider football without having regard to other sports and games.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation, because my hon. Friends will have the opportunity, if they so desire, to raise the matter again on Report. If this particular Amendment had stood on its own, I should have advised my hon. Friends to press it to a Division; but I understand that we are to have the opportunity of dividing on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). That is a wider Amendment, which largely covers the other in the name of the hon. Member for Coventry, South, and, in the circumstances perhaps she will feel that, since she will have the opportunity to raise the subject on Report, despite the unsatisfactory nature of the reply tonight, she will not press her Amendment to a Division.
    Miss Burton: Despite the unsatisfactory reply, I hope those bodies which have no exemption will take note of those which have, and I will not, in the circumstances, press my Amendment, but beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed: In page 2, line 32, after "applicable," insert:
    "in the case of any entertainment which consists of games or other sports and."—[Mr. Ellis Smith.]
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 270.

    Division No. 116.]

    AYES

    [10.48 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Awbery, S. S

    Bence, C. R.

    Adams, Richard

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Albu, A. H.

    Baird, J.

    Benson, G.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Balfour, A.

    Beswick, F.

    Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

    Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

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

    Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Blackburn, F.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Peart, T. F.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Boardman, H

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

    Poole, C. C.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Porter, G.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Hobson, C. R.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

    Holman, P.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Brown, Rl. Hon. George (Belper)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Burke, W. A.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Rankin, John

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

    Reeves, J.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Reid, William (Camlachie)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Carmichael, J.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Richards, R.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Champion, A. J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Janner, B

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Clunie, J.

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

    Ross, William

    Cocks, F. S.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Royle, C.

    Coldrick, W.

    Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

    Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

    Collick, P. H.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Cook, T. F.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Shawoross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, David (Hartlepool)

    Short, E. W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

    Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Crosland, C. A. R

    Keenan, w.

    Slater, J.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Kenyon, C.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

    Darling, George (Hillsberough)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Snow, J. W.

    Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Davies, Harold (Leak)

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Sparks, J. A.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Steele, T.

    Deer, G.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R

    Dodds, N. N.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Logan, D. G.

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon E

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

    McGovern, J.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mclnnes, J.

    Sylvester, G 0.

    Edelman, M.

    McLeavy, F.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Edwards, John (Brighouse)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

    Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Thomas, David (Aberdare;

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)

    Ewart, R.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Fernyhough, E.

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

    Timmons, J

    Field W. J.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Tomney, F.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Manuel, A. C.

    Turner-Samuels, M

    finch, H. J.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Usborne, H C

    Follick, M.

    Mellish, R. J

    Wallace, H. W

    Foot, M. M.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Weitzman, D.

    Forman, J. C

    Mitchison, G. R

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Monslow, W.

    Wells, William (Walsall)

    Freeman, John (Watford)

    Moody, A. S.

    West, D. G.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B. W

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Morley, R

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Gibson C W

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Glanville, James

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

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Moyle, A.

    Wigg, George

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

    Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

    Murray, J. D.

    Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

    Greenwood. Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

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

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

    Grey, C F.

    O'Brien, T.

    Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Williams, W. R (Droylsden)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Orbach, M.

    Williams, W. T (Hammersmith, S.)

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Oswald, T.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Padley, W. E

    Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Paget, R. T.

    Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

    Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon A

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Pannell, Charles

    Wyatt, W. L

    Hannan, W.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Yates, V. F

    Hargreaves, A.

    Parker, J.

    Younger, Rt. Hon K

    Hastings, S.

    Paton, J.

    Pearson, A

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Bowden and Mr. Wilkins.

    NOES

    Aitken, W. T.

    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

    Baldwin, A. E.

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

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

    Banks, Col. C

    Alport, C. J. M.

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

    Barber, A. P. L.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

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

    Barlow, Sir John

    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

    Baker, P. A. D.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Baldock, Ll.-Cmdr. J. M

    Beach, Maj. Hicks

    328

    329

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Heald, Sir Lionel

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

    Bennett, F M. (Reading, N)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Osborne, C.

    Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

    Higgs, J. M. C.

    Partridge, E.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

    Perkins, W. R. D

    Bennett, William (Woodside)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M

    Bevins, J, R. (Toxteth)

    Hirst Geoffrey

    Peyton, J. W. W

    Birch, Nigel

    Holland-Martin, C. J

    Pilkington, Capt. R A

    Bishop, F, P

    Hollis, M. C.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Black, C. W

    Holt, A. F

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hope, Lord John

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Hopkinson, Henry

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O L

    Bowen, E. R.

    Horobin, I. M.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

    Rayner, Brig R

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

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

    Redmayne, M.

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

    Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

    Remnant. Hon. P.

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

    Hurd, A. R.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

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

    Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Browne, Jack (Govan)

    Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

    Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

    Hylton-Foster, H. B. H

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Bullard, D. G.

    Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E E.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Jones, A. (Hall Green)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Butcher, H. W.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

    Russell, R. S.

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

    Kaberry, D.

    Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

    Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

    Keeling, Sir Edward

    Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

    Carson, Hon. E.

    Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

    Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Lambert, Hon. G.

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

    Channon, H.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Scott, R. Donald

    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Shepherd, William

    Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Leather, E. H. C.

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

    Cole, Norman

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

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Colegate, W. A.

    Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Lindsay, Martin

    Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Linstead, H. N.

    Snadden, W. McN

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

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

    Spearman, A. C M.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Speir, R. M

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

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

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

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

    Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

    Crouch, R. F.

    Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

    Low, A. R. W.

    Stevens, G. P.

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

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

    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Digby, S. Wingfield

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Storey, S.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MoA.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Donner, P. W.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Summers, G. S.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Maclean, Fitzroy

    Sutoliffe, H.

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

    MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)

    Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

    Drayson, G. B.

    MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Drewe, C.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Teeling, W.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

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

    Duthie, W. S.

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

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

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

    Erroll, F. J.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E

    Thorneycroft, R. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)

    Fell, A.

    Markham, Major S. F.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N

    Fisher, Nigel

    Marples, A. E.

    Tilney, John

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

    Turton, R. H.

    Fort, R.

    Maude, Angus

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Maudling, R.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

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

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

    Medlicott, Brig. F

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H

    Mellon Sir John

    Wakefteld, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

    Godber, J. B.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Gomnte-Duncan, Col. A.

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

    Gower, H. R.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

    Graham Sir Fergus

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Watkinson, H. A.

    Grimond, J.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

    Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Wellwood, W.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    While, Baker (Canterbury)

    Harden, J. R. E.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

    Hare, Hon. J. H

    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

    Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

    Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Nugent, G. R. H

    Wills, G.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Odey, G. W.

    York, C.

    Hay, John

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

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Heath and Mr. Vosper.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I put myself in order by moving this Motion, Sir Charles, so that we may hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his intentions are this evening.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I think, in the atmosphere which has prevailed, that we have made satisfactory progress on a difficult Clause. I should like to pay tribute to the part played, not only by right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee. The position is that there is practically nothing controversial in Clauses 3, 4 and 5, and, I think, it would be reasonable that we should get these Clauses.
    I should like, if there is an opportunity, to make a start on Clause 6, which I fully realise involves much more discussion than Clauses 3, 4 and 5. I would not ask the Committee to sit later than is convenient for the normal means of transport, which is about 11.30 p.m. If that is agreeable, I should like, for certain, to get Clauses 3, 4 and 5, and to make a start on Clause 6.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am much obliged. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4.—(EXTENSION OF POOL BETTING DUTY.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I think we ought to have some explanation from the Government about this fairly important Clause. It is rather complicated.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very glad to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's request. The purpose of this Clause, as the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, is to deal with a possible loophole which has arisen in the Pool Betting Duty. A number of small organisations have discovered that if betting can be conducted under a system known as "flexible odds" they are immune from the payment of Pool Betting Duty.
    The pools that have conducted themselves in the ordinary way are therefore faced with competition from a system
    332
    which enables their competitors to evade the payment of duty, and the object of this Clause, in brief, is to make it quite clear that this system of flexible odds or other methods of evading the Pool Betting Duty shall no longer allow means of evasion to those who desire to evade the duty.
    The amount of money involved is at the moment small, but the Committee will appreciate that if this loophole remained there would be great temptation to the ordinary pools to avail themselves of it; indeed, one can understand, perhaps, their doing so. This Clause makes it quite clear that these systems also will be subject to the same level of duty as what I may describe as the ordinary pools. I have no doubt that the Committee will desire to make it clear that the Pool Betting Duty shall fall on all who operate these pools, no matter how ingenious their schemes may be.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5.—(PERMANENT PROVISION FOR IMPERIAL PREFERENCE ON SUGAR, ETC., AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS ABOUT EXCISE DUTIES.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I should like to explain our attitude to this Clause and try to elicit one point. The purpose of the Clause, I take it, is to make permanent the Imperial Preference on sugar, which was given a life of four years in the Finance Act of 1948. On general grounds, we are somewhat doubtful of making imperial preferences permanent in this way. We certainly think that the preferences that now exist ought to be kept, but we do not think they are nearly so important as such devices as quotas, and so forth. We also feel it is necessary to bargain from time to time about imperial preferences, as between friends in the Commonwealth, and that, in general, these things ought not to be made permanent.
    Presumably this one is made permanent in this Clause because it is part of the British Commonwealth sugar agreement concluded in 1951. That provided for a guaranteed market and what was called the preferential market for the surplus. The Clause provides the preferential market talked about in that agreement.

    333
    The Commonwealth sugar agreement is valid to 31st December, 1959, but is renewable indefinitely year by year. There would be something to be said for making the sugar preference under this Clause run the same length of time and in the same way as the sugar agreement. But I hope it is made permanent in this case because it is the Government's intention to make the Commonwealth sugar agreement permanent so far as we are concerned. We are, of course, in favour of that agreement. It is an example of the bulk purchase, long-term agreements of the sort which hon. Gentlemen opposite have derided, but they are vital to our Commonwealth trade and exist in considerable numbers in our Commonwealth agreements.
    We therefore would support this Clause, not because we are, in principle, in favour of making imperial preferences permanent—we would rather renew them from time to time as they fall in—but because this provision is an integral part of an important Commonwealth bulk purchase long-term agreement.
    Sir A. Salter: In general I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It would undoubtedly be a breach of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement if we changed, or removed, these preferences. Therefore they must go on as long as the Agreement. Indeed, they must go on for some time, because we are pledged to give South Africa and Australia, I think, 18 months' notice of any change. But "permanent," in this sense, does not mean for ever, but unless, and until, they are revised by Parliament, instead of being terminable, as hitherto, unless renewed by Parliament after a given period.
    Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I do not think that the Minister's statement helps very much, because what we want to avoid at present is controversy over Imperial Preference. We have to remember that those who, at present, want to protect industries in the United States are calling for higher tariffs. We have some good friends in America. Probably the right hon. Gentleman saw the leading article in the "New York Herald-Tribune" appealing to those wanting higher tariffs not to press for them at present. This suggestion of permanent Imperial Preference will allow the United States tariff lobbies to press for higher tariffs at a time when the
    334
    Chancellor of the Exchequer has appealed for dollar exports. The timing of this is bad.
    The President of the Board of Trade said last week that we would consult the Commonwealth on the whole question of Imperial Preference. Clearly, we ought not to have taken this action before that consultation. We have to realise that Imperial Preference has a sentimental value and is a tangible tie between the Commonwealth. But that ought not to blind us to practice. In practice, we find the Australians putting up tariffs. It is true that they give us a preference, which means that the tariff against a foreign country is higher than the tariff against; us but the tariff against us is just high enough to keep out our manufactured goods.
    South Africa now limits goods from this country by a quota system. But she is going to protect domestic industries in future, because they have brought in suspended duty legislation which will obviously operate at the time protection is put up against the domestic industry in South Africa. Let no one say that I am not a stout defender of Imperial Preference in the bargaining sense. Hon. Members opposite were good enough to pay tribute to the work I did in Pakistan. But if we are to build up these preferences, whether it be in sugar or anything else, the best way to do it is by long-term agreement and bulk buying. The West Indies, I know from experience, would far rather have a guaranteed market for sugar for a long time to come, and we for some years have been buying our sugar at lower prices than the real price.
    I should have thought that the right way to go about this was not to make the preference permanent, but to have had it on the basis of, say, a four-year period, as before, and that the real way to help the Commonwealth was by the policy, followed in the last Government, of long-term trade agreements and bulk buying, rather than by trying to patch up something on a preference basis which has no reality.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: When he replies, would the right hon. Gentleman explain quite briefly exactly what relationship the 525,000 tons of sugar, which is the quota mentioned in subsection (6), bears to the total output of the

    335
    territories concerned? Is it anything like the whole output, or is it merely a relatively small percentage?
    Mr. Frederick Willey: The right hon. Gentleman has given an explanation which is partially satisfactory, but can he deal also with this small point, which puzzles me? Why was not the period not a permanent period, but the period of the Sugar Agreement? Otherwise, this provision might be open to a rather different interpretation, as being the giving of notice that after the termination of the Sugar Agreement, the Commonwealth sugar producers are to be expected to rely upon preference. I do not think that that was intended. I sincerely hope that we intend to negotiate a further agreement following this one. I mention the point because it might be understood, from the step taken in the Bill, that that was the intention of the Government.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I make a suggestion on the same lines? I have just heard my right hon. Friend from this side of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman on the other side agree that this was not necessarily intended to be a permanent provision but that it should be for the duration of the Sugar Agreement, leaving it open for Parliament to renew the provision after 1959. There did not seem to be any difference of intention between the two sides of the Committee on that. But it is rather unfortunate that the object of the Clause is said to be
    "making permanent certain provisions as to imperial preference. …"
    Exactly the same effect would be given by simply using the word "continuing," or some such phrase, which would not lay us open to the suggestion that having promised the other international parties that we were making something permanent, we may in the future at some time, and perhaps for good reasons, withdraw the promise. It seems to me to be likely to lead to misunderstanding if those words are kept in the Clause.
    11.15 p.m.
    Sir A. Salter: I am advised that the words as they stand mean that the preferences stand unless and until Parliament revokes or changes them. That is a substantial difference in the arrangement
    336
    proposed this year from the arrangements made in earlier years, when the duties were only put into operation for a shorter and limited period, a period which would at present expire in August this year.
    It will, of course, be perfectly possible for Parliament, when it so decides, to change these duties, but in any case we really must go on with this preference while the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement continues, which is until 1954. I suggest that the Committee should accept the legal effect of the wording and the declarations made on the subject, and I hope hon. Gentlemen are now prepared to accept the Clause at it stands. On the question put to me about what proportion of the 525,000 tons of sugar is exported by Commonwealth countries I understand that it is roughly one-third.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6.—(VEHICLES (EXCISE).)
    The Chairman: The first Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Renfrew, East (Major Lloyd) is out of order. The one in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) goes with nine others, and I suggest that they might be discussed together.
    Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 7, line 42, after "vehicle," to insert:
    "and other than a mechanically-propelled vehicle not exceeding ten horse-power which was registered under the Roads Act, 1920, for the first time before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven)."
    This Amendment is associated with others the purpose of which is to persuade the Government to give what we think is a justified relief to the owners of small cars registered before January, 1947. The Chancellor in his proposal has, we think, in trying to get rid of an anomaly in motor vehicle duty, in fact, created an injustice instead. What the Government have done, of course, is to impose a tax on all cars of £12 10s. per vehicle instead of the previous horse-power tax for the old cars, and £10 tax for the new cars.
    Our Amendment, on the other hand, seeks to leave the pre-1947 small cars, that is 10 h.p. or less, in exactly the same position as they were before the Budget,

    337
    while leaving all other cars in the position in which they have been placed by the Chancellor's proposals. We do that on the grounds of equity to the owner of the old small car. I think that this is a case where there are only two considerations. One is equity between one owner and another, and the second is the desirability of affecting the design of newly-produced cars by the structure of the tax. As the latter consideration does not affect the pre-1947 cars at all, it seems that equity between one owner and another should be the prevailing consideration.
    It was, of course, argued, and we have heard it before—and this year it appears to have prevailed with the Chancellor—that it was anomalous to have a tax of £10 a vehicle applied to all post-1947 cars, and a different system operating with the older cars. I believe that is a rather superficial argument; and when one looks at it more carefully, it is not nearly so plausible as it sounds. The suggestion was that to get round the anomaly a tax of £10 should be imposed on all cars, new or old. But on looking at it, this was found to mean sacrificing a revenue of £7 million to car owners.
    It always seemed to us in previous years, and I gather the Chancellor agreed this year, that there was not really a case for selecting car owners for this particular relief of taxation in the present financial situation. Therefore, proceeding a little further with the argument, one asked if we were going to have a flat rate for everyone and no loss of revenue, what would the rate have to be. The answer to that, as the Chancellor told us in the Budget, was £12 10s. all round, and he has adopted that suggestion. In doing so, I think he has not carried the argument to the final stage, and that, if he had done so, he would have come to this conclusion.
    The effect of imposing this £12 10s. duty, which has a sort of superficial administrative tidiness about it, is to raise the level of tax on the owners of old, small, pre-1947 cars; that is to say, the old 7 h.p. and 8 h.p. cars which were previously paying less than £12 10s. per year, and, at the same time, to lower the tax on the large, pre-1947 cars. When we look at it, that is very curious, and not so much anomalous as inequitable, because, generally speaking, the owners of small cars are people rather less well off
    338
    than the owners of large cars. Therefore, when we follow it out, we find that all that we are really doing here is to make a transfer between two groups of people owning these old cars for the benefit, broadly speaking, of the better-off owners of the large cars, at the expense of those not so well off owning the small cars.
    Nothing whatever is achieved in the matter of affecting the design of newly-produced cars, which was the original purpose of the old form of tax on post-1947 cars, about which we are all agreed. We are all agreed that, in future, there ought to be a uniform system of tax for new cars, and that is not in any way altered by altering the incidence of the tax on old cars. Therefore, our proposal seeks to avoid this new imposition on the old small cars, which achieves nothing in the matter of design and is surely, in so far as a change is made, purely inequitable. We think one should look at the owners of the pre-1947 cars of 10 h.p. and less, and should say that there is no reason to increase the tax on them, but that they should be allowed to stay where they are.
    This is really a very moderate proposal, and I cannot imagine that it would cost the Treasury any appreciable amount of revenue. I do not know just how much it would be, but I should have thought not more than a few hundred thousand pounds, anyway. I think it has everything to be said for it on grounds of equity, and I cannot see any objection to it. I hope that, perhaps, if not tonight, when we continue the debate, the Chancellor may feel that he can meet us, at least, so far.
    The Chairman: I must apologise to the Committee. I said there were nine other Amendments to be considered with this one, but there are really only three.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I make no apology for once again speaking on this particular topic, because, as far as my researches indicate, I have done so on exactly the same lines in 1947, 1949, 1950 and 1951. I can, therefore, claim on this issue to have been the most consistent of the hon. Members who have, from time to time, shown interest in this particular problem.
    The Finance Act, 1947, provided that, in respect of cars first registered before 1st January, 1947, the tax should be 25s.

    339
    per annum per unit of horse-power. Cars first registered on or since 1st January, 1947, at present pay tax of £10 a year, irrespective of engine size. What the Government are asking us to accept is the end of the present dual system of motor taxation.
    That, in principle, is something in favour of which many of us have been arguing ever since 1947, and the present proposal means that there will be a flat rate of £12 10s. applicable to all cars, irrespective of age or size. It would be out of order, on the doctrine of anticipation, if I endeavoured now to argue that that flat rate is too high, because there is another Amendment on the Order Paper in my name, which will I trust afford me an opportunity of saying a few words about that.
    The point I wish to make now is that, in their attempt to bring about an abolition of the present dual system of motor taxation, the Government are now in effect increasing the tax on no fewer than 1,300,000 new cars. So far as I have been able to ascertain there are about 2,300,000 currently licensed cars on the roads, and the Budget proposal, which aims at equity, increases the tax on 1,300,000 of them. Many of them are post-war cars in excess of 1,000 c.c., and it may perhaps be argued that owners of such cars cannot complain as they are now on parity with owners of larger pre-war cars so far as taxation is concerned.
    I should like to emphasise that nearly 700,000 cars of 9 h.p. and below will have their taxation increased, in most cases by £2 10s. a year, and further hardship will, in that way, be imposed on the smaller income group who are running small cars. In 1947, when the differentiation between pre-1947 and post-1947 cars was first introduced, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that when the amount had shrunk a little during a few years it would be an obvious point on which pressure might be brought to bear, and eventually when it became sufficiently cheap one which might be met.
    The time has now been reached when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might concede the validity of that particular argument. It so happens that in
    340
    1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951 attempts were made in the Committee to achieve the result we are now trying to persuade the Government to accept. The Financial Secretary will take no objection if I remind him of a very powerful speech which he made on this point on 22nd June, 1950, on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. He actually moved a new Clause to amend the rate of Excise duty on private cars.
    During that speech the hon. Gentleman made the kind of powerful contribution we have come to expect from him and I was so impressed by his argument on that occasion that I presumed to say soon after he had sat down that the Clause which he had moved was not without merit. I therefore hope that this evening he will find it possible to reciprocate by agreeing that this Amendment also is not without merit, because it is on all fours with the argument he adduced on that occasion.
    11.30 p.m.
    I shall not weary the Committee with further quotations I could make from the speeches of hon. and right hon. Members opposite in support of this plea. It is accepted by most people, irrespective of party affiliations, that motor taxation is unreasonably high. This was so even before the increase recently announced by the Chancellor which we now seek to minimise. I am prepared to accept that there are many competing claims for any available tax relief, but considering the incidence of taxation now applying to this category of motorists running small prewar cars of less than 10 horse-power, I do not think they should be singled out for penal treatment now. It is quite clear that considerable hardship will be imposed upon this deserving section of the motoring community, and I hope that our advocacy will find some favour with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    The present difficult situation arises because new cars have not been made available on the home market on the scale which was reasonably expected in 1947 when the £10 flat rate tax was introduced. Anyone who is fortunate enough to obtain a new car today is, if he obtains it legitimately, obtaining an asset worth very much more in the open market than the price he pays for it, and to that extent he obtains unearned incre-

    341
    ment. If the Government wanted to be logical they might think it worth considering a proposal that the Government should appoint themselves the sole selling agency for all new cars and sell these new cars at whatever price they could fetch in the open market, pocketing the difference between the price so realised and the catalogue price, including Purchase Tax, for which the car manufacturers are supposed to sell their cars.
    I am sorry to say that the situation is now being exploited by the Government in order to realise more revenue from the owners of pre-1947 small cars who have been denied the opportunity of purchasing new cars, or who have, for patriotic or other motives, been content to run their old cars. I therefore hope that in all the circumstances the Government will be disposed to accept this Amendment.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for increasing rates of allowances under the Family Allowances Act, 1945, and rates or amounts of contributions and benefits under the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1951, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under—

  (a) section one or section twenty of the Family Allowances Act 1945;

  (b) paragraph (b) of section two or subsection (1) of section sixty of the Industrial Injuries Act; or

  (c) subsection (3) of section two of the National Insurance Act 1946 (as amended by section one of the National Insurance Act, 1951), or subsection (1) of section thirty-eight or subsection (4) of section sixty-two of the National Insurance Act, 1946,

  which is attributable to any provision made by the said Act of the present Session for increasing any such rates of allowances or rates or amounts of contributions or benefits as aforesaid.

  CLERGY DISQUALIFICATION
  Select Committee appointed to consider whether any amendment is desirable in the law relating to the disability of certain ministers of religion from sitting and voting in the House of Commons:
  Mr. Bing, Colonel Ralph Clarke, Mr. Eric Fletcher, Mr. Gage, Mr. James Griffiths, Sir Robert Grimston, Mr. Kerr, Mr. Law, Brigadier Medlicott, Mr. Wade, Mr. Octavius Willey and Mr. Woodburn.
  Power to send for persons, papers and records.
  Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Butcher.]

  REMPLOY FACTORIES (CONDITIONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]
  11.37 p.m.
  Mr. John Paton: The subject which I wish to raise tonight is that of the conditions in Remploy factories throughout the country. My approach to this subject is one of sympathy and appreciation for the work of these factories in recent years, and I wish to express my desire that they may develop and extend the benefits which they have conferred on an unfortunate section of our community. Since I first raised this subject, the matter has assumed new importance through the publication of the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, which is concerned with this very subject, and which contains some very severe strictures upon the organisation of Remploy Limited, and on the administration of its business.
  To the original Questions which I put down some weeks ago, I received answers from which this debate has arisen, and I want tonight to call attention to two matters: first, recent changes in policy with regard to the treatment of sick people in Remploy employment; and, second, the sudden discharge of four long-service members of the staff of the Remploy factory at Norwich.
  First, I shall deal with the question of sick leave. The matter was brought to my notice, originally, by one of the sick employees who had subsequently been discharged, and who showed me a letter

  343
  signed by the manager of the local factory. I will read the terms of that letter which, I am sure hon. Members will agree, are completely shocking when one remembers that this was sent to a disabled man, employed in a sheltered occupation in this factory; and a man who, at that time, happened to be extremely sick. The terms of this letter, dated 23rd January last, are:
  "We would advise you that a new ruling by head office to the effect that if an employee is absent over a month and there is no likelihood of his return within the second month, that he be struck off the strength of the factory, with the promise that when he is again fit and able to follow his occupation, he shall contact the factory manager with a view to reinstatement. This reinstatement is subject to the conditions prevailing and at the discretion of the manager."
  I have no hesitation in saying that this letter is in extremely improper terms. In fact, I should characterise them as being harsh and even brutal terms. When we remember that it was sent to a disabled worker who was sick, it could not be thought that the receipt of a letter such as this would be in the least conducive to the recovery of that sick person. I would say that the decision conveyed by this letter shows up disadvantageously against the normal practice of all decently run factories, for no decent employer would think of sending a letter in such terms to a sick employee at the end of one month's sickness.
  It is true that after I began my inquiries into this matter I received a letter from Remploy telling me that they had reverted to the former practice by which a sick man was given two months' sick leave, and if his doctor then reported that he would be unable to resume in one further month, he would be struck off the strength of the factory. But it is significant that the same harsh, clumsy terms are used in the letter from Remploy headquarters itself as were used by the local manager in the letter I have quoted. So it is obvious that the local manager was not responsible for the harsh terms of the letter, but that they were laid down by the head office.
  That is evidence of what I think is an extremely undesirable trend in Remploy recently. That brings me to the question of the dismissal of the four employees. One was a man with four years' service, two others had three years' service, the
  344
  fourth had 2½ years' service. All of them were dismissed within a short time, one after the other. When I asked if this indicated a change of policy in Remploy, I was assured by the Minister, on behalf of Remploy Limited, that there was no change of policy.
  Nevertheless, it is a singular occurrence that four men, after lengthy service of that description in this factory, should suddenly be found, about a certain date, to be of too low efficiency to remain in the factory. It seems to me to be unquestionably the case that this indicates that there must have been pressure from headquarters to step up the efficiency of the factory. Taking the two things together—the original attempt to alter in such an adverse way the terms of sickness leave, together with the subsequent discharge of four employees with relatively long service—I think there is ground for the belief, which is widespread now among the employees in Remploy, that there is distinct pressure coming from headquarters to step up the productive efficiency of the factory.
  That brings me to the consideration of one or two of the points raised in the Fourth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. There is running through all the evidence given in that report the obvious desire of the management to see Remploy factories raised to a far higher level of efficiency. There is in the report of the Committee itself, as well as in the evidence given by those presenting evidence on behalf of the management, a great sense of sin obviously with regard to the losses incurred in the 97 factories established throughout the country.
  I agree that it is the duty of any company operating as a public service, as this one is, to seek in every legitimate way to cut out waste and extravagance, to cut out any kind of expenditure that cannot be related to the real purposes of the factories. But I think that right throughout the Report, and certainly the whole trend of evidence given before the Committee, there is a wrong point of view with regard to the real functions and purposes of these factories. They tend to regard them from a commercial standpoint instead of from the proper standpoint of considering them as a social service.
  The loss last year was formidable. It was some £2 million, but, again, it is

  345
  obvious from the Report that a large part of that loss was not due to recurring purposes but to the rapidity of extension of a desirable service on behalf of this unfortunate section of our fellow-citizens. It is emphasised in the Report that the opening of new factories was a wasteful and extravagant way of setting about the job. So, when we consider the loss of over £2 million, we must remember that part of it, probably, is of a non-recurring nature and that the loss in future will, perhaps, tend to diminish since these unusual circumstances attending the rapid development of the factories will no longer operate.
  But even though we face a formidable loss I would take a totally different view from the Select Committee or the managers of Remploy themselves. I want the loss kept to a minimum, of course, but I would say, frankly, that I believe the expenditure of even £2 million in the rescue of these unfortunate citizens, from the circumstances in which they formerly lived, was a useful and valuable expenditure, from which we may hope to get good return. We have to remember that if these men were not working in Remploy, thus building-up their self-respect and their self-reliance, they would be maintained by the National Assistance Board, standing at street corners, sitting idle in poor homes, and becoming more demoralised and more useless as citizens.
  Even with this fairly heavy expenditure on the maintenance of the Remploy factories, we are getting a great gain and social boon in the way we have lifted a large number of our disabled fellow-citizens into reasonable, decent conditions of life. I shall not detain the House very much longer as I notice that an hon. Member opposite wants to say a word. I have another case, which has been brought to my notice, of a citizen in my own constituency, who was disabled by disease. He was taken to the Egham Industrial Rehabilitation Centre, had considerable sums of money spent upon him in training for a new life, was returned to Norwich and registered for sheltered employment. But, after making repeated applications to be accepted by Remploy, he has been turned down every time.
  I know that Remploy, in Norwich, has the capacity and space to take in a considerable number more men than it now
  346
  has. I cannot understand why we should have gone to the expense of training the man I have just mentioned if we cannot find a place for him in the Remploy, which is established for him and his like. This man is suffering from frustration; he has been unemployed for months, sitting at home all the time. His condition is deteriorating. He is losing the advantage of the training he received. There can be nothing more wasteful than that.
  I suggest this man could be found employment in Norwich in the factory with the 15 men now registered for sheltered employment and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour thus could get rid of this small problem. These men are a special category of people. They suffer from a feeling of isolation and a feeling of segregation from the normal stream of industrial productivity. I think there is room for something to be done to try and break down this feeling of isolation.
  I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary might look at the possibility of bringing the local disabled committees, in all the districts where Remploy factories are established, into a much closer and more intimate connection with the workers in these factories so that these committees will have a continuous interest in the welfare of those workers. I put these points to the Parliamentary Secretary, and now give way to the hon. Member for Lonsdale, who may be able to say something on this subject, of which he knows so much.
  11.50 p.m.
  Sir Ian Fraser: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton). It will be understood that in a debate so brief one can make only two or three short and sharp observations. All of us will wish that every means should be used to find work for disabled men and women. Happiness does not come alone from pensions or money, but only from work. That is my experience personally, and in regard to very many thousands of men with whose cases I deal. There is another factor: the work must, as far as possible, be useful and fruitful, and, as nearly as possible, competitive commercial work. I do not say that hardly in any way, but unless there is that element of reality it does not give satisfaction.

  347
  It is not true that disabled men must do only simple hand work. They are very skilled at machine minding. Men disabled in the highest degree—blind and limbless, without hand or eyes—can do machine work. If they do machine work, then the capital employed in the machines makes them feel much more worth while. Further, while there is a place for sheltered factories for some who are most severely disabled, it is my experience that where a man can go to work in an open competitive factory, alongside normal workmen, he is happiest. If you can place one man who is severely disabled with 50 others who are not, it is better than placing 50 men in a sheltered factory where they feel they are apart from their fellows. One man among the 50 is helped by them: he takes part in the factory life, goes to the canteen, joins in the sports, and is looked after.
  My suggestion is this: we have a system under which we compel every substantial employer to employ 3 per cent. of disabled persons, varying from the most severe cases to some quite light cases of disablement. Can we not alter the percentage so that where an employer takes into employment a man disabled in the most severe degree we would allow the man to count two in the percentage? The employer will then have done his duty by finding a job for this particular disabled man. He will put him in a situation where he is more likely to be a real producer and where he will gain much more happiness than in a sheltered factory. Do not let it be thought I am opposed to the sheltered factory. There is a place for it, but we have exaggerated its importance. The men are happier when they feel they are normally employed in normal industry.
  11.55 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Sir Peter Bennett): I am very pleased to have this opportunity of dealing with this matter and to be able to thank the two Members who have made their contributions to this short debate. But I do not know whether the position of Remploy is quite understood. It does not cater for disabled people who are capable of working in an ordinary factory and in ordinary work. Fortunately, as the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) has
  348
  said, a large majority of them are able to live and work normally.
  Remploy is a new venture, which has been carried out over the last few years, in an attempt to find long-term continuous employment for the severely disabled who cannot, in the ordinary way, find employment on their own in normal factories. It is intended for those who, after medical treatment, surgical and industrial rehabilitation, have to be selectively placed in jobs; for those who are beyond all the ordinary methods of placing, and are unable to find work because of their special disabilities.
  This is not the only effort being made for these people. The Lord Roberts Workshops and the Papworth Village Industries, have similar aims, although, because they have to raise money privately, they have not been able to carry on the work to the same extent as Remploy. So far as we know, no nation has tackled this work on a scale equal to ours. There are 7,500 out of 55,000 unemployed disabled persons who come into the category with which I am concerned tonight. In the Norwich area there are 13 severely disabled unemployed, and 355 ordinary, registered disabled. This is an expensive business. The average cost per worker is £7 a week. The Ministry covers the capital expenditure, and it makes up the trading losses.
  The estimate for this year is £2,500,000, which is £500,000 less than the amount spent last year, which shows that the matter has been carefully considered from the point of view of the national taxpayer. As has been said, we hope that certain expenses will not recur. We are not going ahead with developments, owing to the standstill order. The reason for the trading loss is low productivity because of disablement. Wages paid are 75 per cent. of the outside rates. That has been agreed with the trade unions.
  Throughout the country there are 92 of these factories, each having an average of 70 workers. There is no standing down, and there is no short time. With the rapid growth of the scheme, these matters have made this an expensive venture. The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Paton), has not been quite fair to the managements and the way they handle this job, because Remploy is not a profit-making concern and the

  349
  Minister does not assume responsibility for the whole of the work. That, naturally, must be left to the directors, who are mainly people doing the work as a labour of love. I cannot imagine anyone putting up his hand for a job like this if he did not regard it as a calling, and not exactly as a career.
  In Norwich, 105 persons are employed there and there are 13 outside who are eligible. The factory makes and repairs Utility furniture, and makes industrial woodwork and baskets. The hon. Member's complaint was with regard to the sick. That is not a matter in which the Minister has any right to interfere. That is a matter for the management of the company.
  Mr. Paton: That is something that the House cannot let pass. This is a national concern, which costs the taxpayer a considerable amount of money, and when we get complaints of what seems to be harsh treatment of the workers within the concern, surely it is a legitimate matter to raise in the House.
  Sir P. Bennett: I am not complaining about the matter being raised. I simply say that the Minister is not the one to deal with the detailed day-to-day working. I will come presently to the point of hardship which the hon. Member mentioned. The questions of service and the methods of handling are arranged by the company and the trade unions.
  The House will appreciate the effect which there is upon a man when he becomes sick, but we also have to remember that there are people outside the factory who are waiting. The practice, which, as the hon. Member said, has been restored, is that if a man is sick for two months and his doctor reports that for at least another month he will be unable to do any work, he is stood off for the time being. It is explained to him that when he recovers he will be reinstated if possible. In the large majority of cases, that is automatic.
  This is a low efficiency organisation, catering for persons so handicapped that they cannot produce in the same manner as an ordinary person. It is not intended, however, to keep people who are so severely handicapped that they cannot make any contribution whatever or are medically unfit for any form of employment. There comes a stage when a man's
  350
  deterioration is such that the medical authorities advise that he can make only a token contribution, and in those conditions the medical advice might be that it is better in the man's own interests that he should retire, because his continuing at work would in all probability aggravate his disease.
  Something else which has to be borne in mind, and which is most important, is the effect upon the workers. It is essential that those who are working should not feel that they are being carried, that it is a matter of charity or that they can remain whether they work or not. It is essential that if the scheme is to succeed, we should influence their self-respect. A man should feel that he is making a contribution, and one that is worth while, and that he is doing as much as he can in view of the handicaps under which he labours. If people were to feel that they could stay as long as they liked, that it did not matter whether or not they worked, the effect upon the others would be most reprehensible and would have a very bad effect.
  I assure the hon. Member that there is a very human approach to the matter. The average output of a man is about 30 per cent. Even if it is less than that, no man is rejected until that is necessary in his general interest, to which I have referred. The position is explained in detail to every man who is stood off. The factory medical officer sees each man, and the cases are reviewed by the company's principal medical officer, who is accompanied by a director of the board. The reason that the hon. Member thought there had been a change in policy was because decisions of that kind are kept until the visiting medical officer comes to verify them, and a large number of cases had accumulated. It is following the medical officer's visit that that procedure is put into operation.
  The decisions in the four cases in Norwich to which the hon. Gentleman referred represented no change of policy. Two of the men were epileptics, one was suffering from muscular wasting, and the other from shaking paralysis, Parkinson's Disease. The visiting medical officer agreed with the diagnosis of the resident medical officer that the time had come when these men did not fulfil the conditions laid down. They were past the stage of making any contributions at all.

  351
  It was in their own interests that they should be stood off as well as in the interests of the whole organisation that the normal policy should be carried out.
  The whole business is carried out in the most human way possible. It is most difficult and we are proud of the way it has been done so far. The matter will
  352
  be watched, and we hope that as time goes on it will be less costly to the taxpayer and more helpful to the individual.
  Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.

WAR PENSIONERS (MOTOR VEHICLE SCHEME)
  WAR PENSIONERS (MOTOR VEHICLE SCHEME)
  WAR PENSIONERS (MOTOR VEHICLE SCHEME)
BRITISH ARMY
  Class Z Reserve
  Class Z Reserve
  Extended Service Bounties (Germany)
  Extended Service Bounties (Germany)
  Suez Canal Zone (Dependant Allowances)
  Suez Canal Zone (Dependant Allowances)
  Home Guard (Z Reservists)
  Home Guard (Z Reservists)
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Confinement to Barracks, Tokyo
  Confinement to Barracks, Tokyo
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Hire Purchase and Credit Sales
  Hire Purchase and Credit Sales
  Portuguese Slates (imports)
  Portuguese Slates (imports)
  Fondant Imports
  Fondant Imports
  Textile Industry, Scotland (Assistance)
  Textile Industry, Scotland (Assistance)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  U.S.A. Dollar Defence Aid
  U.S.A. Dollar Defence Aid
  Road Vehicles (Tax Receipts)
  Road Vehicles (Tax Receipts)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Reconstruction Work, Plymouth
  Reconstruction Work, Plymouth
  Exchequer Grants
  Exchequer Grants
  Pennine Way (Disputed Route)
  Pennine Way (Disputed Route)
  GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES (HOLIDAYS)
  GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES (HOLIDAYS)
HOUSING
  Building Economies (Circulars)
  Building Economies (Circulars)
  Private Building (Mortgages)
  Private Building (Mortgages)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Building Licences
  Building Licences
  Maintenance Depot, Liverpool (Staff Reduction)
  Maintenance Depot, Liverpool (Staff Reduction)
  Floodlighting, London
  Floodlighting, London
  Flowers and Shrubs (Labelling)
  Flowers and Shrubs (Labelling)
  Grosvenor Square
  Grosvenor Square
  ST. MARY-IN-THE-CRYPT (REPAIRS)
  ST. MARY-IN-THE-CRYPT (REPAIRS)
AGRICULTURE
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
  Farming Incomes
  Farming Incomes
  RAILWAY SUPERANNUITANTS
  RAILWAY SUPERANNUITANTS
  NIGERIA (MARKETING BOARDS)
  NIGERIA (MARKETING BOARDS)
MINISTRY OF FOOD
  Farm Prices
  Farm Prices
  Rationed Foodstuffs (Subsidy)
  Rationed Foodstuffs (Subsidy)
  TERRINGTON REPORT (TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIONS)
  TERRINGTON REPORT (TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIONS)

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.35 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I have to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Salisbury will interrupt the debate on the National Health Service Bill at some convenient time about four o'clock, in order to make the promised statement on the duties of the Co-ordinating Ministers.

WINCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EDINBURGH MERCHANT COM- PANY ENDOWMENTS (AMEND- MENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

SCHOOL OF FASHION DESIGN
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the cost of the School of
602
Fashion Design in the last Financial Year, and how many students, male and female, were in training during that year.]
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, the total gross expenditure on the School of Fashion Design was £9,482 of which £2,700 was non-recurrent. There were twenty-six students, four male and twenty-two female, who paid an annual fee of £60 each.

EXPORT DUTIES ON RAW COTTON
2.37 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government which are the countries which still impose export duties on raw cotton.]
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, with the permission of the noble Lord, I propose to circulate the answer, which is rather long, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
LORD HAWKE: I take it, from the nature of the noble Lord's reply, that the list of countries still indulging in these pernicious practices is very long. I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are taking every opportunity of urging upon these countries the fact that, at a time when there is considerable consumer resistance to the price of cotton goods, these practices are no longer suitable.
LORD LLOYD: I think the Government have the matter under active attention at all times.
Following is the statement referred to by Lord Lloyd:
Column 2 of the table below gives the rates of taxes imposed on exports of raw cotton by the countries (listed in column 1) which impose such taxes. The rates of tax are shown either ad valorem or, in the case of specific rates, in United States cents per lb. of raw cotton, which is the unit normally used internationally.
Country and Rate of Tax
Belgian Congo—18 per cent. ad valorem.
Brazil—8 per cent. ad valorem on exports from South Brazil, plus 1.32 cents per lb.
Egypt—11.83 cents per lb.
French Equatorial Africa—24 per cent. ad valorem.
Haiti—2 cents per lb. during 1951–52 season.
India—10.65 cents per lb.
Kenya and Uganda—Sliding scale from nil when price does not exceed 7d. per lb. to 1.4 cents per lb. at 13d. per lb. Thereafter duty is increased by 0.28 cents per lb. for every increase of 1d. per lb. or part thereof.
Leeward Island—From ½d. to 1½d. per lb.
Mexico—4.77 cents per lb.
Nigeria—10 per cent. ad valorem plus one-tenth of 1 per cent. for every £ or part of a £ by which value exceeds £325 per ton.
Pakistan—7.70 cents per lb. for Desi cotton, 13.85 cents per lb. for other varieties.
Paraguay—11 per cent. of declared value per invoice.
Peru—Tax is calculated on a comparison between an estimated cost of production and spot quotations. (At present, 6.81 cents per lb.)
St. Vincent—6 per cent. ad valorem.
Sudan—Varies between 10.07 and 14.37 cents per lb., according to type.
Tanganyika—Varies between 11.20 and 5.60 cents per lb. according to grade.
The above table is as nearly complete as currently available data will allow.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
2.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
In view of the statement in Mr. Churchill's Manifesto at the last General Election, that a Conservative Government would "call an all-Party conference to consider proposals for the reform of the House of Lords," to ask Her Majesty's Government when it is proposed to take steps to that end.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government intend to call such a conference as soon as they have taken the necessary measures to deal with the more urgent tasks with which the present economic situation of the country confronts them.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I thank the noble Marquess for his reply.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess, in dealing with this
604
matter, to bear in mind this consideration? From an article in The Times to-day I quote these words:
"the powers of the House of Lords … could not be restored, if that is the Government's intention, until the composition of the House has been … remodelled."
May I assure the noble Marquess that there are some of us who will be quite unwilling to embark upon any consideration of the reformation of the composition of the House of Lords if that is to be a mere prelude or "curtain raiser" to the conferring of increased powers upon this House?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble and learned Earl opposite would be very unwise to begin banging doors at this stage. The important thing is that, if possible, there should be inter-Party agreement, on whatever basis, on this all-important question. When the time comes, we shall hope for the full co-operation of noble Lords opposite.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
2.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, the National Health Service Bill now before your Lordships enables charges to be made for certain services provided under the National Health Service. No one likes instituting charges where none existed before, but the Government recognise, as did the previous Government when instituting charges for dentures and spectacles under the National Health Service Act of 1951, that the cost of the Service must be kept within reasonable bounds. On this account, the Government propose to introduce new charges for certain medical and dental treatment. The charges proposed are modest in themselves and should not involve any hardship, as provision will be made to relieve from the charge those in receipt of National Assistance or war pensions.
Your Lordships may remember that Section 16 of the National Health Service (Amendment) Act, 1949, empowers the Government to institute, by regulation, a charge for drugs supplied on each prescription form. The Government propose to use these powers, but since they do not

605
apply to medicaments issued to hospital out-patients it is clearly necessary, if an anomaly is to be avoided, to supplement these powers by enabling the Government to apply the same charges to hospital out-patients. This Clause 1 of the Bill will do. The charges proposed to be made on medicines, dressings and appliances prescribed or supplied by general practitioners are one shilling for each prescription, notwithstanding that the form of prescription may contain more than one item. For example, if a patient were ordered on one form of prescription an ointment and a bandage, and some lint, that would amount to three items but would still cost only 1s. On each occasion on which a doctor who dispenses his own medicine supplies it to a patient, again the charge would be 1s. Higher charges are proposed for elastic hosiery for which the charge will be 5s. or 10s., according to the size of article supplied. It is proposed to make similar charges for elastic hosiery supplied to hospital out-patients.
The estimated saving on all this in a full year is £12,500,000. The charges will be payable by everyone who presents a prescription form to a chemist, or, in a rural area, where the medicine is supplied by a doctor who does his own dispensing. The charges have been fixed at a level which should not normally involve any hardship, but people in receipt of National Assistance will be able to claim the repayment of the 1s. from the office where they draw their assistance, which is usually the Post Office, when next presenting their Order Book, if they produce a special receipt form which the chemist or doctor will be asked to give them on request. War pensioners will similarly be able to reclaim a charge incurred by reason of their accepted war disability. The shilling charge will also be made through outpatients' departments in hospitals when drugs or medicines are supplied for patients to take away with them. When prescriptions are dispensed to out-patients at a hospital, no charge will be made to patients who produce a National Assistance Order Book showing that they are receiving assistance (or are dependants of a person receiving assistance), or Ministry of Pensions out-patients' attendance cards, or who sign a declaration that the drug or medicine is for an "accepted" war disability. Patients
606
under treatment for venereal diseases at hospital clinics will also be exempt from charge for drugs or medicine supplied as part of their treatment.
So far as appliances are concerned, the proposal is to make a fixed flat rate charge of not more than half the cost of certain appliances supplied through the hospital service to out-patients other than children.
Since it is not in the Bill but will be done by regulations, I thought it advisable to give your Lordships some definition of these appliances. The appliances for which there will be charges are as follows: surgical boots and shoes, £3 per pair; surgical abdominal supports, £1; elastic hosiery: anklets, knee-caps or leggings, 5s. each, other types 10s. each; wigs of any type, supplied in duplicate, £5 per pair, the single wig on renewal, £2 10s. No charges will be made for repairs to appliances except for the soling and heeling of surgical boots and shoes, where approximately the full cost of the work will be charged. Nor will any charge be made for appliances supplied to or repairs done for children, persons (or their dependants) in receipt of assistance grants under the National Assistance Act, or for war pensioners in respect of an accepted disability. The only kind of appliance on the above list which is also obtainable on prescription by a general practitioner outside the hospital is elastic hosiery, and it is proposed that this should carry the charges shown above, and not come within the shilling prescription. The estimated yield of this is about £250,000 in a full year.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the extension of charges to forms of dental treatment other than the provision of dentures, which is already covered by the Act of 1951. Great care has been taken in trying to work out the form which these charges should take. The method on which the Government have decided is a simple one. It is that, with certain important exceptions, the patient should pay the cost of his treatment up to a maximum of £1, and that the rest of his treatment should be free. In contrast to the possible alternative which has been widely advocated, of giving the patient the first £1 worth of treatment free, the method proposed will encourage patients when they do visit the dentist to undergo complete treatment which will make them dentally fit, rather than to make a visit

607
only when they need emergency treatment. An important element of this scheme of dental charges is that the Bill provides, in Clause 2 (4), for exceptions of those classes which are most in need of treatment, and they are defined as children and young persons up to twenty-one, expectant mothers, and mothers who have had a child within the last twelve months. These mothers, children and young persons will continue to be entitled to free treatment, both from general dental practitioners and under the local authority priority services.
To prevent abuse, the Bill proposes penalties for fraudulent claims by persons who do not in fact belong to the priority classes. It is also proposed not to make any charge for the clinical examination and report on a person's teeth. Nor will charges be made for the repair of appliances, except such as may be prescribed, and in practice few, if any, appliances may be so prescribed. Similarly, no charges will be made for the arrest of bleeding; for a domiciliary visit—that is, a visit by the practitioner to the patient—due to the latter's condition, and the supply or replacement of appliances which are already subject to a charge under the Act of 1951. The charge will apply to treatment by a general dental practitioner in his own surgery or at a health centre. Like the charges under the 1951 Act, it will be paid direct by the patient to the dentist.
The Government have considered very carefully the effect of this Bill upon the dental profession in their endeavours to meet the demands for treatment. A vast amount of dentistry has been carried out—often with great pressure on the dentists—which has undoubtedly contributed to the health of the population, but in the meantime, as your Lordships are very well aware, the school dental service has lost much of its staff. The inducements to dentists to practise under the general dental services and the school dental service respectively have been out of balance. Charges to be imposed under this Bill will, it is hoped, help to put this balance right. If the pressure on general practice slackens as a result of the charges, then there will be a greater inducement to some of the dentists who like to treat school-children to participate, either whole-time or on a sessional basis, in the priority services, and so to ensure
608
that, under a properly manned school dental service, children receive regular inspection of their teeth and are given treatment whenever they need it. The avoidance of hardship has again been very much in the minds of the Government. The principle on which the clause is based is that, apart from the two priority classes of children and young persons under twenty-one, and expectant and nursing mothers (for both of whom there are special clinical reasons, as they are specially liable to dental caries) all other persons should be expected to pay the charges, and that they should receive help, if necessary, from the National Assistance Board. The expected saving from the charges for dental treatment will be in the neighbourhood of £6,000,000 per annum.
The new charges for dental treatment will not apply in hospitals, where treatment required will continue to be given without charge. The charges for dentures under the 1951 Act do, however, apply to hospital out-patients, as to patients treated under the general dental services, and they will continue to apply, with the modification, provided for in Clause 4 of the Bill, that the Minister or Secretary of State may, after consultation with the university concerned, agree to the charges being remitted at a dental teaching hospital, where that is necessary in the interests of dental studies.
The other matter to which I should draw your Lordships' special attention is dealt with in Clause 5, subsections (2) and (3), which will empower local authorities, subject to the Minister's approval, to make such charges for the use of day nurseries as the authorities consider reasonable, having regard to the means of the persons concerned. It is proposed to approve the making of charges within a maximum of the full cost of the service provided, the amount of the charges being adjusted to the means of those who use the service. There are at present in Great Britain some 45,000 places in day nurseries provided by local health authorities, at a total cost of £5,300,000. The charges recovered for food provided amount to some £900,000 a year. It is, therefore, quite an expensive service, and it is not unreasonable to make some charge for it.
The mother who is compelled to go out to work, usually because she is the sole wage-earner, or who is unable to look

609
after her children owing, perhaps, to sickness, might well be unable to pay much in the way of charges—or in some cases might not be able to pay anything at all—but there are many cases where the mother, whose husband is working, wishes to work herself in order to supplement the family income or, it may be, in response to appeals that have been made for women to return to industry. Very often, in these cases, the mother earns good wages, and there is no reason why she should not make some contribution towards the cost of maintaining these very expensive services. And, in fact, she is often quite willing to do so. No firm estimate of savings is possible, as the amount of the charges will be largely at the discretion of the local authorities themselves. The yield might be of the order of £1,000,000 in a full year, of which half would accrue to the Exchequer.
The Bill makes one or two detailed amendments to the Act of 1951 which I ought to mention. First, the charges under that Act apply to dentures, but not to dental bridges. The present Bill, in Clause 5, corrects that omission. Secondly, the Bill, as already mentioned, enables the Minister of Health, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the interests of dental teaching to remit the 1951 charges in the case of dentures provided at a dental teaching hospital. Thirdly, under the 1951 Act, the power to charge for the supply of dentures would expire on April 1, 1954, unless continued from year to year by Special Resolution. It is not, in fact, possible to say how long the economic circumstances of the country may make charges necessary, and a more flexible form of variation with no fixed time limit is desirable. The Bill therefore gives power to lessen or abolish any dental charge by Order in Council. This will be done as experience or financial circumstances may suggest. This power applies both to the dental charges imposed under the present Bill and to those imposed by the Act of 1951.
My Lords, I hope that that brief summary has done something to make clear the salient points of the Bill. The reason for the introduction of the charges, as your Lordships are well aware, is, primarily, to curb the ever-mounting cost of the Health Service and to keep it within reasonable bounds.
610
From 1947 to 1951, the number of prescriptions given under the National Health Service in England and Wales rose from 70,000,000 to 229,000,000, and the average cost of a prescription from 1s. 8d. to 3s. 11d. In Great Britain, the estimated cost of the dental service, excluding hospital dentistry and the special priority services run by the local authorities, is about £27,000,000 a year; and the day nurseries, as I have said, cost about £4,500,000. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask those who can afford it to make some contribution towards the cost of some of these services, with a view to keeping the total cost within some near approach to the ceiling which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have prescribed. The greatest danger to the Health Service is that it should be too expensive for us to maintain. This Bill will not only help to reduce, in some measure, the estimated expense but may well act as a curb to the extravagant demands on the Service. Perhaps, as a nation, we are in some danger of taking too much medicine. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Woolton.)
3.0 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, I began to lose hope that he was going to give your Lordships an explanation of the reasons why this Bill has taken shape. Towards the end of his speech, the noble Lord had done no more than indicate to your Lordships that the expenses of the Health Service have been mounting up, that it is desirable that something in the nature of a ceiling should be fixed, and that the people who take advantage of the Health Service should make some kind of contribution to it. I do not know whether your Lordships will be satisfied with the introduction of an important Bill of this character in those terms. I have been in this Chamber for five years and I have not listened to the introduction of a Bill when so little has been said about the reasons prompting it and making its introduction necessary. Perhaps I may be forgiven, therefore, if I take the place of the noble Lord for a few minutes and give the reasons for the introduction of this Bill, as indicated by speeches of colleagues of the noble Lord in another place. When

611
I do that, it will be found that their interpretation of the reasons which have prompted this Bill are of an entirely different character.
Before I come to that, perhaps I ought to don something in the nature of a white sheet and explain the position of the Labour Party, in view of our past commitments in matters of this kind, and inform your Lordships' House of the most recent decision which the Party have taken in the matter. In 1950, in a year when there was a surplus in the balance of payments between ourselves and other countries of the world, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, drew a ceiling for himself because of the Budget position of that year. He indicated that, because of the financial position of the country, a ceiling would be drawn for the Health Service and that if there had to be increased expenditure in some part of the Health Service, there would have to be transfers within the Service, determined by priorities. That, as I say, was in a year when the country had a surplus in the balance of payments between this country and other countries. In 1951, after the retirement of Sir Stafford Cripps, my right honourable friend Mr. Hugh Gaitskell, the Minister of Health of the day, faced with rearmament in all its rigour and with increasing expenses in all directions, decided that he could not find more than £7,000,000 extra for the Health Service, although the claims of the health authorities throughout the country amounted to £23,000,000 extra.
Therefore, the Government of the day decided that for a temporary period—and I want your Lordships to note the words "temporary period"—there should be a charge on dentures and one on spectacles. It will be noticed that this increase was proposed to Parliament to meet the cost of rearmament and the growing expenditure of the period. But my right honourable friend the Minister of Health said this in the course of his speech in moving the Second Reading of the National Health Service Act of 1951 (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 487. Col. 239):
"When we considered where to levy charges, we had four criteria in mind. The first was to provide the income required for the maintenance of the essential parts of the Service. The second was to levy the charge as little as possible on any person who was seriously ill. The third was to avoid a high
612
cost of collection. The last was to have regard to the possible deterrence of abuse."
I hope to say something about each of the three latter points before the conclusion of my remarks.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on, can he tell us, for the benefit of noble Lords who will be speaking later, what the total figure of the ceiling was fixed at?
LORD SHEPHERD: It was, roughly, £400,000,000. When the 1951 Act was being considered in another place, the Minister of Health indicated that the Bill was of a temporary character and would normally continue for the period of rearmament. During its passage, however, a demand was made that some limit should be included in the Bill itself. The limit was inserted in the Bill, which was to come to an end in 1954. When we come to examine the Bill now before the House, we find that no limit of time is provided at all, although my colleagues in another place did their utmost to persuade the Government to include it. But one thing will be found in this Bill—that is, that the time limit placed in the Government's Act of 1951 is to be deleted. So that the charges under this Bill and under Labour's own Act will have no time limit so far as the Statutes are concerned. We think that the Government have not played fairly with us in this matter, if they desire our co-operation in times of difficulty. And we have now reached the conclusion that when we return to office, which we hope to do at no distant date, when time and opportunity present themselves we shall clear these Acts out of the road and begin once more to rebuild the Health Service of this country on a co-operative basis and without charging people in the way that is proposed in this measure.
What is the purpose of the Bill? I will now give the views of the Minister of Health, who is Leader of another place. Then I will give the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, taken from his statement in January last on the financial and economic situation in the country. This is what Captain Crookshank said on the Second Reading of the Bill: (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; Vol. 498, Col. 860.)
"The fact remains that unless we restore our present precarious situation, unless we can restore confidence in sterling and stop the

613
drain on our reserves it is not the National Health Service which will be destroyed but the very foundations of our economy which will be shaken.
"That is the danger we have to face and much that all of us together have created and enjoyed would disappear in the twilight of national bankruptcy. Those are the grim facts which, fundamentally, are the justification for the financial parts of the Bill."—
I should like to emphasise that last sentence. The Minister went on:
"The other portion, which tries to turn the emphasis into a slightly better direction than it has been in the last few years, is the more constructive portion of the Bill. …"
I commend those words to your Lordships. Therefore, your Lordships will see that Captain Crookshank, the Leader of the House of Commons and the Minister of Health, is less concerned about the ceiling on the Health Services, for the sake of the Health Services, than he is about the state of bankruptcy in which he appears to think the country is falling.
I now come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The speech that he made in another place on January 29 was especially for the purpose of giving the views of the Government on the situation in which this country found itself. It was there that Mr. Butler indicated the steps he was going to take to rescue the nation from its position; and it was during that speech that almost every item in this Bill was mentioned specifically. Therefore, we have to assume that all that Mr. Butler said about the state of the country covered this Bill also. This is what he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 495, Col. 41):
"If we allowed our economic strength to deteriorate and to decay, not only would our lives be impoverished, but the whole aspect of the problems confronting the free world as a whole would be irremediably worsened … it is the harsh truth that our economic position in the world has been deteriorating for about half a century. … Our resources have been depleted by two world wars into which we unhesitatingly threw all our resources. The result of this is that in addition to the other burdens which are upon us, we have become the largest debtor country in the world, whereas for generations we had been the largest creditor."
I suggest to your Lordships that, when we come to consider whether this Bill is necessary or not, we have to ask ourselves whether what it proposes has any relevance to the situation described by the two right honourable gentlemen in the other place. Is it really the fact that this
614
nation cannot be rescued from bankruptcy unless we charge something to the sick, the lame and the poor?
Let me add one further thing. What is it that is causing so much concern, and that has led to the descriptions of the situation to which I have just referred? It is something that we call the balance of payments. Some people know a great deal about it; most people know nothing. But in the Budget speech it was made crystal clear to those who could read. I have already indicated that in 1950 there was a surplus, and that surplus was in the neighbourhood of £300,000,000. In the following year a change took place, with the result, as again described by Mr. Butler, that in the third quarter of the year our gold reserves were being depleted at the rate of 46,000,000 dollars per week; in the fourth quarter of the year the depletion of our gold reserves had gone up to 58,000,000 dollars per week; and in January and February of this year—these were the last figures the Chancellor of the Exchequer could use on the date on which he made this speech—the weekly loss in the gold reserves amounted to 63,000,000 dollars per week. That is the situation which this Bill, with its charges for prescriptions, belts and elastic stockings, is going to meet. I venture to suggest that if it is an attempt to cure the sorry conditions I have described it is just like using a pill to cure an earthquake. It is not really worth the time of Parliament to bring in measures of this kind for the purposes we have here.
If your Lordships listened to Lord Woolton's detailed description of this measure, you will remember that he calculated that this Bill would save the Exchequer about £9,000,000, made up of £250,000 on surgical belts, on abdominal supports, elastic hosiery and wigs, £75,000 on dental charges, £500,000 on nurseries, and the rest on prescriptions given to the out-patients of hospitals.
LORD WOOLTON: The noble Lord cannot be correct there. I gave precise figures, which were £12,500,000 on prescriptions, and £6,500,000 later. The total comes to just under £20,000,000.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord and I are talking about two different things. I am talking about this Bill.
LORD WOOLTON: I was, also.
LORD SHEPHERD: No, the noble Lord is talking about another Bill in addition. This Bill provides only for a prescription charge on that part of the public which goes to hospitals. The £12,500,000 to which the noble Lord refers would relate to the many millions of people who come under the National Health Service Act, 1949. So that I am approximately accurate—I will put it no higher than that—and I desire to be, because I want to prove that this Bill is one which we should not entertain. Assuming that the total is £9,000,000, how is that to be applied in order to save the nation from bankruptcy? Almost on the first page of the Economic Survey which has just been published by the Government I find a table which seems very useful for my purpose. In 1948 the cost of imported foodstuffs was £826,000,000, whereas in 1951 the total had reached £1,249,000,000. What part of the £9,000,000 which is to be saved by this Bill is going to relieve us of any of those imports? Is any part of that £9,000,000 going to affect that importation at all? Now I come to the next point. In 1948, raw material imports approximated £606,000,000, whereas last year the imports went up to £1,500,000,000. Again may I ask: supposing the whole £9,000,000 to be saved under this Bill represented commodities which had to be imported, how far would that relieve this country from its approach to bankruptcy? But the whole £9,000,000 is not available for that purpose. If you take out the margins of profit; if you take out the wages that are paid; if you take out the cost of factories and the like, the amount of imports—even if it all came from abroad—to be saved by this Bill would be extremely small.
My last word on the finances has reference to the Budget itself. It may be argued that the saving of £9,000,000 will have nothing whatever to do with the approach of the country to bankruptcy through excessive imports, but that it would be a relief to the Exchequer; it would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a real balance at the end of the year. Before we part with that thought, I think we should look at the Budget itself in order to get a proper comparison. Mr. Butler, in winding up his speech on the Budget debate said this (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; Vol. 497, Col. 1307):
616
"I hope to obtain … £10,000,000 from the Post Office, and £66,000,000 extra from petrol. I hope also to save a net amount of about £80,000,000, as the combined result of reducing the food subsidies but improving social benefits."—
that is to say, a total of £156,000,000. But he then ended with the remark that he had granted no less than £180,000,000 in tax reliefs. If you take his savings away from the sacrifices that he has made, your Lordships will find that the income tax payer is left with £24,000,000 extra to spend in any way he likes. I suggest that if the Government really wish to do the right thing by the poor and suffering in this country, instead of putting on new taxes which are involved in this Bill they should have given less away in the form of tax reliefs, so that the broader backs of the well-to-do might bear the major part of the expenditure which is involved.
However, there is a point about this Bill which explains a fear which exists that if money is spent by a Government upon health, that money is economically wasted. I wish to show your Lordships that money spent on health may be a good economic investment. I quite agree that on health, as upon all human activities, there may be wastage which must be made good. I say that the wise expenditure of money upon health has an economic value all its own, and I want to give one or two instances which will support the claim I have just made. In the Monthly Digest of Statistics just published, the following figures for the month of November are available. In that month the number of days of incapacity through sickness amounted to 103 per 100 persons. If one applies that percentage to the working population of our country of 23,000,000 people, one reaches the conclusion that in the month of November 24,000,000 days were lost because of sickness and incapacity. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that we can spend a good deal of money with very great profit to the State if we so improve the health conditions of our country that that great loss of time and labour will be reduced.
The Times of December 10 last had a two-column article from its Geneva correspondent reviewing the monograph of Dr. Winslow, an American physician. The correspondent was reviewing this monograph and giving the readers of The Times important facts about the value of health and the economic gain which

617
comes from it. In that article it is said that a death at fifteen years of age is an economic loss. The boy has not lived to repay either the State or his family for the cost of his upkeep. If, however, the boy lives to the age of forty, then not only has the cost of his upbringing been covered; not only has he been able to look after himself in the intervening years, but there has been an economic return to society. After forty years of age there is an economic return to society. But if a man lives to be sixty-five years of age—that is, twenty-five years longer—then the economic gain at the end of that further twenty-five years is twice as great as it was when the man turned forty. So there would be everything to gain from any expenditure of money which would lead to that great extension of life.
I want to give only one other set of figures in that respect, and they are quite recent figures concerning children who are born into this world of ours and who die before they are twelve months old—a loss to the community, a loss to their parents and a loss to the economic life of our land. I will not go back to the figures of half a century ago, because they were appalling. I will quote the figures merely since the end of the war. In 1945, the death rate of children under one year was 46 per 1,000; in 1946 it was 42; in 1947, 41; in 1948, 33, and in 1949, 32. When the noble Lord is thinking about child clinics; when he is thinking about the foods now given to women expecting a child, and when he is thinking about the money we are expending on looking after children after birth, will he please remember that that money has not been wasted? The children are alive, and one day will add to the economic strength of our land.
Now I wish to deal with only one other matter, and that concerns the subject of deterrents. We can go greatly wrong unless we are careful in handling this very difficult subject. I want, first, to deal with the deterrent effect in regard to teeth which arose out of the Labour Government's Act; and I am going to take as my authority, not some unknown correspondent, but a respected Member of Parliament, a member of the Conservative Party, who, I understand, has just finished a pamphlet to be sold by the headquarters of his Party. Mr. Macleod has reached the conclusion that the
618
deterrent effect in regard to teeth has been far greater than we expected. He says that the damage has been so severe that the dentists have lost 30 per cent. of their income. He then goes on to say that the business of dentists has declined by 50 per cent. since the inauguration of this charge; and he expresses the hope that if this Government remain in office the powers under this Bill will be used for a reduction of that deterrent arrangement that the Labour Government placed on the dentists. Well, my Lords, if this Government remain in office, we shall wish that they will do that, because we think the effect on the dentists has been too severe.
Mr. Macleod seems to justify the deterrent effect in this case because of the switch that he thinks follows from it. Owing to the active service of dentists under the Health Service Act, apparently, the schools have lost the dentists who used to look after their children's teeth. Mr. Macleod thinks it would be a good thing if we saw to it that the men who have been deprived of their livelihood since the inauguration of the charge find their way into the schools to look after the teeth of the children. We certainly want more dentists looking after the teeth of the children, but we should make sure that when we select people for that work it is not merely on the ground that they have fallen out of work, but because they have special aptitude for looking after the teeth of the children. On the Report stage of the Bill in another place, the Minister agreed to an Amendment to preclude from the prescription charges of this Bill men and women suffering from venereal diseases. I myself would not object to an Amendment of that kind. But when the same Minister refuses to put outside these charges persons suffering from tuberculosis, I frankly do not understand the position. When we come to deterrents and to discriminating between one section of the community and another, we find ourselves making these cruel mistakes, which not only affect the population but which, by extra administration, pile up the cost of the Service.
In conclusion, I wish to remind your Lordships of what I said at the beginning. Although we commenced putting these charges upon certain parts of the Health Service, we have learned our lesson and we can take advantage of that

619
lesson. If noble Lords opposite do not themselves get rid of these charges, then we shall take an early opportunity, when we come into office once more, of making sure that a saner condition of affairs is brought about.
3.34 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, in rising to address you for the first time I am conscious of rather mixed feelings. I am not a stranger to this Chamber, and I am not a stranger to many of those whom I see around me, because, during the period of the war, I sat in this Chamber, and because during eighteen-and-a-half years' membership in another place I came into contact with many who now, like myself, have the privilege of sitting on these Benches. I come here gladly, welcoming the opportunity of still retaining some connection with this great Palace of Westminster and all the associations which it has, and of coming into an atmosphere of debate to which, I must say, I react very favourably.
I rise to-day to deplore the fact that this Bill has been brought in to make permanent a break of principle and to make unfair discrimination between individuals. I am happy to follow my noble friend Lord Shepherd, who has already made reference to the unfair discrimination between individuals. Health should not be subject to the capacity of the individual to pay. At least, an attempt to remedy conditions of illness and disability should not be subject to the individual's capacity to pay. I ask, How did we arrive at the position which we reached when we established the National Health Service, a Service which I consider will be impaired, to some extent at least, by this Bill? Did it not derive from a growing consciousness of our duty to our neighbour? We remember Him who taught us to recognise our neighbour. Was it not His inspiration that led the Church of His founding, many years ago, to follow His example in caring for the sick and thus earning His commendatory:
"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these … ye have done it unto Me."
Centuries have passed since these words were spoken. Many years ago, following the Church along these lines, the community took a hand. Great voluntary
620
efforts were made; the great voluntary hospitals came into being and, in their time, were very successful. But the impact of two world wars threatened the very foundations of the voluntary system; and it is one of the glories of our country that in the aftermath of war we became the first great nation to put into operation a system whereby we guaranteed to every sufferer, so far as human skill could provide it, the means of health and a full life.
Let us not go back on that ideal, as this Bill causes me to fear we are doing. I give way to no one in seeking to avoid or, if it exists, to remove wasteful expenditure; and I have no doubt that action is necessary to exercise the utmost care in our present difficult financial position. But that this Bill is the right way to secure the best results I question very much. I have had many contacts with the peoples of other lands. I have had associations with international organisations, and they have brought me into touch, both in this country and in other countries, with people from other lands. The feeling that I have found in my contacts with these people has been one of unbounded admiration for this country for its conduct during the menace of war and an equal admiration, not unmixed with a tinge of envy, for the manner in which we tackled the tremendous problems war left in its train.
One of the great things that this country has brought into operation is this great National Health Service. This Bill is pleaded for on the ground of national economy; but, as was indicated by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, the economy is comparatively small. I ask: why apply that economy to health? Are there not other sources where saving can be effected to an even greater extent? Are we not as a nation bowing down before false gods? Could we not, with great advantage, save vast sums on the cost of the tribute that, for example, we pay to the god Bacchus, responsible for great danger to life and limb upon our roads and in other spheres? With reference to road accidents, over 2,000 motorists were convicted in 1951 of driving while under the influence of drink. There are pedestrians also who fall into the same category and risk life and limb on the roads. Will anyone deny that the high incidence of venereal disease is made

621
greater because of dangers incurred under the influence of drink?
Noble Lords will see that I am trying to link these remarks of mine to questions of health. If I were to go outside the realm that I have covered already, I should bring in another wasteful expenditure upon which we, as a nation, would do well to economise. It would hardly come into the category that I am establishing. I refer to the god of chance. Every year £650,000,000 is put into the gambling industry. I am not on such firm ground in indicating another god, or rather goddess, by name "My Lady Nicotine," but research is being made into the effect of the enslavement of so many of our population by this seductive deceiver. I use the word "enslavement" advisedly, because it is quite obvious that many people are unable to cast off the chains of that enslaver. And you cannot "get away with it" by using the humorous statement made by Mark Twain when he said that it was all nonsense to say that people cannot stop smoking. He said he had stopped smoking hundreds of times.
The effect of smoking upon health has been proved to me by friends who have renounced the practice of burning incense before the altar of this goddess. Several have told me how they have put on weight as the result of giving up smoking. That condition can be cured, if they wish to cure it, by other means than returning to the slimming process they had renounced. Research is still going on, but one conclusion of a firm character has, I understand, already been reached. It is that women smokers grow old prematurely. When we talk of economy and learn from the latest Treasury Statement on Income and Expenditure (Cmd. 8486) that the estimate of personal outlay on drink and tobacco for 1951 is £1,589,000,000—I cannot give the separate figures as they are not shown separately in the latest Statement; perhaps they are lumped together in this way because they are both narcotic poisons and are taken in that way—I feel I am justified in saying that there are other economies that should be tackled before we run the risk of impairing the national health by what are demonstrably small economies and may well prove to be false economies in the long run.
I do not wish to disguise the fact that the National Health Service costs a
622
great deal and that there is every reason for seeing, in the public interest, that the money devoted to it is wisely spent. There are still many millions that we shall have to spend upon hospitals and other services before we bring all the wonderful resources of medical science promptly to the aid of thousands of suffering people. Much of the disease and disabilities from which they suffer may be more properly a subject for prevention through education in the right ways of living. But to enter upon that great subject would take me far beyond this small, sad Bill. As I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, I was reminded of a story of a Scottish farmer who set about the task of shearing a pig. The pig made the usual noises that we hear from pigs when they are being manhandled, and the old farmer was led to say that he found what was happening was a case of "Muckle cry but little' oo." This Bill is a case of "Muckle cry but little' oo," a great deal being said but, in the end, not resulting in very much. I do not think this Bill is a credit to the Government responsible for it.
3.48 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, I am sure you would all wish me, in the first place, to say how glad we are that the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has broken the ice and made his maiden speech. It is perfectly clear from what he has said that he can make valuable contributions to our debates over an enormous range of subjects. We may look forward to his interventions on tobacco, on alcohol—
A NOBLE LORD: And on pigs.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: —on research, and on the shearing of pigs—which was a "new one on me." He enlivened his speech by indulging in more than one language. I enjoyed his speech enormously, and I hope that we shall hear him on many occasions. Of course, I differ entirely with practically everything he said, as I did with most of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said. I think it is idle to pretend that the social services and the health services are not linked with the country's financial position. It is rather unfair to reproach the Government for approaching this subject with the financial aspect in view. In point of fact, the financial side must be their deepest concern at the present time,

623
and to calculate every possible saving as being not worth while will, in the end, lead to no saving. Of course, the smaller savings must be taken into consideration.
I know that noble Lords on both sides of the House will be shocked, as they have been in the past, when I confess candidly that I welcome the Bill, not only as a contribution to economy but also because I believe that it will have a salutary effect. I believe that moderate charges will lead to a more reasonable use of the Service. I believe that it will lead to a healthier approach. It will stop extravagant demands. It will diminish waste and greed. There is always a danger of waste and greed when something is offered for nothing. I believe this, that when the pressure is relieved on the doctors and dentists to a certain extent, when we cut down the quantity of the demand, we shall see an improvement in the quality of the Service. As your Lordships may have gathered from my interventions on previous occasions, I would go even further than the Government. I have never been able to understand why in-patients of hospitals should be exempt from charges. Taken by and large, on the average the in-patients of hospitals to-day are better able to pay than any other people who make claims on the National Health Service. I think it would be quite simple to arrange for relief for those who might find the charges difficult. I will not raise again the question of a "hotel charge," except to seize the opportunity to inform the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I was completely unconvinced by his intervention on a previous occasion, when I said that the Labour Party had accepted the principle of hotel charges for stays in hospital when they cut off a part of a man's sickness benefit while he was in hospital.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord on a previous occasion did not say that. The noble Lord will remember that I dissociated myself entirely from his reading of the matter; and I still do so. What the Government did in respect of that does not commit them to the subject of hotel charges, with which we associate tips, bad beds and all the rest of it.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: Of course, I was merely informing the noble Lord that his intervention on exactly the same
624
lines on another occasion proved completely unconvincing to me.
I will not detain your Lordships much further, but I would take the opportunity of saying that, without any charges, the taxpayers' money will be spent on all and sundry, and to labour the question of the poor and suffering is to present a quite false picture. Every member of the population is entitled to claim a share in the National Health Service now without payment, and I think it is just nonsense when, either in this House or in another place, the imposition of charges is labelled as likely to lead to a complete disintegration of the social services. I was very sad and sorry to hear the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, foretell what might happen in the future if there were a change of Government. I was sorry that he should have revealed that he has such fixed ideas. I trust that in the intervening period, when he may have opportunities for considerable thought (who can say how long it may be?), he may decide that this is still an open question. As one of considerable experience in the practice of medicine and surgery I would say that, quite apart from any question of economy, this introduction of charges is likely to lead to an improvement in the health services.
3.54 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I desire to preface my short remarks on the Bill by bringing to your Lordships' attention two facts. I do so as a new member, and with great diffidence. The first one concerns the short time which your Lordships' House has had in which to consider this Bill. Apparently it was introduced into your Lordships' House on Friday last, in order that the Second Reading might take place to-day. But on the Report stage in another place as recently as Thursday last, quite a number of important Amendments were made in the Bill, and I respectfully submit that it is unreasonable that your Lordships should not have been given more time to consider the Bill in its amended form. I venture to hope that your Lordships may agree with me that in future a longer opportunity ought to be given to consider such an important Bill.
The second point which I wish to make is that I gather, from the debates in

625
another place, that the Government have already anticipated your Lordships' approval of this Bill. Apparently, they have sent out instructions to hospitals requiring them to obtain from patients signed acknowledgments of the fact that those patients understand they will have to pay the charges set out in the Bill. It appears that a large number of patients, some of whom ordered their appliances many months ago, are now being asked to sign an acknowledgment of the fact that in future there will be payments to make in respect of those appliances. I can understand that it is necessary for any Government Department to make its own internal administrative arrangements, in view of the possibility or probability of a Bill becoming law, but surely it is presuming too much on the acquiescence of your Lordships' House to assume that necessarily your Lordships will accept this Bill, word for word as it has been put forward by the Government, without the alteration of a single charge or a single clause. My Lords, I mention these matters with diffidence, but they appear to me to indicate on the part of the Government some lack of courtesy and consideration for this House, if not, indeed, a constitutional anomaly.
Now I come to the Bill itself. I would remind your Lordships of something of its background. In 1946 those who are now the Government of this country voted against both the Second and Third Readings of the thin National Health Service Bill. I think it is also pertinent to note that this is another instance of a promise deliberately broken, because during the last Election the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in quite definite terms
"We shall maintain the Health Services, contrary to any stories you may have heard."
Yet within six months of that emphatic assurance we have the present Bill, striking a blow at the very basis of a Service which the Chancellor undertook to maintain. In my submission, that is a complete breach of faith with the electors of this country. And for what reason? From the remarks of the Lord President, your Lordships may have been under the impression that the Bill has been brought in solely to save money. A sum of £20,000,000 has been mentioned. But the Minister in another place disowned that
626
reason completely. On the Second Reading of the Bill he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; Vol. 498, Col. 845):
"We are not concerned to-day with the purely financial attempt at retrenchment at all costs. Far from it. When the Government were seeing whether any savings could be made in the Health Service the considerations they had constantly in mind were: are there any obvious abuses to be rectified? Can we sooner or better reach what is the ultimate objective of us all, improving the public health, by pruning or rearranging some of the present services or, indeed, by getting the emphasis altered in the right direction? By this Bill we can make some such Improvements while, at the same time, restraining the expenditure."
I submit to your Lordships that although the reason given there is that there are obvious abuses to be rectified, we have not heard one word to-day—nor was anything said in another place, or any evidence given—to that effect. Certainly there is nothing in the Bill which improves public health, which rearranges some of the present services or gets the emphasis altered in the right direction. The only conclusion we can come to, therefore, is that there are no substantial grounds whatever for the imposition of these charges for necessities upon our sick, our maimed and our more unfortunate fellow-citizens.
I do not propose to deal with the Bill in detail, but I should like to submit three or four points for your Lordships' consideration—points which I hope we may have the opportunity of discussing in Committee. In my view, they are incontrovertible points. The first is that the Is. charge on prescriptions, if it be practicable—which is doubtful—will lead to hardship, to adequate treatment being deferred because of the cost, to many suffering from diabetes or tuberculosis or epilepsy not receiving the medicines which would relieve their sufferings and, in the case of tuberculosis, tend to avoid the spread of disease. I also believe that the administrative cost, the inconvenience and the misery, which these impositions will entail must far outweigh any small savings which may result. In any event, it is surely a pitiable state of affairs when savings are to be made at the expense of the sick and the maimed. In the second place, the dentistry charges will not only cause hardship but, quite obviously, will also result in treatment being delayed. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said that one advantage of the charge of a sovereign

627
would be that patients would endeavour to have a complete overhaul—or words to that effect. I should have thought it was much more important to ensure that there was early treatment. The fact that there is a charge of £1 as a minimum means that anyone requiring dental treatment will surely delay going to the dentist until he has some quite serious condition so as to get the utmost value for the £1 charge. This surely cannot be good for the individual or for the nation.
The third point to which I would refer is the question of making these charges permanent. My noble friend Lord Shepherd has made clear what was the object of the Labour Party's policy some two years ago. The charge then proposed was, in fact, a temporary expedient to cover exceptional circumstances. Now, largely increased charges imposed by this present Bill are to be made permanent. Surely, it cannot be the wish of this House that these, in one way, very pettifogging, but to many people very substantial and unfair, charges should exist for all time. They make a breach in the National Health Service of which some of us, at any rate, have been proud; and it is a breach which, I submit, must be closed at the first opportunity. For these reasons I hope that the House will give the Bill very serious consideration indeed when the Committee stage is reached.

CO-ORDINATING MINISTERS
4.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the very interesting debate in which the House is now engaged, but I did give an undertaking to the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and others the other day, that, when it was possible, I would make a fuller statement on the position of co-ordinating Ministers than it was possible for me to do on the last occasion when the subject was raised in this House. My right honourable friend, the Prime Minister, has, I understand, just made a statement in another place, and I thought that the House would wish me to give a similar statement here. This is the statement.
"Every Departmental Minister is responsible to Parliament for the policy
628
and administration of his Department. This is a fundamental principle in our system of Parliamentary democracy. But it is an equally respectable and necessary principle that Ministers as a body are collectively responsible for Government policy as a whole. This means that a Minister's personal responsibility for his Departmental policy must be exercised in harmony with the views of his Ministerial colleagues.
"The work of the so-called 'co-ordinating Ministers' is an aspect of collective responsibility. In former days all reconciliation of Departmental policies was done in the Cabinet, of which all Departmental Ministers were members, or by the Prime Minister himself. But for many years past Prime Ministers have from time to time entrusted to a senior colleague the duty of keeping a general oversight, on the Cabinet's behalf, over subjects of special importance not falling wholly within the jurisdiction of a single Departmental Minister. These tasks have usually been assigned to holders of the old offices involving no heavy Departmental duties, notably the offices of Lord President and Lord Privy Seal. An early example of this was the arrangement by which in 1929 Mr. Ramsay MacDonald assigned to Mr. J. H. Thomas, as Lord Privy Seal, a special responsibility for co-ordinating measures for dealing with unemployment.
"With the growing complexity of. Government business, and the increasing extent to which policies have to be administered jointly by two or more Departments, Prime Ministers have found it increasingly convenient to ask senior Ministers to act in a co-ordinating rôle. And in recent times this arrangement has been more regularly adopted because, under modern conditions which have called into existence so many new Departments of State, the Cabinet no longer normally includes all Ministers in charge of Departments. This has led to the development of the system of standing Cabinet Committees, which assist the Cabinet in discharging its collective business and include Departmental Ministers who are not themselves members of the Cabinet. The Chairmanship of these standing Committees has normally been assumed by

629
senior Ministers without Departmental duties; and it is mainly in their capacity as Chairmen of these Committees that these Ministers have exercised their co-ordinating functions, subject to Cabinet review. This is a natural evolution in the processes of conducting the collective business of government, and there is nothing new about it. During the war the Lord President of the Council, in particular, discharged extensive co-ordinating responsibilities on this basis; and it is well-known that similar arrangements were in force during the period of office of the late Government.
"The responsibilities assigned under the present Government to Lord Wool-ton and Lord Leathers carry this development a stage further in one respect, and in one respect only—namely, that the specific area of coordination assigned to each of them was publicly announced on his appointment. Indeed, so far as concerns my noble friend Lord Leathers, it was made explicit in his title. Coal, gas, electricity, oil and transport represent a homogeneous group of subjects which call for co-ordination. Moreover, it includes the basic services which have passed under public ownership under Socialist schemes of nationalisation; and there is clear scope for co-ordination of the Government's relations with the public Corporations administering those services. Lord Leathers' coordinating functions do not differ, in the constitutional sense, from those of my noble friend, Lord Woolton.
"The co-ordinating Ministers have no statutory powers. They have, in particular, no power to give orders or directions to a Departmental Minister. A Departmental Minister who is invited by a co-ordinating Minister to adjust a Departmental policy to accord with the wider interests of the Government as a whole always has access to the Cabinet; and, if he then finds that he cannot win the support of his Ministerial colleagues, he should accept their decision. No Departmental Minister, of course, can be expected to remain in a Government and carry out policies with which he disagrees.
"Thus, the existence and activities of these co-ordinating Ministers do not impair or diminish the responsibility to
630
Parliament of the Departmental Ministers whose policies they co-ordinate. Those Ministers are fully accountable to Parliament for any act of policy or administration within their departmental jurisdiction. It does not follow that the co-ordinating Ministers are 'non-responsible.' Having no statutory powers as co-ordinating Ministers, they perform in that capacity no formal acts. But they share in the collective responsibility of the Government as a whole, and, as Ministers of the Crown, they are accountable to Parliament.
"In conclusion, I should perhaps make it clear that the Minister of Defence is not in the same sense a co-ordinating Minister. His appointment was authorised by a Statute (the Ministry of Defence Act, 1946), which defines his powers and duties in general terms. Broadly speaking, his responsibility is to apportion between the, three Services the resources, in men, materials and money, which are made available for them all. And, on this apportionment and on all the questions which arise from it, he is directly accountable to Parliament, in the same way as any Departmental Minister is responsible for matters within his jurisdiction. But it is the Service Ministers, and not the Minister of Defence, who are responsible to Parliament for the use which each of them makes of his share of those resources and for the administration of the Service under his charge."
4.13 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Marquess for making this Statement and endeavouring to clear up some of the confusion which existed, not only in the minds of your Lordships but, as I thought, in the minds of the noble Lords, the co-ordinating Ministers, themselves. If I understood Lord Woolton's statement aright, the noble Lord put himself in the same category as all the other co-ordinating Ministers, and this statement makes it plain that the Minister of Defence, at any rate, is in a different position.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, strictly he is not a co-ordinating Minister.
EARL JOWITT: He is co-ordinating. He is charged by Statute to co-ordinate;

631
that is the difference. With regard to the other two, the noble Lord, Lord Leathers and Lord Woolton, this Statement makes it plain that their functions are the same. But the view which the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, has expressed to the House differs entirely from the view which the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, expressed in the newspapers, and I must say that there is still confusion in the minds of those noble Lords, if there is not confusion in everybody's mind, about what their duties are. There is also the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and atomic energy. Whose is the concern of atomic energy? I understand that the Ministry of Supply are responsible, but I am told that the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, is also responsible for looking after atomic energy. This is a very important matter, because if two people are charged with the same duties, no one can know on whom the duties lie and we are sure to get confusion. And I am not sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, does not come into this matter too.
What I should like to say to the noble Marquess is that we shall certainly consider the Statement and if necessary we may ask for an opportunity of elucidating it further. I think the whole problem is very difficult, and I am certain that the country and the Ministers themselves ought to understand where their responsibility begins and ends. I will look at the Statement and discuss it through the usual channels, if I may, should we desire any further opportunity of elucidating it.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, may I be allowed to add a few words to what has been said? This matter is of grave importance because it relates to the structure of the Cabinet, which has more than once engaged your Lordships' attention. I sincerely trust that the front Opposition Bench will give a further opportunity to the House in order to elucidate this matter further and in a way which is not possible merely by question and answer during the course of a debate on an entirely different subject.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, if I may be permitted, I think there is no harm in asking for one or two elucidations before passing to the general debate.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:My Lords, before the noble Viscount proceeds I should like to reply to something which was said by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. It is only with regard to what he said about the Minister of Defence. He seemed to think that the Minister of Defence was merely a co-ordinating Minister between the Service Departments. That is not so. What in effect has happened, as I understand it, is that the Minister of Defence has taken over certain broad functions which in the old days were carried out by the Prime Minister, as Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence. That is a long time ago. But I think that is broadly what his position is.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he can say that, since the appointment of these co-ordinating Ministers, and especially the specific appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, the responsibility of the departmental Ministers is as complete as it was before, whether orders are given or not, and whether access to the Cabinet can be secured or not? Is it not true to say that the status and responsibility of the departmental Ministers concerned have been considerably diminished by the appointment of what are popularly called "overlords." The noble Marquess produces the argument that they are, in reality, merely a Cabinet Committee of one. That is really the gist of the noble Marquess' argument. We have always had Cabinet Committees and now we have the most convenient form of Cabinet Committee—a Committee of one. It is now put forward that they have no responsibility—although they are undoubtedly discharging heavy and responsible duties—save the collective responsibility of Cabinet rank. In addition to that, some of these Ministers, for no doubt good reasons, are permanent absentees from proceedings in this House. Would not the noble Marquess agree that the structure of the Government is being considerably transformed?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I would not agree with the noble Viscount about a Committee of one. The noble Viscount and the noble and learned Earl know very well that the whole basis of Cabinet government for a

633
great many years now is that under the main Cabinet there have been a number of Cabinet Committees. These Committees are usually composed of the Ministers principally concerned with one aspect or another of public policy, with a Senior Minister, Let me take an example of what I have in mind. There might be an Economic Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which the President of the Board of Trade would be a member. But that would not give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the right to give orders to the President of the Board of Trade. It is very difficult to define these things exactly, but the co-ordinating Ministers have exactly that type of function. The difficulty is that it has been announced to the public that they will concern themselves in particular with certain aspects of public policy and it may be said that the public have formed the opinion that they have more power than they actually have. But the fact is that the position of the departmental Minister is exactly the same as it used to be. I am not speaking of the Minister of Defence, whom I put in a different category. I think that is so.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, asked if this did not diminish the stature of other Ministers. It is perfectly true that if we have a co-ordinating Minister and he also appears before the public eye and is known to be a senior Minister, he may take a certain amount of attention from the departmental Ministers; but if noble Lords will study the answer I have given, they will see that the fact that he is there does not diminish the individual responsibility of Ministers. The Ministers of Transport and of Fuel and Power, under the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, have to agree as before to anything the Cabinet decide. They have also the same duty of initiation, but they have someone to help them to initiate. When a decision is ultimately taken, they have to agree with it themselves, and if they do not agree, the proper course is for them to resign.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I should like to follow up that point. It is most important. We must realise that there is all the difference between publicly announcing that some individual has been put in charge of a certain sphere of work and the setting up of a Cabinet Corn-
634
mittee. The personnel of a Cabinet Committee was always wrapped in impenetrable secrecy. Therefore, nothing was done in the public eye which interfered with the responsibility of departmental Ministers. But when it is announced to the world at large that a certain noble Lord is responsible for the co-ordination of policy, then the public know that. And is it really a fact that if something goes completely wrong in that co-ordination, no one in another place could move to reduce the salary of the co-ordinator? Why not? Certainly no one could have moved to reduce the salary of an amorphous, unknown Cabinet Committee, but I do not for a moment agree that if anything went wrong with the co-ordination of fuel and power it would not be open to somebody in the other place to move to reduce the salary of the noble Lord Who co-ordinates. If that is so, it shows that the noble Lord, by being announced and put forward in this way, has assumed a share of responsibility to Parliament. I feel that we are embarking on an altogether new and difficult procedure—perhaps it is desirable; I do not know—which needs to be more thought out than it has been up to now.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, arising out of what my noble and learned friend has just said, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he and his colleagues will consider one matter of nomenclature before the subject is discussed again? If the tenuous link between the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, is no more than his share in the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, would it not be more appropriate, and less likely to give rise to Motions asking for a reduction in the salary of the co-ordinating Minister, if he were styled "Minister without Portfolio" or "Minister of State" rather than Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, perhaps I might give a historical example of where it may lead. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, spoke about the President of the Board of Trade. A member of the Board of Trade is the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Is it to be said that he still maintains full departmental responsibility for his share in the control of the national affairs?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, nobody in their senses, except the noble Viscount, could possibly say that the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was a responsible member of the Government. With regard to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I must say that I think noble Lords are making a mountain out of a molehill. There is not a single noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite who does not know that all this has been going on, and the responsibility has been apportioned exactly as it is now, for years.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly it has. No doubt, it has been thought more desirable to keep it secret. It may be said to have been more convenient for the individual Ministers concerned. But the complexity of public life is increasing. If you take the case of agriculture and food which is controlled by my noble friend Lord Woolton, everybody knows that these two subjects, the food we produce and the food we have to buy, are closely allied. It is surely to the advantage of the British public to know that there is a senior member of the Government who is keeping an eye on those subjects. The same applies to fuel and power and transport. Even if my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had not made this announcement, exactly the same thing would have occurred. No doubt one Minister would have been called the Lord Privy Seal, or Minister without Portfolio; but it would have been the same position as it is now. I really feel that noble Lords are making a mountain out of a molehill.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I should like to ask a question to clear up this issue of whether the practice that was existing before is being continued—and I speak as one who was for some years a Departmental Minister outside the Cabinet. Can we have an assurance that these Departmental Ministers who are being co-ordinated are invited automatically to the Cabinet when their departmental affairs are discussed? That is not contained in the statement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in fact they always do come (and they put in Papers) to the Cabinet on matters concerning their own Department.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
4.25 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, one might almost say that "a slight thunderstorm interrupted play." When I came to your Lordships' House to-day I was not expecting to speak on this Bill, because I anticipated that there would be a long and formidable list of speakers. But, taking advantage of the shortness of the list, I hastily thrust myself forward. Sometimes, to listen to noble Lords opposite, one would imagine that they had a monopoly of care for the health of the people; just as sometimes from the cross-Benches we hear views about more particular elements of health. On this side we are never given any credit at all for wishing to see the people well. I can assure noble Lords that we do, and that nothing pleases us better than the sight of a healthy and happy nation. I personally have always been in favour of a National Health Service—not necessarily completely free—because I realised that it would do away with that positive nightmare of the middle classes, the crippling doctor's bill. As any of your Lordships who has been brought up in circumstances of that sort knows, the idea that an operation or serious illness may lead to heavy bills has been the nightmare of the professional and middle classes for many years. The poorer people in this country have for many years had a free health service, but the middle classes have never had one, except under such arrangements as insurance schemes, and the like. The present scheme gives them that protection.
There are difficulties which naturally arise in connection with a National Health Service. First of all, we must admit that the idea is entirely alien to most of the rest of the world. Foreigners just do not understand a free Service, and when we instituted one they had serious doubts, both about our solvency and about our sanity. There were various elements in the Service which naturally gave rise to those doubts. The fact that we were treating foreigners free was, to them, stark lunacy, and made them think that we had taken leave of our senses. The fact that we were providing free wigs—not a big item—was one which

637
loomed out of all proportion to its monetary cost on the minds of the outside world. Then again, there were stories that went round that foreign coloured seamen were getting free sets of teeth in every port and selling them in the bazaars on their return. These stories may have been entirely untrue, but they went all the way round the world and they undermined the confidence in the future of Britain.
The second difficult, which is inevitable in a Service of this kind is the march of science. The doctors will not stand still: every day they are thinking out some new and wonderful cure for some fresh disease. The result is that a Service of this kind is bound, in the very nature of things, if it is entirely free and there are no practical limits on its expenditure, to cost more and more. I believe that a member of your Lordships' House and a leader of the medical profession is reported to have said in public the other day that the cost might well double in fifteen years. I myself, speaking in a different part of the country on the same night, used practically the same words. We may well take it that an enormous and inevitable increase in expenditure is bound to come about. To take the case of cortisone, if all the sufferers from rheumatoid arthritis are to be treated free with cortisone the bill might go up by millions of pounds in a year from that one new remedy alone.
The other difficulty is the human desire to get money's worth. The population of our country never realised that the stamps which they stuck on their insurance card every week represented only to a very small extent money for the Health Service. Some years ago I put down a Question in your Lordships' House, because I thought that the Service was being abused, and I wanted to give publicity to the fact that only a few pence out of each stamp went towards this Service. His Majesty's Government (as it was in those days) gave me an answer to the effect that the fact I sought to publicity was very well known already, and that fresh publicity was quite unnecessary. Of course, I do not agree with that answer. There is no doubt about it that the people of this country—particularly the more ignorant of them—think that the very heavy weekly expenditure which they make on their stamp largely goes towards financing
638
this Health Service. Of course, they want to get their money's worth out of it. When they see 4s. 9d., 5s. or whatever it is a week going out, they want to see something coming back, and there is no doubt that that has driven them to ask for things which otherwise they would not have required.
Another difficulty, not endemic to a National Health Service at all, is the increasing drug consciousness of our people as a whole. If your Lordships refer to an article in the weekly magazine Everybody's this week, you will see that the medical profession are getting seriously alarmed at the fact that enormous numbers of our population seem to think that they cannot be kept in health unless they are constantly imbibing either sleeping draughts, tonics or sedatives. The fact that there has been this demand for these drugs has led to the doctors' surgeries being overcrowded and to doctors becoming certificate-issuing machines, instead of being able to diagnose, and so on. I submit that there is only one possible thing to do when you are faced with an ever-expanding public service, and that is to set a limit on the total amount of the national income you are prepared to see devoted to that purpose. You then say: "If you people want more, in order to provide it for yourselves you must forgo some spending power that you would otherwise exercise."
A broad decision on these lines was inevitable, and it has been taken. It was taken by the last Government and it has been reaffirmed by this Government. Of course, within that broad decision there is considerable room for argument. It is extremely difficult to say how you are going to keep anything at your, specific limit. You can say: "We will make some charges on everything," or you can say, "We will charge on certain things which we regard as less, important," and so on, and so forth. Here, on the whole, I think the greatest things remain free—when I say "here," I am talking about both this Bill and the existing Act, with its regulations, which provide for the prescription charges. Here, if people think themselves ill, or have trouble with their teeth, they can go to the doctor or the dentist to find out what is wrong with them; and they do not pay. That is a great principle. It is when the treatment starts that some charges become

639
payable. Of course, one cannot have everything in this world. If the Almighty visits one with some plague, it is only reasonable human nature to think that one may have to give up something else to be able to cure that plague.
It would be very interesting to know what the Opposition would do in these circumstances. I believe that they support a ceiling. How would they keep the charges within that ceiling? They strongly disapprove of the methods we intend to use, but it would be interesting to hear exactly how they would do it. I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would give us that information, but he did not seem to do so. I understood him to say that if noble Lords opposite came into power, they would immediately insert a time limit, so that any charges would automatically come to an end after a certain time. I do not know whether I misunderstood him, but I gathered that he was promising an entirely free Service very shortly after return to power—I hope that I am not putting words into his mouth. It would be interesting to know how he suggests that would be done. I think the words he used, roughly, were that they would provide a Health Service without charging in the way of this Bill. Does he mean that there would be a Health Service without any charges or that the charges would be a different sort of charges?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may intervene, at the invitation of the noble Lord, I should like to put the matter in this way. We look upon illness generally as coming under the responsibility of the community. It is not the Almighty who sends all these illnesses to us. It may be, as my noble friend has suggested, bad drains. There may be many other reasons which cause these illnesses. If the community is very largely responsible for ill-health, the community must be responsible for the cure. As we are all subject to ill-health we all pay, and because we all pay, we take what we pay for.
LORD MATHERS: Before the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, resumes, may I ask him whether he would be prepared to apply to his own family, if they were met with a large measure of disease, the principles he has been urging?
LORD HAWKE: That is precisely the principles which do apply. If one has a doctor's bill, one cannot have another bill of the same sort. From the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I take it that when they return to power, the Service is going to be free regardless of its cost.
LORD SHEPHERD: No. What I said was that the charges in this Bill would be done away with.
LORD HAWKE: In other words, there will be no ceiling. I have invited the noble Lord to say whether there is some other method by which he would apply the ceiling. He does not reply, but tells me that these charges would be "done away with." I can only conclude that he is going to provide an entirely free Service, regardless of its cost. Of course, one does not know the circumstances of three or four years ahead, which is the earliest the noble Lord can hope to get back into power, but statements of that kind to-day will not inspire confidence abroad in the future of sterling and so on, which this Bill is tending to help. The noble Lord also led me to believe that he did not think it worth while spending Parliamentary time on checking small expenditure.
LORD SHEPHERD: No. I said that it was not worth spending Parliamentary time on a Bill which could do so little in connection with the purpose for which it was introduced—namely, the saving of this nation from bankruptcy.
LORD HAWKE: Exactly the same thing. In other words, it is not worth while spending Parliamentary time on small savings and, therefore, expenditure is sacrosanct. What I cannot understand about Lord Shepherd's argument—and I think Lord Mathers intended the same thing in his interruption a minute or two ago—is that they assume there can be no health unless the State provides it. That seems to me a most cynical view. After all, if there are any charges under the Health Service, anybody who is unable to pay can go to the National Assistance Board and get the wherewithal to pay. If such people cannot get anything out of the National Assistance Board one can only assume that they have some means to pay. Therefore, they come into the category of those millions and millions who are spending the hundreds

641
of millions about which the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, was talking, on drink, tobacco, betting and so on, or the very many of the humblest means who are proudly hoisting the television aerials in the air, but who, apparently, in the view of noble Lords opposite, are too stupid to pay anything for their health, even if they want it. That, I submit, is a most cynical view. The noble Lord, as all of us know, carried on for many years the profession of an election agent. It has been his business to know the minds of the people. As Chief Election Agent of his Party he must have been in contact with millions of the people; and if that is what he believes—that millions of our countrymen think to-day, that health is worth having only if they can get it entirely free—then I suggest that that is a most cynical view to take.
I was very pleased to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. It is a great pleasure to congratulate any Scotsman on a maiden speech in this House for he always brings to it that bit of pawky humour for which the northern—and perhaps I may say the more important—half of our Island is so well renowned. But I assure the noble Lord that neither this Bill nor our actions are intended as discrimination. As I have just said, it is perfectly possible for all people in the country to obtain the treatment they desire under this National Health Service by going to the National Assistance Board, if they are without means, and by forgoing some of their other expenditure if they have means; so that, in effect, there is no discrimination. We are telling the people in effect, "If you are ill you are increasing your claim on the national resources by a very large amount, because the treatment is very Costly; and in return, unless you are destitute we are asking you to decrease your claim on the national resources Slightly in other directions by an amount far less than what you are getting in the shape of your treatment and so on."
This is a small Bill, but I believe that it is a Bill of very considerable importance, because it tells the world that the British Government are prepared to limit the free bounty which they hand out to the electors to an amount which they believe the national income can afford. And the fact that a democratic Government are prepared to stand up to their own electors and deny them the free
642
benefits which are so beloved by democratic electors all over the world is, I believe, something of a landmark in democracy.
4.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this discussion, and it is only by your Lordships' courtesy that I venture to do so now for a moment. I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, on his maiden speech. We all hope to hear him again. May I personally express the hope that when I do hear him again I shall be able to find myself a little more in agreement with him than I do this afternoon? I hope the noble Lord will not feel that we on this side have any desire whatever to deny to the indigent and needy the full benefit of the Health Service. Noble Lords opposite will appreciate that to introduce a Bill of this kind is not calculated to enhance the Government's popularity. It requires a good deal of courage to introduce such a Bill, and it would not have been done had not the necessity been urgent. I will not repeat the remarks which I ventured to make on a Motion in my name on the Health Service some weeks ago; but I think it right to point out that the Service had reached a cost of £400,000,000 when the predecessor of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had to endeavour to impose a ceiling, and that since then the £44,000,000 allocated to the doctors has been added to the £400,000,000. One noble Lord said that it was unfortunate that we had not started the health centres. They would have involved the expenditure of a further £370,000,000. I ask noble Lords opposite, what is the ceiling to be? The predecessor of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that there should be one. I would also ask noble Lords how they would propose to impose any such ceiling.
To turn to the charges themselves, my criticism would be one which I believe is present in the minds of the Government and others, and that is the extreme difficulty of collecting the charges on a bottle of medicine from doctors who dispense the medicine themselves. It would he very difficult. No doubt some arrangement may be arrived at, but when one considers that every man, woman and child in this country, on paper at any rate, has four bottles of medicine a year, it seems to me that the moment for some

643
control and self-restraint has been reached. There is a further point. These charges are not designed merely to achieve economy—which is not, in itself, a very large economy. They are designed to prevent further waste, to keep down the ever-rising cost of the Service. I believe, from conversations I have had with those who might be expected to feel the force of these charges, that it will have this effect. Many working men with whom I have spoken feel that some charge should be made. Any noble Lords who like to venture to the local chemist's shop will see some most glaring examples of waste in the Health Service going on day after day under their very eyes. I believe that this Bill will in no way damage the Service. If it did I would not support it. I believe it will tend to improve the Service, a Service which is essential to the nation.
4.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, when I looked at the list of speakers to-day I noticed that there was not one single unofficial member of the Conservative Party who was prepared to defend the Bill. The Leader of the Liberal Party spoke about Lords Reform but not of exercising the primary duty of using the powers we still have in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, attacked the Bill with regard to—
LORD HAWKE: I defended the Bill.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I beg pardon. The noble Lord was defending the Bill. His reason was such as might be suited to a village meeting. He said that foreigners thought it was crazy that we should give these free Health Services. We have done many things which the foreigner may have thought foolish but we have survived them. He spoke of a coloured seaman, perhaps a Lascar, who might have toothache—and who, incidentally, might be a member of the British Commonwealth—and seemed to think it was a mistake that such a man should get free dental treatment.
LORD HAWKE: I suggest that before the noble Lord goes any further he had better read in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow what I said. That will save my remaking his speech for him now.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I will certainly do so. Having made these points, he said that the march of science was making treatment much more expensive. If the march of science is going to raise the standard of health of the people, surely we ought to rejoice and save something, perhaps from the "atom," which may be devoted to eliminating human pain and saving human life. He said that people wanted their money's worth and therefore we ought to make them pay. But has he ever thought that the sort of person who can pay is not necessarily the sort of person who is really ill? The man who has won money on the football pools can afford a bottle of medicine, but the poor woman—and this is a real example; I had many instances of this when I was a Member of the House of Commons—the mother of a family, is the last person to spend money on medicine for herself, because that is the thing she thinks she can economise on. She sends her children to the doctor but she will not go to the doctor herself.
LORD HAWKE: Some of the medical profession consider that the bottle of medicine is no use whatever.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is an attack on the medical profession. I should have thought that such discrimination penalises the poorest.
LORD HAWKE: It does not.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It does penalise the poorest. People with money can pay for medicine. Surely there is a much better system of economy than the one that is proposed? But what is really surprising about the Conservative attitude is this. We hear of the need for maximum productivity. We want more people to work harder. The question of national productivity is closely connected with health; and yet noble Lords opposite do everything they can to belittle it and deny the glorious principle which was proclaimed by the last Labour Government, by which I think its reputation will live—namely, that health, like fresh air or pure water, is something which, so far as the State can do, it should provide, because such things not only make for human happiness but also are good for our health and strength.
LORD HAWKE: It should, up to a certain ceiling.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Up to a certain ceiling. It depends whether the ceiling is going to be over the whole national field or not. Of course, you cannot spend more than you get in the long run. What you can do is to discriminate between the useful things and the unuseful things, and of the things that are primarily and vitally useful, I should have thought that the Health Service was the best. One really has to re-read Oliver Twist to understand that the attitude of the Conservative Party in these matters is practically unchanged in the course of the last hundred years.
4.52 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we have had a characteristically breezy intervention from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. I do not intend to follow him, except to make one or two references to certain observations which he made, partly because what he said seems to me so far from the realm of reality that it is hardly worth mentioning. The real reason why I have risen—I did not intend to speak when I came into this House—is because of one or two remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his opening speech, and one remark that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, in the speech he has just delivered to us. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as he always does, made a closely reasoned and moderately-worded speech, of which no one could complain. But he did say in the course of it one or two things to which I feel some reply ought to be given from this side of the House.
First of all, he said that no reasons had been given for the introduction of this Bill. If there was any shortcoming in that respect, I must say I thought he supplemented pretty well what might have been said from the Government Benches. I thought he made some very strong arguments for the introduction of this Bill. He began by saying, honestly and fairly, that he wished to stand in a white sheet and explain the position of the Party to which he belonged. He said, as I understood him, that in 1950, as a result of the balance of payments position which existed at that time and which was not nearly so acute—as he himself said—as the situation that developed later on, Sir Stafford Cripps, who was then
646
Chancellor of the Exchequer, fixed a ceiling of £400,000,000.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I correct the noble Marquess on a point? In the year 1950 we had a favourable balance of payments between ourselves and other countries. The deficit came in 1951.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:
That, in my view, makes the noble Lord's argument even odder, because the need to restore confidence was obviously not so great at that time as it is now. Then he went on to say that in 1951, when Sir Stafford Cripps had been replaced, after his unhappy illness, by Mr. Gaitskell, the new Chancellor felt he could afford only—I do not want to misrepresent the noble Lord—£7,000,000 extra, although the demands for increases were very much greater. Therefore, he introduced, as a purely temporary charge, a charge on dentures. He went on to say that the whole point of this measure was that it was temporary. I understood, too, that, in his view at any rate, whether the position improved or continued to deteriorate after that period was over, the charge would be removed, whatever the situation of the country was. That was the only conclusion one could draw from the remarks made by the noble Lord.
LORD SHEPHERD: The point was that we had put into the Bill a date beyond which the Act should not go. My point was that this Government, in introducing their Bill, are omitting a date.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am just coming to that point. Then, turning to the present Bill, he said in shocked terms—and I understand he is still shocked—that there was no limit of time in the present Bill; that the charges would continue, and that nobody would know when they would come off. With all deference to the noble Lord, I still think our position, our attitude, our policy—whatever you like to call it—is more realistic and more honest than that of the Government which the noble Lord supported at that time. After all, how were they to know that the situation would improve by a given date? As a matter of fact, it steadily deteriorated, and deteriorated more and more. Why were they to suppose then that on a given date they could remove these

647
charges that they had put on? With all deference to the noble Lord, that does not seem to be a reasonable case to put before the House.
If I may say so, in our view on this side of the House we were equally shocked at the noble Lord's words, because it appears to us that the situation of the country is still extremely precarious; yet he and his Party are already beginning what we can only regard as a discreditable process of bribing the electorate with a view to the next Election. I do sincerely think that. I am not making a mere Party point. We all know what the national position is. It is improving, but it is still very bad. But already the Party opposite are beginning (I hope the noble Lord will let me say what I want to say without interrupting) to pledge themselves—they did it last week—that, whatever the situation is, they will remove these charges if the electorate will only put them back into power. The only conclusion that we can come to is that the noble Lord and his Party, now that they are out of power, feel that they can fairly let themselves go, and they are lending themselves to promises which I do not think are justifiable, in our present economic situation—promises which I am quite certain they will bitterly regret at a later date if they ever come back to power.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Marquess will at once admit that we are not the only Party that makes promises. I hope he has reached the conclusion that we may be the only Party that never breaks a promise.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD SHEPHERD: May I say this: that during my speech I gave an instance of what we have done for the country, better than screwing £9,000,000 of money out of the people.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord really must let me answer. I sat quite silent throughout his speech and it is difficult to construct a consecutive argument if I am constantly being asked to sit down. To return to what I was saying, he undoubtedly did tell the House that his Party had pledged themselves to remove these charges if they came back to power, and he made no qualification about the economic or the financial situation of the country when
648
that happened. It is not only the noble Lord himself; I know that there are others who have done it. He is not the original offender. But I cannot imagine anything more blatantly irresponsible at the present time. The noble Lord quoted the Leader of the House of Commons, and he said, with great astonishment, that my right honourable friend appeared to be less concerned with the condition of the Health Service than with the prospect of national bankruptcy. Well, who would not be? If we had national bankruptcy we should not only not be able to maintain the present Health Service; we should have a catastrophic fall in the whole of our standard of life; the greater includes the less.
My Lords, the noble Lord returned to the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had said that there had been a steady deterioration in the situation over the last fifty years, and that though at one time we were the largest creditor in the world, now we are the largest debtor. It is perfectly true that our national situation has been steadily deteriorating for fifty years. The two wars, plus a period of not frightfully thrifty house-keeping, has steadily made the situation worse than it was in those days. But that is not an argument for spending more money; that is an argument for exercising a certain decent measure of thrift. After all, why have our gold reserves been falling? I speak with great diffidence on this subject. I see the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who is a trained economist, preparing to jump in in support of his Party, as he is quite entitled to do. But why have our gold reserves been falling? Why have foreigners to a great extent been withdrawing their money from this country? It is because they no longer have the confidence in us that they formerly had.
The noble Lord will say that that does not apply merely to us; it applies, too, to the other members of the sterling bloc. But we are its most important member. You have only to read foreign newspapers to see that the confidence of foreigners in Britain has been very largely impaired. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said: "Why should we care what foreigners think? They have often thought us crazy before, and we have turned out to be right." But to-day we are depending on them for our very existence. Our existence depends on whether

649
these foreigners will allow their money to stay here, will send more money here, and will close the dollar gap. It depends upon them whether we have a decent standard of living here at all. They have seen the Labour Party year by year spending more and more. They have seen them borrowing on a vast scale from the United States and Canada, and they have seen money being poured out. They have concluded that this is not the type of country in which they want to keep their money.
My Lords, the fact that we have balanced our internal budget, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is always telling us, does not make any difference to this position. What they see is a country which is living, or has been living, at a standard which it cannot afford; and, as a result, they have become more and more sceptical about our future. Eventually, last autumn, a point was reached when our reserves began to lessen; the drain on them became greater and greater, and at such an increasing speed that even the late Government could not ignore it. Then what did they do? Instead of standing their ground, facing up to the situation and asking the people to cooperate, they went to the country—at that vital moment
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Even at the risk of incurring reproof from the noble Marquess, I must point out that it was Mr. Churchill who did nothing but plead for an Election.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:
Probably Mr. Churchill felt that that was the only hope for the country, and I have no doubt he was quite right. But the fact remains that the Labour Party ran away in a desperate attempt to escape the consequences of their improvident policy of the last six years.
That was the situation which faced the new Government when it came in. The country was moving nearer and nearer to the precipice. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will not be able to deny that. All through the months of last year, the drain was increasing. But now there are signs of a turn. I do not put it higher than that. I am not going to try to overstate our case. As your Lordships know very well—the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not mention these figures—the monthly deficit which was 229,000,000
650
dollars in January fell to 70,000,000 dollars in March; and there are signs of a further improvement. We may be wrong; we may be right. Noble Lords may not believe what we say. But we believe that that is the result of the policy that we have adopted. We have had to do a lot of unpopular things; we have had to do a lot of unpleasant things; we have had to do a lot of very drastic things—things which the people of this country do not like. I am quite certain that there are a number of people who voted for us at the last Election who would not vote for us to-day. They would not do so because they think that, as the result of our measures, they are worse off than they were. But in fact that is the only way in which this nation can be brought back to solvency; and, taken as a long-term policy, we believe that what we have done is in the interests of the country. That is why we have gone in for it, and I think it shows a fair measure of courage.
My Lords, at this moment, when the turn is beginning, what does the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, say? He says: "If you only let the Labour Party back, there will be an end of any economy. There will be no more charges for the Health Service; there will be unlimited spending." What sort of effect is that going to have on the foreigner who is just beginning to regain confidence in this country? I do not think any noble Lord could have said anything more unfortunate from the national point of view at the present moment. If the noble Lord and his friends are shocked by this Bill, we on this side of the House are equally shocked by the levity of the announcement he has made. He said that the sum which would be saved by this Bill was "a drop in the bucket." That was the very phrase he used. But it is by innumerable drops that the bucket is ultimately tilled; and, psychologically, in a matter of this kind—a matter of confidence—each economy which the Government are able to make and which the country will accept is worth far more on the credit side than the intrinsic amount which is involved. The only result of what the noble Lord has said will, I am afraid, be to retard the recovery of sterling.
Now I should like to say a word about a quite different point that was raised

651
by the noble Lord, Lord Milner. He complained of the time given by the Government for the consideration of this Bill. I do not think that there is any valid ground for that complaint. This is not a long Bill. It is not like one of the great nationalisation Bills, with clause upon clause. In all, there are only nine clauses, of which six are what I may call operative. It is a Bill very easy to assimilate, very easy to consider, and it has been before another place for some weeks. One might assume that noble Lords, like other people, have paid full attention to what has happened in another place, with the assistance of Hansard. Therefore, if they have Amendments to put down, no doubt they have already been turning them over in their minds. We have the Second Reading today; then there will be a week's pause, followed by the Committee stage.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I am afraid that the noble Marquess has misunderstood me. My complaint was about the short time available between Friday last and to-day, with the week-end intervening, especially having regard to the fact that a considerable number of substantial Amendments were passed in another place on Thursday last. I thought it unreasonable, with the week-end intervening, that the Second Reading should be at such an early date.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The last thing we want to do is to hustle noble Lords; but as I will explain later, there are reasons for the course we have adopted. In any case, there will be a week before any Amendments are put down in this House, and we hope that the period we have allowed for the Committee stage will be adequate. If it is not, no doubt the Committee stage will go on. We are not supplied in this House with all sorts of facilities, such as are available to all Parties in another place. Therefore, if there are more Amendments, no doubt they will be put down and debated. When the noble Lord has been here a little longer, I think that he will see that it is our experience that the Committee stages of Bills take rather less time here than they do in another place. Finally, of course, there will be the Report stage and the Third Reading.
I said that I would give the reason why we were in rather a hurry. The
652
reason is, of course, that there is a very large amount of revenue involved. If the purpose of a Bill—the regrettable purpose, for we all regret it—is to make certain economies, it is not much use delaying those economies beyond a certain period. If you have made up your minds that you have got to do an unpleasant thing it is better to do it and have done with it. It is for that reason, quite simply and frankly, that we want to get the Bill through as soon as practicable. I can assure the noble Lord—and I am sure that others will tell him the same thing—that in this House, on both sides, we do our utmost to cooperate with each other. Never is it our object in any way to restrict the proper facilities and rights of debate. I think that is really all that I have to say to your Lordships. I am sorry to have intervened at such length in this debate; I did not intend to do so when I came to the House this afternoon. But certain things were said which I thought called for a reply on my part, and therefore I have made this contribution to your Lordships' discussions.
5.12 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords. I also had not intended to take part in this debate to-day. I am not quite clear whether the noble Earl. Lord Onslow, intends to reply later. He intimates that he does—good. I hope that your Lordships will all derive as much pleasure from my intervention as we have derived from the intervention of the noble Marquess. If I may say so without impertinence, he is a Leader very much after the hearts of those of us who sit on this side of the House, because he is ready to take off his coat and descend into battle without in any way standing on his dignity. He will forgive me, I am sure, if I speak rather bluntly, because he accused us of discreditable bribery of the electorate, and that merits a few mild observations in return. I have never heard from anyone in this House a more exhilarating outpouring of genial hysteria than that which we have just heard from the noble Marquess. He was challenged by my noble friend Lord Shepherd to produce some good reasons for the Bill. I do not think that, when we study Hansard, we shall feel that he has complied with that request—I presume that the onus of doing so has been handed on to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.

653
The noble Marquess brought forward one pseudo-economic argument, so far as could follow him—and one only. He often assures us that he is no economist. As a matter of fact he seems to understand economic processes better than most of us. Perhaps on this occasion, when he did not make that disclaimer, if he had done so it might have been more justified than it usually is. He indulged in a very familiar form of economic emphasis. He based his whole argument on the necessity far securing the confidence of the world. He did not argue that these charges would do any actual good in themselves, but he appeared to believe that the world at large would be reassured; and he used an extraordinary sentence which I venture to think perhaps he would not have employed if he had spoken with more premeditation—I dare-say that I shall use words to-day which I should not use if I had given more time to thinking over what I proposed to say. The noble Marquess said that we were dependent on foreigners for our existence; that the question was whether foreigners would allow their money to stay here or would send more money here. Does the noble Marquess really take the view that everything depends to-day on the movements of capital? We know that there are occasional leaks; people do not always pay as rapidly as they might do, and there are one or two other marginal factors of that kind. But surely the noble Marquess does not claim that the economic position of this country is affected in a major degree by movements of foreign capital. If so, the system of restraining capital movements must have deteriorated greatly in the last few months. It seemed to me that he advanced it as a primary factor, when, in theory, movement should not be taking place at all. That was his only economic argument, and I am bound to say that it seems to me very flimsy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I intervene just to ask the noble Lord this? Does the noble Lord believe that the credit of this country—of any country—is of any importance in regard to the balance of payments position?
LORD PAKENHAM: I certainly agree that the credit of a country is of importance, but I refuse to agree that we have to impair the health of our own people in order to reassure foreign speculators.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The argument I used—the noble Lord may not accept it—was that the late Government, against the protests of both the other Parties, continued to spend at a rate which was above what we believed the country at that moment could afford. It may be a queer coincidence, but in fact our international position, our balance of payments position, steadily deteriorated during that period, whereas now that firm action is being taken the balance of payments position is steadily improving. The noble Lord may think that that is just odd.
LORD PAKENHAM: I hope that our position is improving. It certainly did not steadily deteriorate during our six years of rule; otherwise it would have been very bad indeed. As the noble Marquess knows, substantial measures have been taken, many of which we should have had to take ourselves. I refer to import cuts.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But you did not take them—that is the point. We have taken them.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Marquess knows that if we had been returned to power we should have had to take them. Mr. Gaitskell made it plain when lie spoke at the Mansion House that unpleasant measures were, on the way. The noble Marquess cannot have much doubt in his own mind about that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: if the noble Lord really says that the Labour Government, had they been returned, would have taken measures which we have taken, why on earth is he complaining of our action?
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Marguess is interrupting me at a fairly rapid rate. I make no objection to that. But the House will recall that in regard to interjections he rather tended to cry, "Hold! enough!" when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was putting some questions. But I do not complain. As I was saying, these substantial import cuts were essential, but not this playing about with the health of the sick, No one on this side, or, I think, anywhere, supposes that that has improved our position in the world. Does the noble Marquess think that these foreign speculators or merchants have been fortified in their confidence in us because of the few millions which may be saved in this way?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY:
Does the noble Lord want an answer to that? I do not want to interrupt him unnecessarily, for he has been extremely kind to me. What I think is this. Foreigners want to know whether we in this country are determined that while our income is as it is at present, there is a degree of expenditure above which we shall not go. When we give them evidence of that, it increases their confidence in us.
LORD PAKENHAM: I simply cannot agree that we ought to make irrational cuts to please or encourage foreigners. Rational cuts—yes. Those have been made and they would have been made by us. But irrational cuts will do no good and, on the contrary, will, in fact, do a great deal of harm. The noble Marquess did not provide any economic argument at all except this rather pathetic wooing of the foreigners. He did not explain why this step to make people pay for these appliances, and for getting their teeth stopped, would have any beneficial results. We say it will have no beneficial results at all.
The noble Marquess said that we had been living too well. I should like to draw his attention specially to this. He is very quick in argument on his best days and this may be one of those days. The noble Marquess said that we were living too well. Here is an essential point. When we discussed these matters during the general economic debate in February, I argued then, even in advance of Mr. Butler's Budget, that in no way should we benefit the balance of payments position by making rather squalid cuts of this kind. The case then was not as strong as it is now, because at that time most of us thought that Mr. Butler's Budget would impose some reduction on the consumption of the country. The Budget came along and Mr. Butler argued—I am not going to question whether he is right or wrong—that no reduction in general consumption was necessary. That was a substantially new factor introduced in Mr. Butler's Budget, and therefore the case against cuts is much stronger since the Budget than it was before. I hope that the noble Earl who is going to address himself to some of these questions, and who is obtaining assistance from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will try to reply to that point. I put this question to the noble Earl, who can secure the assistance of the noble
656
Viscount and then reply. If there is to be no cut in the general consumption of the country, why should a special penalty be imposed on the sick? I put it as plainly as that to the noble Earl, and perhaps he will tell us why, since the Budget, there is any justification on economic grounds for these regrettable impositions.
I do not want to say much more, except to reply to one charge of the noble Marquess. It is a broad political charge, but we are a political assembly, and to some extent, within the usual limits of your Lordships' House, it is a "free for all" this afternoon. The noble Marquess accused us of running away. Where did we run away to? We faced the electorate in the General Election. Mr. Churchill was bellowing away because we continued to be so coy and refused to trust ourselves to public judgment, and then, because we did so, we are now accused of running away. We did not try to run away. I do not want to introduce personalities, but talking about running, I, for one, spent my time during the Election running up and down the country, and Mr. Attlee broke all records for activity during the Election. Was he trying to be defeated? That is carrying the accusation too far. I am bound to say that probably never in history has there been an Election in which a Government made so much progress. The polls moved our way the whole time. Were we trying to be defeated, but the public insisted in supporting us all the time? Again, that would defeat credulity.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, that is a charge which has frequently been made, but never by the noble Marquess or by myself. Nobody doubts that the noble Lord ran about the country during the Election, but the charge of running away is this. All the Labour Government had to do was to come to Parliament in September for one day and by a single executive action put on the cuts, which would have probably been fixed at £150,000,000, in October. Then they could have gone to the country. That is what we call running away.
LORD PAKENHAM: That is not what the noble Marquess called running away. I challenge the noble Viscount to dispute my statement. He said something quite different just now.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, what I meant, though the noble Lord may not accept it, was that the late Government ought to have faced up to the steadily deteriorating position, but they did not do that. There was nothing to prevent them—because they had a majority—from going on during that period and taking the measures they thought necessary to restore the credit of the country. They went to the country instead. That policy lost valuable time, and it was a mistake, because the position was far worse when we took over than it might have been.
LORD PAKENHAM: If the noble Marquess said it was a mistake at the time, he must be the only Conservative who thought at the time that it was a mistake for the Government to face the electors. I argued the other point with the noble Viscount and I expect we shall argue it again. The noble Marquess said there was something cowardly in calling a General Election last year. We resent that suggestion. We had to go to the country because we had to introduce important new and unpleasant measures. The Party opposite would have been the first to complain that the electorate had been ignored, if we had introduced these measures without a mandate. We very nearly obtained a mandate and I am certain we shall obtain one the next time. The next time I hope it will not have to be a mandate for measures of the kind we are discussing this afternoon, because, when all is said and done, this measure, though small in tent, is sordid and unworthy. I hope that when he replies the noble Earl will produce some economic arguments for a Bill which seems to us petty, mean and altogether lamentable. We have not had any economic arguments this afternoon and in their absence we can only conclude that they do not exist.
5.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, when I came to the House I thought we were to discuss the National Health Service Bill, but it seems that we have diverged along every possible channel. Before I make my few remarks, I should like to add a few words of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, on his maiden speech. Like other noble Lords, I hope that we may often hear him and have his wise counsel. It is almost customary that he who winds up
658
a debate in your Lordships' House should open his speech with the words, "This has been a very interesting discussion." I think I can say that to-day with more than usual polite formality, because something of great interest has come to light during the course of the discussion—the attitude of the medical profession to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, has spoken from the Cross-Benches. I do not think that any one would accuse the noble Lord of any Party instinct, nor do I think any noble Lord would dare suggest that members of the medical profession who are also members of your Lordships' House would not put their profession first and Party politics second, whatever their politics might be. The noble Lord welcomed the Bill and this welcome from an eminent member of the medical profession shows that people like him consider that the Bill will do no harm to the health of the country as a whole. It would seem that medical opinion is that the Bill will not interfere in anything so far attained in the promotion of the health of the country.
The Bill has been almost violently attacked by noble Lords opposite. But they did not have among their speakers their medical colleagues. There is an old adage which I do not think is out of place here: that "Silence gibes consent." I think we might possibly use that adage to-day in regard to the attitude of noble Lords of the medical profession who sit on the other side of the House.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I have no mandate to speak for my noble friends, but, to the best of my knowledge, I think the noble Earl would be making a very great mistake in forming any such conclusion.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think it fair to say that their absence indicates that, as the Party opposite are so violently against the Bill, if their medical colleagues had been strongly of the same view they would have taken steps to advertise their opposition, particularly from the medical point of view. The medical profession, like many other great professions, is loyal to the profession first, and to politics next. I am quite certain that, if they had felt as strongly as some noble Lords feel, they would have indicated whether or not they were in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, has said to your Lordships this afternoon.

659
I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, about the reason for these charges, and this has been the gist of all the arguments of noble Lords opposite. I am not an economist, but I shall do my best to reply to the noble Lord. Your Lordships will remember that in the recent economic debate, we enjoyed a phenomenal passage of arms between the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt. I think I am right in saying—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—that the gravamen of their argument was that it was wrong for the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, to say that they did not know how serious our financial situation was at the time of the General Election, and that they had said so as frankly as the noble Viscount himself was saying. If that is so, is it not right to try to economise by every possible means within our power in order to rectify the position?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I do not want to re-open an earlier discussion now that, as I like to think, most amicable relations have been resumed, but I should like to say quite briefly that I cannot accept the noble Earl's account of the particular point at issue. However, I do not want to deter him from further development of his argument.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am glad that all is happy now. But assuming that the situation is as serious as was agreed at that time, or shortly afterwards, I maintain that it was the duty of the Government by all possible means to economise in order to meet the situation. It was the Labour Government who found it necessary to impose a ceiling on the health services. As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, the service of the medical profession, like any other live service, does not stand still. Every day new treatments and new medicines are coming in which are much more expensive; and, if you are to retain a ceiling, you must continue to economise somewhere to meet them. That, in fact, is what Sir Stafford Cripps said when it was introduced. We are trying to economise with this Bill and with the Bill brought in by the Socialists when they were in power. They did not bring it into force, and I believe that Mr. Aneurin Bevan said that the only reason
660
why he agreed to it was that it could not be implemented—which seems an odd way to legislate. However, we seem to have been slightly cleverer than Mr. Aneurin Bevan, and we have found a means of implementing it.
Through the steps now proposed we estimate that we shall save about £20,000,000. I do not think in these days that you can "sneeze" at £20,000,000. For far too long we have been saying: "What do these few odd millions of pounds here and there matter? "We have been saying that until the pot is nearly dry. If noble Lords care to add up a few of these odd millions, they will see that they come to a colossal sum. The time has come when we have got to collect these few odd millions. That gives, in a nutshell, the reason for this Bill. If your Lordships look at the Bill, I think you will find that it will not cause great hardship; and Clause 7 (2) gives power to the Assistance Board to help anybody who cannot pay. As I said earlier, I am not an economist, but I do not believe that it is wrong for a man to pay for what he can afford when his country is in a jam. I have taken a great deal of trouble in studying this Bill over the week-end, and I may say that even if I were not a member of the Government, or a member of any Party, inside or out of Parliament, I should be prepared to support the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ALDERSHOT EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill: read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in formed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on March 25 last discharged, and Bill committed.

GOVERNESSES' BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before six o'clock.