Sitting of 13 May 1952

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  NATIONAL, TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  "to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the National Trust for Scotland," presented by Mr. J. Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
PETITION

  Day Nursery, Gravesend (Closure)
  Sir Richard Acland:May I ask leave to present a Petition to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled from certain mothers of children attending the day nursery at Pelham Road, Gravesend?
  The Petition shows that the Petitioners have all in one way or another suffered misfortune, as by widowhood, permanent illness, or by the disability of their husbands, or otherwise, so that they could not maintain their homes and care for their children if they were not able to go out by day to take part in many different forms of useful work to earn money. For some time past they have been selected to enjoy the advantage of having their children cared for at the above-mentioned day nursery; if it were closed they would have no alternative means of caring for their children by day, would have to give up work, and go on to National Assistance.
  The Kent County Council gave notice to close the day nursery on 26th March.
  1082
  but this date was postponed to 31st March in order to give an opportunity for the matter to be considered by the Ministers responsible to this House who have the power to overrule a decision to close the day nursery if the county council should still be minded to close it.
  The Petition concludes:
  "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Members of this honourable House will take all steps possible to prevent the closing of the said day nursery."
  "And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOUSING, SCOTLAND

    Miners' Houses (Rents)
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that housing intended for miners and built by the Scottish Special Housing Association is often offered at rents beyond what some miners can afford, though they are simultaneously excluded from the county council housing list; and whether he will investigate this matter in Lanarkshire.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I am not aware that the Association's rents, which in Lanarkshire are only some 2s. to 3s. 6d. a week more than those charged by the county council, are beyond what miners can in general afford. I am told that persons who refuse an Association house are not excluded from the council's housing list, although they may have to wait some time for a council house.
    Mr.Maitland: While thanking my hon. and gallant Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that surface workers are frequently paid a very much lower wage than that common to miners in general, and that the cases I have in mind do relate to surface, workers?
    Mr. A. Woodburn: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the distinction in rent is not the only distinction; that miners and other people occupying the Special Housing Association houses

    1083
    have the benefits of the Rent Restriction Acts which people in council houses do not have, and therefore there are advantages concerned with these houses?
    Commander Galbraith: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

    Corporation Houses, Glasgow (Sale)
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now state how many of the houses in the Merrylee Housing Scheme will be put up for sale.
    Commander Galbraith: No, Sir. As the consent of my right hon. Friend has been given, the sale of individual houses is within the discretion of the Corporation. I understand that they are considering their future policy in this matter.
    Mr. James McInnes: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the citizens of Glasgow expressed during the recent elections their resentment of the fact that the Secretary of State has given his approval for the sale of these houses?

    Pre-building Purchase Companies
    Mr. R. Brooman-Whiteasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce legislation to prevent any company or association raising money from the public in anticipation of houses being provided for contributors, without adequate safeguards that licences will be obtainable and that building can in fact be undertaken.
    Commander Galbraith: Machinery exists for the investigation of the affairs of a company or association registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, and I have no reason to suppose that it is inadequate.
    Mr. Brooman-White: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Scottish Co-operative Housing Association, which has nothing to do with the Co-operative movement, has been raising sums of money from small contributors, and that, under the terms, if these contributions are not kept up, the money already paid is forfeited? Is he aware that a number of people have already lost their money, while a number of others are in doubt whether to maintain their contributions or cut their losses?
    1084
    Will my hon. and gallant Friend look into the matter and see if some statement can be made in order to clear up whether this Association is attempting to meet the grievous housing needs of the people or merely exploiting those needs?
    Commander Galbraith: I have heard of some of the activities of this Cooperative Housing Association, but I would suggest that it is for the members of the Association to take action.
    Mr. William Ross: Might it not be the case that the members of this company have taken too literally the words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary when he said that the Conservative Party were going to sweep away the licensing system?

    Lanarkshire
    Miss Margaret Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the allocation of houses to Lanarkshire County Council in 1951 and 1952.
    Commander Galbraith: The County Council were authorised in 1951 to build a total of 1,414 houses. In 1952 they have so far been authorised to build 1,362 houses. Further instalments will be authorised this year as they are justified by progress.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that many of his own friends on this local authority have been put in a very invidious position since they expected a big county like Lanarkshire would at least have its share of the 100,000 houses which his party promised to the people? Is he also aware that in a county as scattered as this, one needs to know at the beginning how many houses will be allocated for the whole area and that this county has always taken up its allocation of houses?
    Commander Galbraith: As the hon. Lady knows, the local authority will get their further allocation of houses as they progress with those already given to them.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say whether it is true that Lanarkshire failed to build its allocation of houses last year?
    Commander Galbraith: My hon. Friend should put that question down.
    Miss Herbison: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this big county must know at the beginning how many houses it is going to have so that there will be continuity in building? Is he aware that this county has an excellent record of taking up its whole quota? Is he further aware that there are miners and their families in this county living in the most insanitary conditions in what are just hovels, and will he give to the county a further allocation of houses so that it can plan accordingly?
    Commander Galbraith: The county can plan ahead as fast as it likes to go, and it will have further allocation as and when we consider it is in a position to make use of it.

    Aged Persons
    Mr. James Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the waiting list of aged persons seeking residential accommodation in Glasgow, Lanarkshire, and Renfrewshire provided by the local authorities of the aforementioned places; and what steps he has taken to assist the local authorities in speeding up the provision of residential accommodation and so reduce the waiting list.
    Commander Galbraith: I am told that the numbers of aged persons on the waiting lists for residential accommodation provided by Glasgow Corporation, Lanark County Council and Renfrew County Council are 152, four, and two respectively. The provision of residential accommodation is a duty on local authorities, and my right hon. Friend does everything possible to help within the limits of the available resources.
    Mr. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of aged and infirm persons in the County of Ayr who are unable to have care and attention through lack of suitable accommodation; and what steps he is taking to assist the local authorities in the provisions of the necessary homes.
    Commander Galbraith: I am informed that the County Council have no waiting list. They are in course of providing three additional homes for old people, one of which will be opened shortly. My Department have given the Council all assistance possible in these projects.
    Mr. Manuel: Might I take the opportunity of congratulating the Ayr County
    1086
    Council upon their work on behalf of the old people—
    Sir T. Moore: A Tory county council.
    Mr. Manuel: —and say how glad I am that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given the assistance which he has indicated?

    Midlothian and Peebles
    Mr. David J. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what number of houses for use by agricultural workers will be built by the county councils of Midlothian and Peebles in 1952.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): Midlothian and Peebles County Councils hope that some 24 and 12 houses, respectively, will be completed in their areas this year under the special agricultural workers' programme. In addition, Midlothian County Council expect to let four houses to agricultural workers from their general housing programme in 1952.
    Mr. Pryde: In the interests of the rural population, will the hon. Gentleman encourage the local authorities to make greater progress?
    Mr. Snadden: In this area there should be no dissatisfaction with the progress which has been made. We consider it entirely in keeping with the national achievement.
    Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses for miners to be built in Midlothian this year.
    Commander Galbraith: The Scottish Special Housing Association who are carrying out the special miners' programme in Midlothian, hope that some 250 houses in the landward area will be completed this year. The Association were also authorised this year to build 400 additional houses for miners under the special programme. In addition, the County Council expect to allot in 1952 to resident miners on their list some 50 houses from their general housing programme.
    Mr. Pryde: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman recommend to those responsible that the houses should not all be built in one area and that the miners in Midlothian should not be prevented from applying to go on county council lists, as in Lanarkshire?

    East Kilbride Development Corporation
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the schedule for housing completions for the year April, 1952, to March, 1953, which the East Kilbride Development Corporation has set itself; and its target for the first quarter of 1952.
    Commander Galbraith: The Corporation aim at completing the maximum number of houses possible without detriment to the speediest progress of work on priority factories in the new town. Subject to this over-riding requirement the Corporation hope to complete a further 500 houses in the present financial year. No targets have been set for any previous quarter.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the chairman of the corporation told me personally on 15th December that their target was 1,000, that the manager of the Corporation wrote to me on 14th January that the target was 800, and that now it is down to 500?

  SCOTLAND

    Prison Offences (Corporal Punishment)
    Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, with a view to protecting prison officers, he will consider the advisability of reintroducing corporal punishment for certain offences committed in prisons in Scotland.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): Power to authorise the corporal punishment of convicts for certain offences at Peterhead Prison was repealed by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949, and the present powers of punishment are considered adequate for the maintenance of discipline and the protection of prison officers.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Has my hon. Friend given consideration to the fact that in England it has been found to be necessary and has been backed by the Home Secretaries in the last two Governments, and will he perhaps reconsider this matter, as prison warders, or prison officers, are definitely concerned about it?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, that is true as regards England, but in Scotland our law and custom make it possible for us to deal with this matter in a way we think adequate. Trivial assaults are dealt with by the governor and serious assaults are reported to the Lord Advocate with a view to prosecution. In the last four years only four such cases have been recorded and sentences imposed.
    Mr. John Wheatley: Is it not the case that if a serious attack is committed by a prisoner against a prison officer he will be subject to a criminal charge and to the same punishment as any other person who committed a similar offence outside the prison? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the discussion of the Criminal Justice Bill this matter was very fully investigated and that to make any alteration would be a retrograde step?
    Mr. J. McGovern: If consideration is to be given to this extension, will the hon. Gentleman also consider the case of prisoners who are being brutally maltreated by the police officers in Glasgow so that they also have the application of corporal punishment?

    Catto Committee (Report)
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the Report of the Catto Committee; and what action he proposes to take in regard to the recommendations contained therein.
    Mr. Snadden: No, Sir. The Committee have not yet presented their Report to my right hon. Friend.
    Major Lloyd: Is my hon. Friend aware that for a long time now Scotland has been looking forward to and anticipating this Report, and would he do his utmost to expedite it in view of the grave disappointment his answer will give to many people? It is really overdue.
    Mr. Snadden: It is understood that the Committee still hope to present their Report during this month.

    Children's Nurses (Pay)
    Major Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the present position with regard to the fixing of national salary scales for trained nursing staffs in Children's Homes.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council have been negotiating for some time on a claim for revised salary scales for nursing staffs employed in day and residential nurseries. I understand that they expect to announce an agreement shortly. The Council have not yet decided whether the revised scales should be applied to nursing staffs in children's homes.
    Major Lloyd: May I enlist the sympathy of my hon. Friend in this matter? For a long time those concerned have been agitating for more equitable treatment. Will my hon. Friend do his best to see that they get it, and will he expedite decisions in the matter?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. We share the sympathy of my hon. and gallant Friend.

    Community Centre, Glenrothes
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give a date for the completion of a community centre in the new mining town of Glenrothes.
    Commander Galbraith: Preliminary consideration has been given by the New Town Development Corporation to plans for a community hall at Glenrothes and detailed plans and tenders have just been submitted for the approval of my right hon. Friend under the New Towns Act.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the Minister realise that the population of this new town is likely to increase rapidly in the next 12 months and that there is no community centre within a considerable distance? Will he, therefore, do what he can to expedite the provision of such a centre?
    Commander Galbraith: Yes, Sir.

    Child Psychiatrists
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many child psychiatrist consultants are employed by each regional hospital board in Scotland.
    Commander Galbraith: Psychiatric treatment of children is normally provided as part of the general psychiatric service. The South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board, however, have one consultant whose duties are restricted to psychiatric work with children.
    Mr. Macpherson: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that Liverpool alone were recently asking for four consultants? How does he expect that Scotland will be able to retain its child psychiatrists if it does not have a proper establishment of child psychiatrist consultants?
    Commander Galbraith: We had better wait and see.

    Electricity Charges, Isle of Arran
    Mr. John Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the price per unit of electricity charged by the private companies in the Island of Arran prior to the Hydro-electric Board being vested with responsibility; the percentage decrease which the Board was able to arrange on these figures; the numbers of consumers of electricity when the Board took over; and the number at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am informed by the Board that the average price per unit of electricity sold to all consumers in the Island of Arran immediately before the Hydro-Electric Board took over in 1946 was 7.86d. The present average price is 1.80d. per unit, a decrease of 77 per cent. There were 577 consumers when the Board took over and at 30th April, 1952, 1,643.
    Mr. Rankin: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that these remarkable figures are a great tribute to the splendid work of the Hydro-Electric Board and also to the great efficiency of public enterprise as compared with private enterprise in days gone by?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. But, of course, the hon. Member should recall that the former company operated this business at a reasonable profit whereas the Hydro-Electric Board operates the undertakings at a loss, which is set off against profits made elsewhere.
    Mr. Rankin: Is it not also the case that while the hon. Gentleman admits that the former company was a private profit making company, the present Board is a non-profit making authority?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir, but the hon. Member will no doubt have read today the report of Mr. Johnston's speech yesterday in which he indicated that prices are likely to rise in the near future.

    Highland Afforestation
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what schemes of re-afforestation on secondary land he proposes for the Highlands of Scotland.
    Mr. Snadden: In the Highland Counties, the Forestry Commission are at present planting at the rate of 11,500 acres a year and they expect to increase this rate to 16,000 acres by 1956. The Commission's aim is to secure the re-afforestation of all felled woodlands in the Highlands as soon as possible: other land is made available for planting only after consultation with the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and full consideration of the agricultural issues involved.
    Mr. Rankin:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently Sir Frank Mears directed attention to the fact that certain parts of the Highlands, in particular Sutherlandshire, were faced with the great danger of almost complete depopulation in the very near future? Is he aware that schemes like this are methods of preventing that, and will he prosecute them as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Snadden:We are very well aware of what is happening, especially in Sutherland, and our policy in regard to the Forestry Commission is to do everything possible to get afforestation schemes into the areas to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can my hon. Friend say who actually makes a decision as to what is or is not secondary land, because he will be aware, like the rest of us, that there is disquiet that good land is being taken for this purpose?
    Mr. Snadden: In the first instance, the Forestry Commission indicate where they think they can plant. After that, they have to go to the Secretary of State for Scotland to see whether or not he will agree that the land should be taken.
    Mr. Woodburn: Would the Secretary of State keep in mind that many of the small islands are becoming completely depopulated and will go back to wilderness unless something is done, and that it is a social duty that the Forestry Commission should devote some attention to seeing that they are used for afforestation?
    Mr. Snadden: The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Forestry Commission are already going into some of these islands with afforestation schemes

    Balloch Workers' Hostel
    Mr. Thomas Steeleasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet taken a decision with regard to the future of Balloch Workers' Hostel.
    Mr. Snadden: Several proposals for alternative use of these redundant hostel buildings have been considered from time to time. One at present under consideration is that the hostel should be used as an approved school.
    Mr.Steele: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that residents in this populous area are disturbed at the prospect that this hostel may be turned into an approved school, and would he give due weight to the proposals of the local authority that this hostel should, in fact, be converted into a community centre?
    Mr. Snadden: I can give the hon. Member the assurance that the factors to which he has referred are now being considered by the Secretary of State, and that no final decision has, in fact, been taken with regard to this hostel.

    Home Help Service
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities in Scotland are operating a home help service.
    Commander Galbraith: All but five of the 55 local health authorities in Scotland are operating a home help service, and a scheme from one of those five has been received for my right hon. Friend's approval today.
    Mrs. Mann: While that answer is very satisfactory, may I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he would not agree that some of the counties are not operating the service in a realistic fashion; in other words, they have home helps, but nobody who is in need of a home help can really find out where to get one? As the county areas are so scattered, is he not aware that many elderly people who are in need of this service just do not know where to find it, and would he

    1093
    give some consideration to publicising the service?
    Commander Galbraith: I shall be very I think the hon. Lady has shown the difficulty owing to the scattered nature of the counties. The attention of all health authorities is repeatedly being drawn to this important matter.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: Will my hon. and gallant Friend look into the method of assessment whereby persons are charged for these home helps, and, in particular, would he consider a case of which I should like to send him particulars, concerning a miner who was charged very highly?
    Commander Galbraith: I will be very glad to consider any case which my hon. Friend sends me.
    Mr. Ross: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether there is any indication that local authorities, while continuing to operate the service, are restricting that service at the present time?
    Commander Galbraith: I have no information of that kind.

    Old People (Hospital Beds)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the shortage of bed accommodation for old people, he will consider the transfer of one or more mental hospitals to a regrouping under general hospitals for the care of the aged.
    Commander Galbraith: I do not think that the hon. Lady's suggestion would enable additional facilities to be provided for the care of the aged, since there is a general shortage of mental hospital accommodation as such.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his recent replies to me reveal that the mental hospitals are accommodating 40 per cent. of patients who are over 60 years of age, and that, within the mental hospitals themselves, there appears to be a necessity for regrouping these elderly people? If they are not really lunatics, but merely senile, could the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider taking them away from the Board of Control?
    Commander Galbraith: That is another question, but the hon. Lady knows
    1094
    that I have every sympathy with the point she has in mind. At the present time, however, there is an acute shortage of mental hospital accommodation as such.
    Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear equally in mind the fact that the segregation of elderly people may do great harm to their eventual chances of recovery, and that nothing could be more fatal than to create some sort of dump in which these people are placed?
    Mr. A. C. Manuelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of aged and chronic sick awaiting admission to hospital in the county of Ayr; and the average waiting period.
    Commander Galbraith: The number of chronic sick at present awaiting admission to hospital in the County of Ayr is 63. The average waiting period is about six months for men and six weeks for women.
    Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware from the figures which he has given—the waiting period is indicated—that the problem can only be cleared up in Ayrshire by the provision of a new hospital for this type of case? As an interim measure will he consult the regional hospital board about the problem to see if there can be some rearrangement of the beds which are available in order to create more space for the old people who are at present having to wait so long?
    Commander Galbraith: The regional hospital board is considering how accommodation can be adjusted to improve the situation in Ayrshire.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say how long this situation has existed?
    Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the regional hospital board has been considering the problem for a number of years? Will he do something to hurry up the provision of the accommodation which is so urgently needed?
    Commander Galbraith indicated assent.

    Deer Shooting
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that certain owners of deer forests

    1095
    in Scotland for valuable consideration grant leave and licence to persons to shoot and take deer at times, and in a manner, contrary to the interests of the other owners of deer forests, the deer herds and the people of Scotland; and if he will take immediate steps to stop these practices.
    Mr. Snadden: No specific cases of this kind have been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice, although he has received representations in general terms that some improper shooting of deer takes place. The right to kill deer is vested in the owners of land, and my right hon. Friend has no power to interfere.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister accept my assurance that I have received intimations of such cases, and will he agree that these enormous herds, which are a handicap to Scotland, should be diminished or, in fact, eliminated by humane methods rather than by the methods indicated in the Question, so that their places can be taken by Highland cattle, which would be an asset to the people of Scotland?

    Highland Development
    Mr. J. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the sums which will be available for Highland development over the next two years or any convenient period.
    Mr. Snadden: I am not altogether clear what information the hon. Member desires. The current Estimates include, in respect of services with which my right hon. Friend is directly concerned, sums attributable to the Highlands and Islands amounting in all to about £10,500,000. This does not include expenditure met from the rates, from votes for services for which other Ministers are responsible, from grants in aid of agricultural research, or from funds of other agencies such as the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, private firms or private individuals.
    Mr. Grimond: Would the Joint Under-Secretary agree that the sums to which he referred are merely routine payments? What I have in mind is that there is now a great volume of recommendations by various people about the Highlands, and that the next step should be to draw up
    1096
    a comprehensive policy for action based on those recommendations. Before that could be done, the Government would need to make up their minds how much extra they can set aside for specific purposes of Highland development.
    Mr. Snadden: That is a wider question, involving very large considerations. I have given all the information that is available in the Departments for which my right hon. Friend is responsible.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Could not the hon. Gentleman give us some sort of overall estimate as to what amount is likely to be spent on that part of the White Paper programme which is agreed by this Government and was taken over from the previous Government?
    Mr. Snadden: I could not give that information without notice.

    White Fish Freezing, Lerwick
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the freezing of white fish at the quick freezing plant at Lerwick; and if he will consider the provision of refrigerated coastal vessels for the transport of quick frozen fish for charter to the White Fish Board.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I understand that the Herring Industry Board would welcome the greater use for the freezing of white fish of their plant at Lerwick when it is not required for freezing herring and kippers, and that they are in consultation with the White Fish Authority on the matter. The question whether special arrangements are necessary for the transport of frozen white fish is one for the White Fish Authority who, I am sure, will examine the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. Grimond: is not the Joint Under-Secretary aware that last winter, for instance, there were plentiful landings of whiting and other fish around the Shetlands, but that there was very great difficulty in securing an adequate price for the fishermen and in getting the fish to market in decent condition and at a price which the housewife could pay? Does he not agree that, by means of quick freezing, that difficulty would disappear?
    Mr. Stewart: I am aware of that, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish Committee of the White Fish

    1097
    Authority are, at this very moment, visiting the Shetlands to discuss this and other problems, and I have no doubt that the interests concerned will make contact with the Committee.

    Hill Farming Improvement Schemes
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hill farming schemes in Scotland under the Livestock Rearing Act were approved in the last 12 months; and how much increase this represents in cattle and sheep, respectively.
    Mr. Snadden: During the 12 months ended 31st March, 1952, 134 comprehensive improvement schemes under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, and Livestock Rearing Act, 1951, were formally approved. No increases in cattle and sheep can have occurred as yet as a result of the approval of these schemes. The improvement which will eventually follow will, however, be much reflected in the health and quality of the livestock as in increased livestock numbers.
    Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: While these figures are very gratifying, will my hon. Friend beat in mind that the figures of increase in cattle and sheep, and thereby an increase in food for Britain, undoubtedly would be very greatly improved if some equitable arrangement for freight charges, particularly for feedingstuffs, could be arranged?
    Mr. Snadden: That is a separate question that should be addressed to another Minister.

    Blind Persons (Teaching Appointments)
    Mr. James H. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what provisions have been made by the Scottish Education Department for the employment of blind persons with special qualifications; and what higher posts are available to them.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Provision, is made in the Regulations for the Training of Teachers for blind persons to obtain a special qualification as teachers of the blind. Eleven such persons were employed as teachers in special schools for the blind on 1st October, 1951.
    Mr. Hoy: Is the Minister aware that this Question is prompted by a constituent of mine, details about whom I have
    1098
    supplied to his Department? Is he aware that this constituent is a blind girl who graduated M.A. with first-class Honours at Edinburgh University, gaining the James Eliot prize for the best student of the year, the University diploma of education with a medal for the theory and history of education and a good teaching qualification? Is he aware that she has failed to find employment and has now been offered free training as a shorthand-typist? Would he have a look into the whole matter and see what can be done for these blind people who suffer under this severe handicap?
    Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the case and am very sorry about it but, as the hon. Member knows, the appointment of teachers rests not with the Secretary of State but with managers of schools. The Secretary of State is not the Minister responsible to Parliament for finding employment. It is, of course, the Minister of Labour who is responsible.
    Mr. Hoy: I quite agree with that, but is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland is the Minister responsible for education in Scotland? May I suggest that the Joint Under-Secretary, together with the Secretary of State, might consider or explore some means of providing employment for people of this kind with their very fine qualifications?
    Mr. Stewart: I quite understand and we will do what we can.

    Hospital Facilities, Kirkcaldy
    Mr. Thomas Hubbardasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will now give the starting date for the building of Cameron Hospital in Fife;
    (2) if he will authorise the erection of a temporary building to relieve the gross overcrowding in Kirkcaldy General Hospital, and to reduce the waiting list for beds.
    Commander Galbraith: In view of the pressing need for additional hospital facilities in the Kirkcaldy area, I have asked the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board to consider immediate short-term proposals for the expansion of existing hospitals. This would involve some modification of the scope of the proposed new general hospital at Cameron Bridge.
    Mr. Hubbard: While I am quite sure everyone in the area will be satisfied that something is being done, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give some indication how soon we can expect a decision?
    Commander Galbraith: The matter is being studied at the moment.

    Employment, Lanarkshire
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the growing unemployment in Lanarkshire; and what steps he has taken or proposes to take to deal with it.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Unemployment in Lanarkshire in April, although slightly higher than in March, was less than at the beginning of the year. My right hon. Friend is in constant touch with my right hon. Friends, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply, with a view to placing defence and other work in Lanarkshire and other unemployment areas in Scotland.
    Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that to obtain a proper comparison he must compare the figures with those for this time last year? Is he also aware that in Lanarkshire there is quite a bit of unemployment? Will his right hon. Friend take steps to safeguard against that?
    Mr. Stewart: Comparing, as the hon. Lady suggested, this time this year with the same time last year, the fact is that the figures for males are practically the same. The increase in unemployment is mainly among women. The steps the Government have taken to ensure that Scotland receives a share of the new defence programme and, in particular, that part which may be concerned with textiles will have, we hope, a fairly good effect for the benefit of Lanarkshire.
    Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in many cases in Lanarkshire the women who are under-employed or men who have lost their jobs completely can find no alternative work at all? Will he ensure that when the re-armament programme gets under way these Lanarkshire girls will not have to come to England to find work, as they did when we had re-armament work previously?
    Mr. Stewart: I can only assure the hon. Lady that we have made special repre-
    1100
    sentations to the Minister of Supply to ensure that Scotland receives a fair share of the extra £20 million to £25 million in defence contracts for textiles and clothing.
    Mr. Patrick Maitland: is my hon. Friend aware that at present there is an insatiable demand for labour at East Kilbride in Lanarkshire?

    North Ford Causeway (Survey)
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what contribution from Scottish Department funds will be made towards the cost of the proposed survey of the Western Isles, North Ford causeway route, to be undertaken by the Royal Engineers; and when the survey is to be completed and the construction of the causeway undertaken.
    Mr. Snadden: The Secretary of State for War has informed my right hon. Friend with regret that owing to the many other calls on the services of the Royal Engineers there is no prospect of the survey being made this summer. I cannot say, therefore, when the construction of the causeway will begin. No question of expenditure from the funds at my right hon. Friend's disposal arises at this stage.
    Mr. MacMillan: While objecting to the Secretary of State's practice of breaking his predecessor's promise and, by proxy, his Joint Under-Secretary's, may I ask him whether he will consider the alternative of using the county council surveyor and his staff and local labour in view of the fact that this is a No. 1 priority scheme under the recommendations of the Highland Panel and that the county council of Inverness is perfectly willing to undertake part of the cost and the work? Will he consider that as a matter of urgency rather than leaving it as just another broken promise?
    Mr. Snadden: I think the hon. Member knows that the Secretary of State has always been sympathetic towards this matter and so, in fact, has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. The fact is that the troops are not available. As to the second part of the hon. Member's question, I will certainly put his views to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the late Cameron of Lochiel met the various Ministers con-

    1101
    cerned with regard to the balancing of different forms of transport in the Highlands, and that the county council gave up their claim to all kinds of other improvements and fixed on North Ford as a first priority? Is he aware that this was a remnant of a great number of things that ought to be done and, in the capital improvements, was a small quota of the total requirements?
    Is the hon. Member further aware that to the people of the Highlands the present attitude seems a desertion of promises solemnly made, and that if the Secretary of State for War cannot undertake the job that is not the end of resources and that there are surveyors in Scotland who can tackle it?
    Mr. Snadden: We are fully aware of the importance of this question; but I understand that the reason why troops are not available is because of the training of Service men. I will put the suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

    Herring Industry, Western Isles
    Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken to restore the herring fishing industry in the Western Isles and, in particular, to ensure fair prices and markets for the coming summer fishing.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Western Isles should benefit from the steps now being taken by the Herring Industry Board to increase sales of herring in both the home and export markets. With Government assistance, the Board have installed quick-freezing and other processing plant at Stornoway and formed a cooperative organisation to develop the production and marketing of Stornoway kippers.
    The Government have given substantial grants towards the improvement of Stornoway harbour, and last month increased the subsidised price for herring taken for oil and meal from 45s. to 50s. per cran. Other prices are either settled by auction (subject to any minimum fixed by the Board with the approval of Ministers) or fixed by negotiation between fishermen and buyers.
    Mr. MacMillan: I appreciate the steps which have been taken by past and present Governments, but can the hon. Gentleman really get down to a
    1102
    study of the need for development in the islands of Barra and South Uist—where there was previously a flourishing herring industry—especially in view of the fact that there are at present 1,600 unemployed in the Western Islands?
    Mr. Stewart: We shall try to do that, and we shall be very grateful for any assistance which the hon. Member and the Highlands Advisory Panel can give us.

    Fishing Nets and Gear
    30. Mr. M. MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his scheme for the substantial reduction of the cost of fishing nets and gear will be in operation in time to assist Scottish fishermen for the summer herring fishing season.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 5th February.
    Mr. MacMillan: Does this mean that the Secretary of State has not got such a scheme after all? In view of the expectation of a successful outcome of the labours of the Herring Industry Board and the Board of Trade to secure cured herring contracts from Soviet Russia this year, next year and onwards—and the fact that because of this expectation there will be all-out fishing by the fishermen—does not he agree that there is therefore a great need for more nets and gear? Is not the best way to encourage the fishermen to go in for all-out fishing to reduce the exorbitant charges for gear which he used to deplore so much?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes; but the hon. Member knows that the high prices of fishing nets, ropes and other gear have been caused by the high prices of imported materials, such as sisal, manilla and cotton. He will be glad to know that recently there have been substantial reductions in the prices of sisal and cotton and that such things as we complained of when we were in Opposition are now being remedied.
    Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side, when we were in Opposition, pressed the Government for years to obtain a reduction in the price of fishing gear, and we got no change at all?
    Mr. MacMillan: The Under-Secretary of State knows that this is entirely in the

    1103
    hands of a private monopoly. Did not he himself most strongly castigate the previous Government for not taking at least some of the steps which I am now
    asking him to undertake? We came to know his proposal as the Henderson Stewart scheme. Does not he study his own speeches, draw the inferences and apply the remedies which he advocated?
    Mr. Stewart: There should be no difficulty about this matter. There cannot be a reduction in the price of ropes and nets until there is a reduction in the price of imported articles. As I said, since this Government came into power prices of imported articles have fallen.

    Forresthall Institution, Glasgow
    Mrs. Alice Cullenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of able-bodied inmates in Forresthall Institution, Glasgow.
    Commander Galbraith: On 8th May 13 able-bodied women were accommodated in Forresthall Institution, accompanied by 36 children. There were also six inmates of the vagrant class.
    Mrs. Cullen: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that his reply is contrary to the information I have received? I should like to see able-bodied persons accommodated outside Forresthall Institution—in a hostel; so that the accommodation

    Glasgow

    Edinburgh

    Largs

    Ardrossan

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    1948 (from 5th July)

    …

    …

    3

    6

    3

    8¾

    4

    0¾

    3

    11½

    1949

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    11

    4

    2

    4

    10

    4

    6¼

    1950

    …

    …

    …

    …

    4

    4½

    4

    4½

    4

    11

    4

    6½

    The figures for 1951 are not yet available.
    Mr. Carmichael: Can the Minister give us any evidence as to the method of arriving at those figures? Can we take it that in the residential areas the doctors are kinder to their patients than in the working-class-areas?

    Local Government (Reform)
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish his plans for the reform of Scottish local government.
    Commander Galbraith: No legislation on this subject is immediately in prospect.
    Mrs. Cullen: Can the House have a firm assurance of the Minister's full and
    in the institution could be made available to the aged and infirm. Able-bodied persons are now being certified as insane and treated as mental patients.
    Commander Galbraith: We have to find accommodation for those people who have no homes.

    Health Service Prescriptions
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the average cost of a National Health Service prescription in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Largs and Ardrossan in each of the years since the National Health Service commenced.
    Commander Galbraith: As the reply is in tabular form, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Carmichael: Could the Minister give us some indication of the figures associated with the places I have mentioned? I should like to know, in some form or another, what is the cost for Glasgow, Edinburgh, Ardrossan and Largs. Surely I can be given some figures without having to wait until tomorrow?
    Commander Galbraith: I had hoped that it would be for the convenience of the House to have these figures circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The approximate figures are as follows:
    enthusiastic support for the abolition of the wholly undemocratic offices of Glasgow's Dean of Guild and Deacon Convenor?

  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

    Building Programme
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent shortages of steel and building trade workers are likely to retard the school building programme in the coming year; and what steps he is taking to remedy the situation.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Buildings now under erection will proceed normally.

    1105
    Urgent new buildings not involving steel will not be affected by the shortages referred to by the hon. Member. New buildings which do involve steel may, however, have their starts delayed by six months or more. The causes of the shortages of steel and building workers are outwith the control of my right hon. Friend, but he is co-operating with the education authorities to secure that the available resources are used where they are most needed.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister inform the House how much steel Scotland is likely to get for the school building programme from the steel which we hope to get from the United States? Also, can he tell us whether the Scottish Department are represented on the inter-Departmental committee which deals with the allocation of steel generally?
    Mr. Stewart: I could not answer the first point without notice. The answer to the second part of the question is, I think, "Yes."
    Mr. Woodburn: While appreciating the fact that the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend is to allocate these buildings to places where they are most needed, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to take into account the great need of these developing places such as Glenrothes, East Kilbride and the big new housing centres, to ensure that transport is not used to take people back to the old schools but that these new centres have schools of their own?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. The Fife County Council, to give an example, are, I think, reasonably satisfied with their present arrangements.

    Students (Grants)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to increase the scale of grants awarded to students by local education authorities, in view of the rising cost of living.
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered representations from the Scottish Union of Students regarding grants paid to students by local authorities, and the present percentage contribution made by his Department: and what is his reply.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My right hon. Friend has received representations from the Scottish Union of Students that the bursaries awarded by education authorities and the grants under the further education and training scheme should be increased to meet the increased cost of living. He is considering these representations with sympathy, but must also have regard to the need for economy in public expenditure. The Union also asked for an assurance that the percentage of grant in aid of expenditure by education authorities on bursaries will be maintained. No change is at present contemplated.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate when a final decision will be arrived at in this matter and whether he has received details of specific cases of hardship as a result of the rising cost of living?
    Mr. Stewart: In answer to the first part of that question, I would say that I do not at present know. We hope that a decision will be arrived at soon. In reply to the second part, one has had individual examples with which one has considerable sympathy.
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that no reduction will be made by any education authority in their grants to pupils 15 years of age and over and to students at universities, technical colleges, etc.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not empowered to interfere with the discretion which, within limits, the bursary Regulations give to education authorities.
    Miss Herbison: Will the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend, on the other hand, ask local authorities when they are making economy cuts for which his right hon. Friend has asked, not to interfere with these grants?
    Mr. Stewart: There is no need to do that. I am quite sure that local authorities will act according to the Regulations concerning bursaries. It is these Regulations—with which the hon. Lady had a good deal to do in forming—that govern the present actions of local authorities.

    Education Department Report
    Mrs. Cullenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Report of the Scottish Education Department will be available.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: On Thursday.

    School Classes, Glasgow
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the average size of the classes in the undermentioned schools, respectively, within the Glasgow area, elementary; junior secondary; senior secondary and fee-paying schools; and what action he intends to take to assist Glasgow Corporation to reduce overcrowding in the schools.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Figures supplied by the education authority for February, 1952, show that the average size of classes in primary schools was 39.7, in junior secondary schools, 33.4, and in senior secondary and fee-paying schools, 31.2. My right hon. Friend is doing everything possible in the allocation of capital investment and controlled materials and by advice and exhortation to help the authority to proceed with their programme of school building as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Carmichael: Might I ask the Minister a few points on the answer he has given? First of all he puts together the senior secondary schools and the fee-paying schools. They can quite easily be separated.
    Secondly, does he recognise that the overcrowding in the elementary schools is being applied to children who come from already overcrowded homes and that opportunity of education is being denied them? Will he speed up the school building programme so that the youngsters in the working-class areas of Glasgow can have an opportunity of receiving some kind of education?
    Mr. Stewart: With regard to the first point, I have answered that strictly in accordance with the Question which has been put down. If the hon. Member will look, he will see that he has used semicolons in such a way that he has indicated that he wanted the senior secondary and fee-paying schools put together. If he requires other figures I shall be happy to give them to him at another time.
    Mr. Carmichael: I did not put in the semi-colons.

    New Schools, Midlothian and Peebles
    39. Mr. Prydeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of new schools to be completed in Midlothian and Peebles in 1952.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I expect 10 classrooms to accommodate 450 children in new schools to be ready for use before the end of 1952, but it is not possible to say when the schools will be completed.
    Mr. Pryde: Knowing the earnestness of the hon. Gentleman in his job, might I invite him to visit the schools in North Midlothian so that he can see the insanitary conditions for himself?
    Mr. Stewart: I shall be very glad to accompany the hon. Gentleman on such a tour.

    KOREA (MINISTER'S VISIT)
    45. Mr. Frederick Peartasked the Prime Minister if he will send a Service Minister to Korea to investigate and report back on conditions of British Service men.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I do not think that a visit by a Minister to our Forces in Korea is necessary or possible in the near future, but the matter will be kept under review in the light of circumstances. I might add that if any ex-Ministers wish to go I will give careful consideration to their request.
    Mr. Peart: Will the Prime Minister consider the matter seriously? There is a danger that our Service men in Korea may become forgotten men. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am certain that this is not a party issue. The Prime Minister ought to consider it now as our men have been fighting there for a very long period.
    Mr. McGovern: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American newspapers give a very great deal of space to the activities of the American Forces in the Korean war, but that in this country little or no attention is paid to the

    1109
    services of our men in that field? Cannot our newspapers give more about the activities of our men? Otherwise their friends will feel that they are forgotten.
    The Prime Minister: I am in full sympathy with the spirit of the supplementary question.

    TRANSPORT POLICY (DISCUSSIONS)
    Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Liptonasked the Prime Minister what other Ministers, in addition to the Minister of Transport, will be deputed to discuss with the British Transport Commission the carrying out of the policy set out in the White Paper on Transport Policies.
    The Prime Minister: Consultation with the British Transport Commission is naturally within the province of the Secretary of State for the Co-ordination of Transport, Fuel and Power, as well as being part of the duties of the Minister of Transport.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it reasonable to expect even the Minister for the Co ordination of Transport and the Minister of Transport combined to make any sense of this chaotic hotch-potch of a White Paper in the course of their discussions with the Transport Commission?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems in his supplementary question to be prejudging matters which have yet to come before the House.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Since neither of the Ministers concerned consulted the Transport Commission before these proposals were incorporated in the White Paper, and since the proposals have not, as the Prime Minister says, been adopted by the House, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no commitments will be entered into until the proposals have received the consent of the House?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly not going to give any assurance of that kind.

    OFFICIAL CAR SERVICE
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Prime Minister (1) whether his ruling on the use of the official car service by Ministers on a pre-payment basis included use for the purpose of attending political meetings;
    (2) whether he has continued the instructions given to Ministers in the last Government to the effect that visits made in an official capacity should not be combined with attendance at political meetings.
    The Prime Minister: I do not know what instructions were given to Ministers in the late Government, nor am I aware of the "pre-payment basis" system. Perhaps it is a misprint for "re-payment." Am I right?
    Mr. Lewis: Yes, Sir.
    The Prime Minister: There is nothing like getting these things clear. In the case of Ministers entitled to police protection and therefore having the use of an official car for all purposes, journeys undertaken for personal reasons, including attendance at political meetings, are paid for by the Ministers concerned.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware—I hope I shall not be accused of being impudent—that in the case of each political meeting which Ministers attended during the recent municipal elections we won the seats? Will he make arrangements in future for Ministers to attend political meetings so that we shall have even bigger successes at the next elections?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I do not attempt to exercise so positive a control over the Members of the present Government as the hon. Member suggests.

    CO-ORDINATING MINISTER (POWERS)
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether he will specify the matters on which the Secretary of State for Co-ordination of Transport and Fuel and Power may take the initiative; and how far the Ministers of Transport and Fuel and Power must defer to such initiative.
    The Prime Minister: Neither I nor anyone else can specify in advance what matters may assume from time to time such importance as to engage the collective responsibility of the Government. The second part of the Question was fully answered in the statement which I made on 6th May.
    Mr. Henderson: Are not the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fuel and Power subordinate to the Secretary of State for the co-ordination of their Departments?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly they occupy lower ranks in the hierarchy of the Government and are not members of the Cabinet, but they have their duties and their functions and their responsibilities to Parliament. Remembering the unfortunate intervention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman last time we discussed these matters—
    Mr. Henderson: Not at all.
    The Prime Minister: —and how painfully he stultified the Leader of the Opposition, I think the warning nod he got then was quite called for. The second part of the Question was very fully answered, and I really do not think it is possible to lay down detailed rules for all the conversations which may take place between Ministers, and for the exact share of responsibility for any particular act or decision which they have to make. They settle it among themselves, and Parliament is the judge of the results.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that he is quite wrong when he suggests that there was a difference of viewpoint between myself and the Leader of the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition was asking the Prime Minister about the unwisdom of making a statement with regard to the co-ordinating powers of Ministers without having portfolios. My question was directed to the appointment of Ministers with specific responsibilities—of a co-ordinating Secretary of State for co-ordinating those Departments. Is it not entirely without precedent in the history of this country that a Secretary of State should be appointed without having any powers of direction in respect of matters under the control of his Department?
    The Prime Minister: Having known the right hon. and learned Gentleman's
    1112
    father in the old days, I am very glad to learn that he has got out of his difficulty all right.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Henderson: Will not the Prime Minister answer the second part of my Question? Is there any precedent in the history of this country for the appointment of a Secretary of State without any powers of direction in respect of matters coming within the purview of his Department?
    The Prime Minister: These are, as I said, almost metaphysical questions: the refinements are very great. However, if there is a difference between the Minister responsible for the Department and the supervising Minister in the Cabinet, who has a group of Departments, that matter is, naturally, settled in the Cabinet, by a decision of the Cabinet.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: Are we now to take it quite definitely that the Departmental Minister is subordinate to the supervising Minister? I gather that that is so, from what the Prime Minister has said. But will he be explicit—that the Departmental Minister, for the first time, as far as I remember, is subordinate to the supervising Minister, and that, therefore, he cannot be responsible for his Department to Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to darken counsel.
    Mr. Morrison: No.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, he is. He knows perfectly well from when he sat in the War Cabinet that he and the members of the War Cabinet had all kinds of overriding powers over Ministers holding great Departments, and no difficulty of a serious character occurred, as all were able to state their case, and the matters were finally decided by the Cabinet as a whole.
    Captain Richard Pilkington: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the Questions to the Prime Minister once again have not been completed, would it not be advantageous if they could be taken at from No. 40 instead of No. 45?
    The Prime Minister: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not give a final ruling on that point without mature consideration.
    Mr. Speaker: I can assure the House that I have no intention of giving a Ruling on the point without mature consideration. I call the attention of the House now to the hour. It is after 3.30.

    CORONATION SOUVENIRS (IMPORT)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    81. Mr. LEWIS,—To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Coronation medals, badges and brooches, made in Germany and Japan, of metals not permitted to be so used in Britain, are being distributed in this country; and what steps he is taking to protect British traders from such foreign competition.
    Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. May I with respect, Mr. Speaker, ask you for your help, advice, and, I hope, guidance? It is with regard to Question No. 81. I put this Question down in the hope that it might have had an oral reply today. As I saw that it would not be reached, and in view of the fact that this has a bearing on the British Industries Fair now taking place in Birmingham, and which is due to end on Friday, and in view of the fact that there are now circulating these various medallions in what, I believe, is an infringement of the
    1114
    Royal Copyright, I tried to get the President of the Board of Trade to agree to see whether he could get your permission, Mr. Speaker, to answer it by a statement. What I should like to know is this: By what means and what method can we raise this matter, which is of national importance? Is there any method by which we can get this Question answered in the House?
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the only occasion which normally presents itself for a matter of that kind is the Adjournment of the House.
    Mr. Percy Shurmer: Further to that point of order. In view of the ever-increasing unemployment in the jewellery industry in Birmingham, and the fact that they are now waiting for the Royal authority to carry on with their business, surely the President of the Board of Trade could have answered a question like this? Samples of these medals and brooches are coming into this country, and all this is preventing the Birmingham jewellers and the jewellery industry generally from carrying on their work.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, receive a written answer to his Question either tonight or tomorrow morning, then he can consider the matter further.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  3.37 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
  Purchase Tax (intermediate rates)
  That, in addition to the first, second and third rates of purchase tax, there shall be a first intermediate rate and a second intermediate rate which shall be respectively one-quarter and one-half of the wholesale value of the goods and —

  (a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1948 (which gives the Treasury power to make orders as to purchase tax), the reference to the rates of purchase tax provided for by the enactments relating to purchase tax shall include the new rates above referred to; and

  (b) subject to any order made by the Treasury under the said section twenty-one after the passing of any Act giving effect to this Resolution, in Part I of the Eighth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1948 (as amended), references to the first intermediate rate and to the second intermediate rate shall respectively be substituted for references to the first and second rates in Groups 1 to 7 and in Group 9 (b) (iii);

  and effect shall be given to this Resolution as from the fourteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-two.
  I propose, if I may, to deal also with the second Resolution dealing with Purchase Tax on fur gloves:
  That, subject to any order made by the Treasury under section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1948, after the passing of any Act giving effect to this Resolution, gloves made wholly or partly of fur skin (including any skin with fur, hair or wool attached) shall be comprised in paragraph (a) of Group 3 in Part I of the Eighth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1948 (as amended) and paragraphs (b) and (c) of that Group shall accordingly be omitted; and effect shall be given to this Resolution as from the fourteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-two.
  The purpose of the first Resolution was explained last night, and, therefore, I shall confine myself just to reminding the Committee of the details of the classes covered. The reduction will apply to the rates of 33⅓ per cent. and 66⅔ per cent. on garments, footwear, gloves, cloth, and household textiles; that is, all goods at present covered by the D scheme, except for furs, which we shall be considering later today in a separate category. I was
  1116
  asked yesterday if the Resolution applied to furniture, and the answer is "No," because, as I indicated yesterday, furniture is at present exempt from Purchase Tax under the Utility scheme, and the question, therefore, does not arise until or unless furniture is brought in under the D scheme.
  Mr. F. Blackburn: Could I clear up one point about headwear? In the list of goods the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned as being covered by this scheme, he did not mention headwear, which comes under group 2 of the 1948 Act, and therefore, I think, should fall within the scheme.
  Mr. Butler: In so far as hats come within the D scheme, they are covered. That is the answer about hats; but, of course, hats are divided into two categories, some of which come into the scheme and some of which do not; and those which come within the scheme are covered.
  The only thing which remains for me to say on this is that it is desirable that the change should operate as soon as possible, and, therefore, it is desirable that it should take effect tomorrow, as I announced last night: that is 14th May. I would remind hon. Members who feel that they are desirous of discussing this matter that this is not the last occasion that they will have. Our Parliamentary opportunities on the Purchase Tax are almost unlimited, and we have adopted the procedure, to conform with our usual practice, of putting down on the Order Paper a new Clause, and we are proposing to take that Clause with the other new Clauses when we come to them, and that will be a further opportunity, of which, I hope, hon. Members will not take undue advantage, of raising this matter again.
  With regard to the second Resolution, dealing with gloves made of fur; this seemed the most convenient way of dealing with what would otherwise be an injustice as between gloves backed with sheepskin, which were taxable at a rate of 33⅓ per cent., and gloves backed with other skins, which would have been chargeable at the full rate of 100 per cent. Being a Ways and Means Resolution, this deals with this financial difficulty, which was one of the anomalies in our scheme, to which I referred in earlier remarks yesterday.

  1117
  The effect of the Resolution would be to make all gloves liable to the lower rate of tax, which will now be reduced as the result of the first part of the Resolution to only 25 per cent. I hope that will be of some help to hon. Members, and to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) in particular, who have put down Amendments which we come to later on dealing with gloves. It is a very considerable concession. This is parallel to the case of fur-trimmed garments, and the new Clause is proposing to cover both. Gloves will be discussed later in the debate.
  I conclude by repeating that the Government feel that this one-quarter reduction is a step in the right direction and will, so far as it can, help to some degree with the cost of living. It is the limit to which we can go, subject to one or two anomalies which will come up later this evening, and which we shall discuss under their separate heads.
  Certain suggestions have been made that this was designed to help this or that section of the population. That is not at all the desire or motive of the Government. Our desire is to help all, to give an opportunity to the trade to have certainty, and to give an opportunity to all workpeople, whether they be purchasers or workers who produce these high-quality grade stuffs, not only to see some hope of their employment returning and being made more stable but, in so far as they are not exempted under this scheme—as so many of them are in the lower grades of price—to feel that in some direction it would give some hope to them in their very difficult times in these various trades.
  I would remind the Committee that the D scheme was introduced to fulfil certain of our international obligations. It has been a complicated matter, and although this may not go so far as some would wish, there are obvious reasons why we cannot move further at this time. This is a step in the right direction, and I very sincerely hope that it will help trade, help the workers in these industries, help production, and help exports.
  The Chairman: I gather the Chancellor has no intention of introducing another Bill under Standing Order No. 86.
  Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I had considered this point, and I do not propose to introduce another Bill.
  Mr. Blackburn: Under the Resolution headgear would be covered by groups 1 to 7. Group 2 of the 1948 Act covers headgear, and paragraph (a) refers to "Articles not comprised in any of the following paragraphs of this group."My contention is that the paragraph covers all felt hats and straw hats, which would therefore come within this Resolution.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: First of all, I should like to ask the Chancellor one or two questions. He pointed out that furniture was not covered by this Resolution, on the ground that it was not included in the D scheme, which, of course, is so. But under Clause 7 of the Bill there is at any rate a prospect that it should be brought within the D scheme, and I ask the Chancellor to give us an assurance that if furniture is brought within the D scheme the lower rates of Purchase Tax will apply in the case of furniture, exactly as they apply in the case of textiles. I think I should have said "lower rate," because there would not be a higher rate in the case of furniture. That is my first question, and we should be glad to have that assurance.
  3.45 p.m.
  Secondly, he referred to the fact that a new Clause was being put on the Order Paper implementing the announcement made last night. I should like to know whether he proposes that that new Clause should be discussed in its place in the ordinary way, or whether he has any idea of bringing it forward, so to speak, in the Bill. I quite agree with him that if we have that further opportunity, it does lessen the need for a lengthy debate now. Last night we had an opportunity of expressing our views more or less immediately on the Chancellor's proposals, and on reading what was then said I am bound to say that I see little reason to change my mind.
  This is, of course, in one sense an advance. We have been pressing for the removal of Purchase Tax in present circumstances from textiles, and to the extent that there is a reduction which costs the Chancellor £17 million, or relieves the trade of £17 million, that is obviously something which we welcome. But the Chancellor will have seen that it has not been received with any great enthusiasm by the industry; that those who, I think, are best qualified to speak on this subject do not take the view that

  1119
  it is likely to stimulate buying to any great extent—which, after all, is our main argument for the removal of Purchase Tax. We can only hope, if this is the last major concession the Chancellor is to make, that they are wrong. I am bound to say, though, that it coincides exactly with what we felt yesterday evening.
  As I pointed out yesterday, if the Chancellor had this money to give away, we feel that it would have been very much better to have given it away by raising the value of D in specific cases, and to some extent all round. I do not think I need repeat the arguments; they are simply arithmetical. In the one place, where we raise the value of D we give the same absolute benefit to every purchaser. If it is put up by £1, then to that extent it is one-third of £1 if it is 33⅓ per cent., and 5s. if it is 25 per cent.
  Every purchaser of the article in question, at whatever price it is sold, whatever the quality, whether it is more luxurious or whether it is more essential in type, gets the same advantage; whereas in the Chancellor's proposals they all get the same percentage gain, which means that those who buy the cheaper article get less gain in absolute terms. That is perhaps a rather elaborate way of saying what we said last night, that our method of doing this would give a great deal more benefit to people with lower incomes, and we are sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken our advice on that matter.
  My last point is this. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds), in a powerful speech which followed the Chancellor's last night, pointed out that when the Chancellor said that the concessions we were asking for would cost something in the neighbourhood of £30 million or £40 million, he was really admitting that the D scheme itself was imposing a tax of £30 million or £40 million on those who buy top-class Utility goods. That is precisely our criticism of the way the D scheme has been introduced, and for that reason we shall continue to press—not only for that reason, because there are special cases as well—for an increase in the value of D for the various articles concerned. Nevertheless, we do not intend to divide the Committee on the Resolution, and I would suggest to my hon. Friends that we might now proceed to further business.
  Mr. Ralph Assheton: I do not want to say more than a very few words, but it would be ungenerous if I did not thank the Chancellor for what he has done. He has given us only a quarter of what we asked for, but we are grateful to him. We think that, not only will it help trade to some extent, and therefore employment, but it will also be a valuable assistance to our export trade, which is perhaps the most important point of all. Any reduction of tax which lowers the cost of living must be welcome to every Member of this House. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) say that he proposed to support this Resolution.
  I do not agree with him that it would have been better to raise the D scheme levels all round, because that would not have helped the quality goods and the export trade as much as the present method helps them. Some months ago—it may be nine months ago now—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) suggested that people ought to stop buying textile goods. I think that was a very unfortunate remark; let us forget about it now. I should like to say that I hope that people all over the country will decide that this is a good opportunity of buying such goods. The summer is coming on and people will be wanting new frocks and other clothes, and this is an opportunity for them to take advantage of the lower prices which are now to be made available.
  Mr. George Porter: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he says that furniture does not come within the ambit of the Resolution and is, therefore, not liable to the concessions, am I right in assuming that the use of materials which are subject to Purchase Tax in the production of furniture will be subject to the concessions in the Resolution?
  Mr. Dryden Brook: I should like to draw the attention of the Chancellor to a series of omissions from this Resolution. It has been mooted that this Resolution arises from a desire to help the unemployment situation in the textile industry, but the Resolution expressly takes out of the scheme one important section of the wool textile industry. The carpet grades are expressly omitted. Unemployment in the carpet section of the

  1121
  wool textile industry is as bad as, or worse than, in any other section at the present time, and I should like to know what are the Chancellor's intentions about rectifying this omission by applying this reduction of tax to carpets?
  Mr. R. A. Butler: The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), raised the question of the new Clause. Our intention is that it should be discussed in its normal place under the new Clauses. He also raised the question of furniture. I should not like to give any undertaking in advance of the scheme being made for furniture. That is to say, the matter is at present being discussed, as I have indicated, with the trade, and I think it would be irresponsible to say anything more in advance in answer to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman or by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Porter).
  But we should certainly bear in mind not only the atmosphere in which these matters have been considered but also the concessions which have been made in relation to the D scheme, when we consider the position and nature of the furniture scheme; and as that scheme will have to come before the House in an Order, the position would be that hon. Members would have an opportunity of examining it at the time; but the fact that these representations have been made by the right hon. and hon. Members concerned will have its effect upon us when we are examining the nature of the furniture scheme and if and when we decide to make an Order.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Has the right hon. Gentleman definitely decided that there shall be a D scheme for furniture?
  Mr. Butler: No. As I indicated, that matter is at present being considered. If and when—to which careful words I will adhere—a decision is made, the fact that these representations have been made, including the right hon. Gentleman's reference to 33⅓ per cent., will be borne in mind.
  I realise the difficulties to which the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, referred and also the difficulties raised by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) in his reference to hats. The exact answer to that—I think I was on the whole right in my original answer—is that all hats chargeable under group 2
  1122
  will get this relief, and the only hats excepted are those made of fur and chargeable at 100 per cent. As it is not yet our general practice to wear such hats—although I know they exist—I hope this concession will be of some value to the common man.
  The hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. D. Brook) raised the question of carpets which were outside the Utility scheme and which were, therefore, not considered in the D scheme, and are not under this general umbrella. I realise the difficulties in connection with them, and no doubt further reference to them will be made in the coming hours.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), made some remarks which I found very agreeable. I should like to repeat what I said last night. He has been of great service in putting forward the views of the textile industry and its difficulties, in company with many other hon. and right hon. Members. The position is, I believe—as he has rightly suggested—that he would have liked to have gone further. So would many of us have liked to have gone further, but I have always maintained to the Committee that this is not the only solution of the difficulties of the trades involved—and this is really the answer to the general remarks made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South.
  The right hon. Gentleman forgets in his general observations about this Ways and Means Resolution—which I do not wish to go over again in the light of day, since we referred to that last night—that the object of the scheme was to make a graded tax over the old blind spot of which all traders were complaining because they were not able to export or make their articles in that blind spot.
  In overcoming that difficulty, we have had to lap over into the cheap Utility grades, but we have still attempted to keep a large proportion of the Utility grades free of tax. Whenever one makes reforms, it is bound to hurt someone, and I am only sorry that in regrading the tax it has had this effect. I believe that by keeping a large proportion of these goods outside we have still benefited those in the lower income groups.
  Mr. David J. Pryde: I should like to draw the Chancellor's attention to the cheapest form of carpets—tapestry. This is a small section of the industry which requires particular consideration as a result of our relations with Australia and New Zealand. I hope that the Chancellor will consult with the President of the Board of Trade in regard to that section of the industry.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  Purchase Tax (fur gloves)
  That, subject to any order made by the Treasury under section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1948, after the passing of any Act giving effect to this Resolution, gloves made wholly or partly of fur skin (including any skin with fur, hair or wool attached) shall be comprised in paragraph (a) of Group 3 in Part I of the Eighth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1948 (as amended) and paragraphs (b) and (c) of that Group shall accordingly be omitted; and effect shall be given to this Resolution as from the fourteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-two.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
  Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.
  Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  FINANCE BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 12th May].
  [Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  Fourth Schedule.—(PURCHASE TAX: PRESCRIBED LISTS FOR WEARING APPAREL AND FOR CLOTH, ETC.)
  4.0 p.m.
  The Chairman: In the Fourth Schedule the next groups which may be considered are the men's group— A 19, 20 and 21 and the women's group B 22 and 23—and the Amendments on the Order Paper which relate to that part of the Schedule are all the Amendments except that in page 75, line 42.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: On a point of order. I think the Amendments about boots and shoes end three Amendments before that.
  The Chairman: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I could not read my own writing. It should be from the beginning to the Amendment in page 75, line 37, in the name of the right hon.
  1124
  Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), and then the first Amendment in page 77, line 36, column 1, in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), and then it goes down to the Amendment in page 77, line 48.
  Captain Charles Waterhouse: I beg to move, in page 75, line 19, column 1, after "bootees," to insert:
  "other than industrial safety boots used for protective purposes."
  I have not intervened in the debates of the Committee thus far and I should like, therefore, in opening my remarks on the Schedule dealing with boots and shoes, to join in the thanks which have already been expressed to my right hon. Friend for what he has done. There is not the smallest doubt that the decision he has made will be both a real and a general benefit to the textile trade. It will also be a benefit to the boot and shoe trade which we are now discussing.
  There are, however, certain peculiarities in the boot and shoe trade on which I want to dwell for a few minutes in the hope that I may persuade my right hon. Friend to give the trade even further consideration. The first is a very general one. The textile trade as a whole welcomed the D scheme and thought it was a definite improvement on the old Purchase Tax provisions. The boot and shoe trade, on the other hand, as a whole found themselves very much worse off under the new provisions than under the old, for two or three reasons.
  The first reason is that they will have to pay a very great deal more in tax, even now, than they had to pay in the old days. It is estimated that under the old system a payment of something like £280,000 a year was made in connection with British-manufactured boots and shoes. Before this present tax was modified by the Financial Resolution which we have just discussed, the tax to be collected would have been something of the nature of £3 million. The tax has been reduced to the extent of 25 per cent., so that the figure will now be something over £2 million which the boot and shoe trade may expect to have to pay, by comparison with something not very much over £250,000 which they had to pay. They are still a very great deal worse off than they would have been.

  1125
  In the early stages of the debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that there was no hope of a general removal of the tax in the present financial position.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I received an answer to a Question the other day when I inquired how much had been levied by the old Purchase Tax, and I was told that it was £3,300,000 by comparison with £3,500,000 under the D scheme. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman now tells me it was something like £250,000 as against £3 million. Could he clear that up?
  Captain Waterhouse: I do not know whether I can clear it up, but the reason is probably that the figures given previously included the tax on rubber boots, and I think they also included the tax on imported boots and shoes as well as on the home-manufactured commodity. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell me whether I am right or wrong.
  Mr. Paget: The Question which I put to the Chancellor—and perhaps he can clear this matter up, because it is important that we should know at this stage—concerned Purchase Tax on British-made leather footwear. I was told that the Purchase Tax on British-made leather footwear produced £3,300,000. I was rather surprised by the answer, but that was the answer I was given. Is it right?
  Captain Waterhouse: I think I can now clear this matter up because I put a similar Question to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and he gave this answer:
  "Separate figures for home-manufactured footwear are not available, but it is estimated that receipts of Purchase Tax from both home-manufactured and imported supplies of footwear of all kinds (including rubber footwear) in the calendar year 1950 were £3.8 million, and in the calendar year 1951, £3.3 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 270.]
  That bears out my suggestion that the figure quoted by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) include both imported and rubber footwear, both of which we are excluding from the present discussion.
  Perhaps I may carry my argument a stage further. My Amendment was put down after the Chancellor had told us quite clearly that it was impossible for
  1126
  him to remove the whole of the tax, for financial reasons. Of course, he is in no way to blame for those financial reasons; he inherited the financial position of the country from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In view of what he said, I took a figure half-way between what we wanted and the lowest weight of tax, a figure of 16⅔ per cent., and I thought and hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with me that that was a fair split—and I still hope that he may agree with me in this case. But my right hon. Friend has split my split, has halved it with me again and has given a figure of 25 per cent. We are grateful for that, but I urge upon my right hon. Friend that the boot and shoe industry deserves special treatment.
  One of the reasons for that, which I have already given, is the vastly increased incidence of the present tax. Another, and I think even more important reason, is the geographical set-up of the trade. It is unusually concentrated by districts. We have, for example, the Norwich district, the Northampton Town district, Street, a district of Somerset, Edinburgh, and Kendal which produce the higher-quality boots and shoes. They have been to a large extent taxpayers; the boots and shoes they produce bear tax. My own constituency and other parts of the city of Leicester, and the County of Northampton, are partly producers of the better-class and largely producers of the not-quite-so-expensive boots and shoes, which to a large extent are untaxed. They are, therefore, in the middle category. At the extreme end we get Rossendale and certain parts of London, which produce goods which are altogether untaxed.
  What will be the effect of this tax? I ask my right hon. Friend—and, as everybody in the Committee knows, he has a real concern for industry—to bear this in mind. The effect will surely be that the trade producing taxed goods within the lower level of the tax will try to get down their price and quality so as to come outside the tax range. Surely there will be a tendency among men and women going into the shops to ask of those who attend them, "Is there a tax on these boots and shoes or are they tax-free?" If the answer is that they are taxed, the customer will then say, "Please show me something which is not taxed."

  1127
  It is almost certain, therefore, that the four or five districts which I have mentioned will very soon find their order books for the better-quality goods empty, and the Leicester and Northampton county and Rossendale districts will find fresh competition arising from districts which previously had a quite different trade. That, surely, is not to the long-range advantage of the Chancellor or the country, much less of the trade itself. I urge the Chancellor, between now and the Report stage, or even this afternoon if possible, to indicate that he will take special additional steps to see whether he can do something to avoid the heavy drawbacks of which I have spoken.
  I have spoken so far on the general case. It is now my duty to draw attention to three anomalies. These anomalies have been put to us by the Federated Associations of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland. These Amendments are, therefore, considered Amendments. In discussing the matter with these gentlemen, as I dare say hon. Members on all sides of the Committee have done, my hon. Friends and I said, "Please reduce your cases to the very minimum; do not put down one that you do not need; tell us the least that you think necessary to meet the most glaring of your difficulties."
  They gave us these three anomalies. The first is that of safety boots and shoes. Safety boots were exempt in the original Bill and they are, therefore, still exempt. Safety shoes are apparently not exempt. They used to be exempt under a category of the Utility scheme, but under the present provisions they will be subject to tax. I ask the Chancellor to be kind enough, between now and the Report stage, to look into the specific point about safety shoes. If he agrees with me that they were free and are now taxed, perhaps he will introduce a provision to relieve them, for I am sure that he will agree that these industrial safety devices should not be the object of any tax.
  The second point deals with what are called warm boots and shoes, either fur-lined or lined with wool. I have put down a series of Amendments to bring those up from their present D level of 37s. into the first category of £3. My reasons are that one wears shoes to keep one's feet dry, and one also wears shoes to keep one's feet warm. I do not think that it
  1128
  can be said to be a luxury to want to keep one's feet warm either when working in the house or when one is a housekeeper going out to do the morning shopping.
  There is no class issue involved. There is no question of the fur-lined boots being worn only by the better-off. They are worn by women and by men in every walk of life when going about their necessary avocations. I believe that the Chancellor will agree that it is a great pity—it may be an oversight and I hope that he will be able to tell us that it is—that they have been left in the category which attracts a considerable measure of tax.
  The last of the three small points to which my attention has been drawn affects men's slippers. The trade pointed out to me that there is an artificial distinction with men's slippers which does not exist with women's slippers. There is a special D level of 15s. for slippers as compared with £2 for sandals. That does not seem to be commonsense. Surely a slipper has as much work in it and as much value in it and is of more practical use than a sandal. Sandals may be used constantly by a few people, but they are used only occasionally by many people at the seaside and elsewhere. On the other hand, slippers are used by the majority of people when they go home in the evenings to rest after their work. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor will consider some change on the question of men's slippers, which have a category to themselves, while women's slippers are included with ordinary shoes.
  Those are the three points I wish to make. I repeat most urgently my request to the Chancellor that, between now and the final stages of the Bill, he should re-examine the whole position of this trade. Possibly he could consult again with those in the industry. I ask that, if he can, he should give some relief to avoid the dislocation which this Measure will cause.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: On a preliminary point of order. Shall I be in order, Sir Charles, as I hope I shall, in discussing not only the one Amendment that you have called, but the other Amendments which appear in the group?
  The Chairman: That is the case. After we have had a discussion ranging over all the Amendments in this group, there

  1129
  will be certain Divisions on Amendments selected.
  Mr. Mitchison: In that case, I shall only make the shortest comment on the small points, as he rightly described them, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) raised. The Amendments about safety boots and shoes look very nice. No one will object to them and they are unlikely to have any effect at all, for almost all the safety boots and shoes—in fact, I believe all of them—come below the proposed D level at present and would therefore not be affected. That is my information.
  Next, on the question of woollen linings, I am informed that the view taken by the Board of Trade is that boots or shoes lined, as they usually are, not only with the wool itself but with the skin of the animal that bore the wool, are leather-lined and therefore already exempt. I may be wrong, but we shall hear later. In any case, there would be no objection to the principle. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will persevere with all these Amendments and that he will have the support in the Lobby of Members on this side of the Committee who are most anxious to see relief given to this industry, not only on these small points but also on the far larger issue raised by our own Amendments.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was perfectly correct in saying that the boot and shoe industry as a whole—and I may add the operatives as well as the employers—have read these proposals and the Finance Bill with some apprehension and complete dislike. In that respect they differ entirely from the textile trade. I hope that when the Chancellor said earlier today that he did not intend to make any more major concessions, he did not mean to shut his ears entirely. In the legal profession we have a certain preference for hearing what someone has to say before condemning him or turning down his case. In this instance the boot and shoe trade have not had too good a hearing.
  I think that it is fair comment on the Douglas Report to say that it was primarily a textile report. Though it does deal with boots and shoes as well as with furniture, by far the greater part of it is occupied with the textile trade. The experts on the committee were textile
  1130
  experts, and though memoranda were submitted by two organisations in the boot and shoe trade, I understand that there was no verbal evidence given and that therefore the Douglas Committee proceeded, in the light of those memoranda and of their generally inexpert knowledge, to lay down a number of propositions about the boot and shoe trade of which the trade itself has not approved.
  It was not until after the Budget speech—there again, I believe I am right—that the boot and shoe trade was heard by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by the Financial Secretary on his behalf. I may be wrong on that. I hope I am, but that I understand to be the case. True it is that they have been heard since then, but it was rather late in the day to reconstruct a scheme which was regarded by the trade as inapplicable to them.
  The Chancellor spoke last night with some feeling, which I am sure we appreciated and understood, about the responsibilities on his shoulders. In a somewhat lighter vein he spoke of his ignorance of corduroy trousers and corduroy shorts. I suppose that most Chancellors of the Exchequer, having to deal with Purchase Tax, are in that position. I should like to put a point quite generally to him. Surely when, after not very much consultation, a scheme is introduced to make a very considerable difference to a whole trade, the Chancellor ought not to shut his mind to the representations of the trade, when they are absolutely unanimous and when the matter differs considerably from the main matter upon which he formed his policy and his scheme.
  Now I turn to the concession which the Chancellor has made by taking a quarter of the Purchase Tax rate off boots and shoes, as he has done in the case of other goods, too. I suppose that it was not too difficult for the wit of man to guess that something of the sort might be done in the case of boots and shoes. It was probably rather more than coincidence, or the common philosophy of distinguished Tories, that an Amendment appeared on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East, and other hon. Members suggesting that the Purchase Tax rate should be halved. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just pointed out, it has in fact been

  1131
  Quartered—[Interruption.]—well, three-quartered.
  My hon. and right hon. Friends and I object both to that Amendment and to the concession on principle. Naturally enough, at this time of the year one welcomes any concession from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the taxpayer and of the industry concerned, and in that sense we would sooner pay half of a bad tax than the whole of it. We feel, and feel very strongly, that both the Amendment and the concession were on the wrong lines. Though this point has been made to some extent with regard to textiles, it has particular force in the boot and shoe trade.
  For the purposes of what I am going to say, I shall treat the boot and shoe trade as falling roughly into three sections. There is no absolute line, and everybody can differ as to the exact point at which to draw the line between the sections. First of all, let me mention the case of the boots and shoes which were Utility before and therefore did not carry Purchase Tax, which will now fall below the D value, and, therefore, again will not carry Purchase Tax. Broadly speaking, the information we get from the distributors, from an excellent source, is that the retail price at which tax will begin to operate is, as regards men's leather shoes, 53s. 5d., and as regards Women's, 49s. 5d. For convenience, I call "low grade shoes" those which fall below that level, below which prices are not affected by the change.
  I should like to call the Chancellor's attention to two points. I am coming now to medium-grade shoes. When we were discussing the National Health Service the other day, the Minister of Health fixed £3 as the proper charge for surgical boots, considerably less, of course, than their actual cost. I understood him to take that figure as representing not necessarily the lowest price that one could pay, but the sort of price one would pay without undue extravagance or undue economy. Therefore, I think that I am right in saying that if we take the range of men's shoes from 53s. 5d. and women's shoes from 49s. 5d. upwards, on the retail prices, we shall include no luxury shoe for a long time but the kind of shoe that the ordinary person in this country, the majority of
  1132
  the population who are in work, would naturally buy.
  There appeared on the tape late last night a notice, I think from Government sources, mentioning the effect of the concession on what were called "a popular range of shoes" retailing at 75s. We can fairly take it that the medium grade represents the ordinary, typical demand from men in work and their wives, from the middle group of the population varying from the salary earner on a not-very-high scale and from the highly-paid workman, down to the average-paid worker—if there is such a person.
  That is by far the most important group. Under the old system, that group paid no Purchase Tax at all. Not until we got to retail prices of very nearly £6—about 115s.—in the case of men's shoes and a few shillings less in the case of women's shoes, did we begin to get the Purchase Tax operating, because we got our Utility. The result was that the tax was paid. and a heavy tax, on a very limited range indeed of the products of the industry. It was stated, and correctly, in the Douglas Report that it was paid on under 2 per cent. of the whole product, and for pretty expensive boots and shoes, whether men's or women's. The main and the startling effect of this scheme is to impose a new tax, not, of course, on the low-grade shoes but on the very wide range of medium-grade shoes—those with retail prices running, in the case of men's shoes, from about 53s. up to 115s.
  4.30 p.m.
  That is really the backbone of the industry. It is the ordinary man's footwear, and this scheme is, so far as the industry is concerned, for the first time imposing Purchase Tax on the ordinary man and woman's footwear. That is the significance of it, and it is that aspect of if which from various points of view has led to the acute dismay and opposition of the whole trade to what is now proposed.
  I shall not go into the money question which was raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). It may be that the difference between the figures quoted for all footwear and the very much smaller figure quoted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can be

  1133
  accounted for by imports and rubber footwear. I doubt it, because footwear imports were taxed under the old scheme since they could not be Utility products, and they still remain taxed under the new scheme. It does not seem to me that in any figures of the past or estimate of the future that can make very much difference.
  I need not trouble the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, North-East and my hon. and learned Friend on this point. We are, after all, dealing with pretty small figures in the way of taxation. This has not been a very heavily taxed industry, and I rather regret that it seemed to be partly on that account that the Douglas Committee, which really was not concerned with that kind of question, seemed to think that the industry ought to carry some additional Purchase Tax.
  According to an answer we received the other day, it appeared to me that it was a re-distribution of the burden rather than any increase of it that was involved. I am not concerned with that point exactly at the moment, very largely because the figures are really comparatively small, and a concession of the type for which we are asking would, on any view of the matter, not cost the Chancellor very much. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will sooner or later elucidate the matter, and that we shall know whether, as the trade thinks, the D scheme, even reduced in accordance with the announced concession, will mean a considerable additional burden on the trade, or whether it is only a redistribution.
  From our point of view, however, the fatal damage lies in its incidence. I wish to point out to the Chancellor how that damage will take effect. I would remind him of the story of the Co-operative movement, which was always said to have had a newspaper called "The Producer, with which is incorporated The Consumer." Something of the sort was indicated by the Chancellor when he pointed out that workmen make boots and, having made them, like others. Wear them.
  I represent a constituency in which boot and shoe making is the principal trade, at all events inside Kettering, and it represents a pretty fair average of the trade. Though I wish to say a little
  1134
  about that constituency, it is only by way of illustration, and I shall try to relate what I say to the trade as a whole. This is what is happening. There are in that town at least two firms which make high-grade footwear, perhaps not all of it above the old Utility range, one of them at least on quite a considerable scale. One firm has been in considerable difficulties for some time.
  In the boot and shoe trade people do not begin to get their cards until things become pretty bad. The reason for that is that under the agreements in this trade, in which there has been very good feeling between both sides of the industry for a long time, there is a guaranteed week on the basis, so far as workers on time rates are concerned, of three-quarters of the 45-hour week, and so far as piece-rate workers are concerned—and this is practically entirely a piece-rate industry by now—on the basis of three-quarters of the man's normal earnings. I ought to say "a man's or a woman's normal earnings" because a great many women are employed in that industry.
  What first happens is that, as in the instance I have mentioned, there is a gradual shortening of hours worked in the factory, and a whittling away of work, whether by piece or on time, and more and more people are put on to the guaranteed week, or, as the phrase goes, "made up" in the case of piece workers. That process can go on for quite a long time before any one begins to be sacked. What is significant is that these people are beginning to sack workers.
  I do not want to be unkind to the boot and shoe trade in any way, and I am only voicing its own opinion—I believe the opinion of both sides of the table—when I say that it is on the whole an ageing trade. The average age standard in it is rather higher than the average age of the industrial population. If I might take the industry in my own constituency, I would say that I had had the most vigorous complaints from the boot and shoe people there that they act practically as a hospital for Corby; that is to say, they take on numbers of men who. through illness or accident, are unable to work in the iron and steel trades or perhaps in some other industry.
  The boot and shoe trade certainly has quite a high proportion of men who are not very well and who may perhaps have

  1135
  suffered from some injury or another. These are the people who are being sacked. They will not contribute to the export drive, or re-armament or anything else; they will just be out of a job. That is only the beginning, I wish to make that quite clear, but it is beginning quite definitely. To turn to the main run of this industry—
  Mr. W. M. F. Vane:In speaking of the question of short time, the hon. and learned Member is not trying to represent that it is only starting now, seeing that it was obvious last summer?
  Mr. Mitchison: All I can say is that that is neither my experience nor my information. I am not suggesting that the General Election was responsible for it, but it began about that time and has lately been very definitely getting worse. I said something of the sort in the Budget debate, and my information, which I have taken a lot of pains to verify, is that it is getting distinctly worse.
  I am not saying that the number of dismissals is at all large at present; I do not think that is so. But that is the second stage; and the first stage of making up and depending on the guaranteed week is very widespread in the high-grade part of the industry. It is not without significance, and certainly not outside the knowledge of hon. Members opposite, who have had their attention called to this by the employers, that it is in the high-grade industry for instance, in Northampton, that one firm is said to have discharged 60 workers and is having difficulty in providing the remainder with half-time work. There are similar difficulties in Stafford. All that was a couple of months ago, and if Kettering is any guide it has been getting worse since.
  I now turn to the middle-grade section of the industry which represents the bulk of the production in Kettering. These are the people who are going to be taxed for the first time, and the question I want to put to the Chancellor is whether he really expects them to stand it. I will tell him what is happening there. They have not yet reached the stage of dismissal—there is a certain amount of reliance on the guaranteed week—but there is something which is a good deal more serious than that.
  1136
  They are now making increasingly for stock, and if hon. Members will look at the last issue of the Board of Trade Journal they will there find a significant fact that bears all this out very clearly. It is that the stocks in the boot and shoe trade at the latest available date, which was March, were no less than 30 per cent. higher than they were a year ago. True, that was an increase in price, but there has not been a very large movement in price, and I doubt if there has been a movement upward. The Board of Trade Journal itself pointed out quite rightly that that indicated a substantial increase in the volume of stocks.
  I know this to be true from my own experience. I go round these boot and shoe factories, and I know that they have been piling up stocks. The reason is pretty clear; they cannot sell as fast as they make because their prices are a bit high.
  Mr. Edwin Leather: Does that stock figure, which is extremely interesting, refer to total stocks in the hands of manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, or is it that all that has happened is that stocks have been pushed back from the retailer to the manufacturer and that the total is not much higher?
  Mr. Mitchison: I do not think that is so, and I believe the conclusion reached in the Board of Trade Journal should help the hon. Gentleman. I was referring to the stocks at an earlier stage than the retailer, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that there has been an increase throughout the trade. I do not know whether there are any official figures available, but I think the reason for the present position is perfectly clear. It is that people are finding it difficult to pay the price of these goods.
  What is going to be the effect of all this? Here we come to the consumer side of the producer, if I may put it in that rather Irish way. Let us take the two prices, the £3 which was used in the debate on the National Health Service Act and the 75s. that was mentioned in the debate last night. Let us take the case of men first. Even with the present concession, 1s. is added straight away to the retail price of a £3 pair of boots or shoes. So far as the women are concerned, there is an increase of Is. 6d., because in their case the D line is rather

  1137
  different. If we take the 75s. retail price, the figures begin to get a bit larger. As regards men they are 3s. 3d., and as regards women they are roughly about 4s., or perhaps a little more.
  4.45 p.m.
  Those are very considerable additions. I would remind the Chancellor that it was his party which put up posters saying that the high cost of living was the high cost of Socialism and that the Tory Party were going to stop the leak in the purse, and all the rest of it. After all, boots and shoes are pretty essential articles. We do not want hon. Members appearing bare-footed in this Chamber just because they cannot afford to buy boots and shoes. Neither do we want the population to go bare-footed. These are the ordinary necessities of life in this country.
  Mr. George Odey: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind in this connection that during the last nine months there has been a reduction of over 50 per cent. in the cost of leather?
  Mr. Mitchison: Yes, I have that point in mind, and there is a good deal more to be said about the factors that go to make up the cost of shoes than the cost of leather, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. If I were to embark on that question I should only take up even more of the time of the Committee, and I must put my case in my own way.
  Because of the way the Chancellor is levying this tax he is, in effect, putting it on to the backs of the ordinary working man and woman of this country, because it is their type of shoe which will have to carry it. It is they who will have to pay more, not because of the amount of the tax, but because of the way in which it is levied. After all, it is the business of the Chancellor, not merely to provide for the coming year, but to provide for further years ahead. He has to consider what his Income Tax yield is going to be next year and what his next Budget is going to look like.
  The boot and shoe industry is in a really critical condition at the present time. It has not yet fallen over, but if it were given a very small push—and this particular tax will give it quite a big push—it would topple over altogether. It is, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East just
  1138
  reminded the Chancellor, a highly localised industry. The result will be that in the places where it is localised we shall get for the first time since the war real unemployment.
  It is a long time since there were soup kitchens in Kettering, and no one in this Committee wants to see that kind of thing again. I suggest to the Chancellor that for the comparatively small sum involved it is perhaps hardly worth while imposing this tax at all, but that, if he insists on doing so, he should give heed to what he is doing and should not, merely to keep the boot and shoe trade in theoretical line with textiles, put it on in such a way as to do the greatest possible damage both to the producers and to the mass of the population who wear those boots and shoes.
  It is for that reason that we have put down a row of Amendments—I am not going to speak to them in detail—with the general intention of raising the D level by a little more than 50 per cent. of what it is at present. I do not see why the Chancellor should not have regard to the views of the industry itself. Whatever burden they have to carry, let them carry it in the old way, on the top grade of shoes. After all, socially that is right.
  As regards the export trade, this is not a very large factor in the boot and shoe industry. Indeed, I am not sure that it can ever become so, but I believe that if there is room for such expansion then the emphasis should be not entirely on the top grade products. After all, a great deal of this footwear goes to comparatively poor countries which do not want the very high grade article. The trade has been building up little by little an increase in exports. It has been doing this on the old basis. I suggest that the effect of the present tax will be such a disturbance and difficulty in the trade as to make the continuance of that expansion of exports exceedingly difficult.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I would point out that export goods are not subject to Purchase Tax.
  Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to the Chancellor, but I had that very well in mind. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. What I meant was the argument in the Douglas Committee Report that

  1139
  the home market must be maintained as a showroom, as it were, for the export trade.
  There is no more that I can say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is quite easy for hon. Members opposite to make that sort of noise, but I suggest it is an exceedingly silly thing to do, and let me tell them why: Everyone in this Committee is wearing boots and shoes. So is every man and woman in this country. This concerns all of us. It is an important trade of which we have every reason to be proud. Incidentally, it is a very old one, and upon it depend the livelihood and prosperity of a large section of our fellow men and women who have had to build this trade up, whether as employers or as operatives, over a long period of years. They have raised it from being by no means so successful a trade into what it is at present—something of which we can all be proud. Not the least factor in that has been the skill of the operatives in the trade.
  The effect of this tax, imposed as it is suggested it should be, must inevitably be to drive the employers to lower their standards in some cases so as to bring the footwear in question just below the D level. Exactly that is happening in one particular case in Kettering, and we shall get it again and again. It is not very pleasant for a man who prides himself, and rightly so, as these boot and shoe operatives do, on a certain traditional and practical skill, to have to prostitute it because of the effect of an ill-judged tax.
  Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I have the honour to represent a constituency where there are two completely separate branches of this industry. In Street and Shepton Mallet in Somerset they make women's and children's shoes of a comparatively high grade which previously came just below the Purchase Tax level. In Glastonbury is a very old-established industry making fur-lined boots and shoes and other articles from sheepskins.
  The normal boot and shoe industry—that is to say, the women's and children's shoes—in the two former places was building up a most important export trade both in the United States and in Australia. Those who work in that industry feel very strongly that the
  1140
  imposition of taxation on their industry will have a most serious effect upon that export trade.
  It has to be admitted, of course, that goods which are exported do not carry tax, but the industry is supported by its home market and, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) has recently pointed out, this industry is peculiar in one particular respect, and that is that it is concentrated according to its qualities of product in various localities. In my constituency in Somerset we make only those shoes of a particular quality which came just below the Purchase Tax level previously. That quality is not carried by a cheaper product which can be marketed elsewhere, and for that reason this added tax upon the industry is going to be very serious indeed.
  On the subject of the fleece-lined boots, shoes and slippers, there is another point which I should particularly like to draw to the attention of the Chancellor. The proposed D level for such footwear—which presumably will come in the category of "articles of any other description" —will be lower than that for "articles which are either unlined or lined only with cotton fabric or leather, and are not made wholly or partly of fur or imitation fur." To begin with, this policy does not seem to be in line with the policy employed under a provision which was discussed yesterday. In order not to be called out of order I would only allude to that briefly.
  Under the Fourth Schedule, Group A, 3, relating to coats, cloaks, etc. Class A material which is "fully lined, or of sheepskin" carries a higher D level than other articles. I contend that in fairness these sheepskin fleece-lined boots and shoes should be treated in a similar manner and should carry a higher D level. After all, they are by their very nature a more expensive article; they are bound to be.
  If this industry is injured, as it is likely to be, by the incidence of Purchase Tax at an even greater level than that which is levied on other branches of the footwear industry, it will have most serious effects in this part of Somerset which is largely a rural area where the only main alternative industry to which workers can turn is that of agriculture. Glastonbury is the largest centre of this industry in

  1141
  Europe. It has developed the dressing and the manufacture of these sheepskins over a great many years. In fact, I think I can say that it has gained a world-wide reputation in this trade, and the incidence of a heavier level of Purchase Tax on this industry will be most serious upon our export trade.
  Mr. Arthur Allen: By way of preface to what I have to say, I think I ought to declare my interest. I started to work in the boot and shoe industry over 52 years ago in a small village in Northamptonshire at the age of 13, doing 54½ hours a week for half a crown a week. That half a crown to me was symbolic because I had left boyhood behind and had become a man, more or less, and I have been sorry for it ever since. My last 21 years in the industry I spent as an official of the Boot and Shoe Operatives Union.
  I want to give to the Committee the opinion, as I conceive it, of the organised operatives in the industry, of this D line. As we see it, the D line engenders three fears. There is the effect on employment, the effect on quality, production and craftsmanship and the effect on the export trade.
  5.0 p.m.
  As has been said already, until recently only 2 per cent. of the output of the industry carried Purchase Tax, 98 per cent. being free of tax. The intention of these Amendments is to restore the level more or less to the old position. We felt there was some justification for 2 per cent. of the production carrying tax because it is in the nature of a luxury trade. However, we feel that any tax on footwear is a bad tax, only less reprehensible than a tax on food. People buy footwear because they must, and the luxury production inevitably is very small. People do not spend money on luxuries to tread underfoot.
  The D scheme widens the area of lower quality production. There is a natural disposition on the part of buyers to avoid tax and consequently there is a falling off in the demand for better goods. This gives rise inevitably to unemployment in those centres where the better grades are produced. It has already been stated that the industry is segregated in certain areas. I cannot go through the whole list, but it includes Norwich,
  1142
  Northampton, Stafford, Street and Kendall. In the areas where it is the staple trade serious unemployment has developed.
  It will be appreciated from what I say that I am not stating a constituency point of view. In my own constituency there is boot and shoe production but, generally speaking, in that area the industry will not be seriously affected by the new D line. As I have said, I am trying to put the case as my union sees it. The tax bears unfairly on certain centres as compared with others and on certain firms as compared with others. In consequence we hold the tax to be invidious in its incidence. A tax which discriminates in this way is altogether bad.
  Now let me turn to the effect this tax is bound to have on quality production and craftsmanship. In the boot and shoe industry we are very proud of our craftsmanship. It must be remembered that the machinery in the industry is not wholly automatic. Footwear is not made as sausages are made: you do not put the leather in at one end and draw the footwear out at the other. The machinery in the boot and shoe industry is like an improved tool: everything depends on the skill and craft of the operative. It is the all important touch of craftsmanship in the good shoe which the others have not got that makes all the difference, but that touch of distinction inevitably involves expense.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that the boot and shoe industry is based on payment by results. That has been the case ever since 1895. In an industry such as this, where the output is priced at so much per dozen pairs, a bigger price has to be paid for the better output because more time is involved on the part of the operative in doing a good job than is involved in doing a bad one.
  The incidence of this tax serves to injure that better craftsmanship which we as operatives in the boot and shoe industry have always fostered as much as possible. It is that touch of craftsmanship in the high grade footwear which gives British production a world reputation. We want to retain that. As operatives we have done our level best to assist the better manufacturers in fostering this better grade of footwear and in retaining the craftsmanship required to produce it. We have promoted recruitment and train-

  1143
  ing schemes, we have spent money on them, and we fear that they are endangered by this tax.
  Instead of fostering the better end of the trade, the Purchase Tax tends to have the opposite effect. It is a tax on skill and craftsmanship. If footwear is to be taxed at all we think the tax should lie on the shoddy rather than on the chic. I am glad that the Financial Secretary was able to meet a deputation from the boot and shoe industry. I am also pleased to know that they were well received by the hon. Gentleman and that he listened sympathetically and attentively to what they had to say. I feel sure they made an impression on his mind. I understand they went into the question of alternatives.
  I should be out of order if I attempted to pursue that, so leaving aside the consideration of alternatives to the D line, I want to emphasise the fact that it seriously affects employment in those parts of the industry given over to the production of the better grades of footwear, and it tends to create and deepen unemployment; in fact, it has done so in Norwich, Northampton and Stafford. In addition, I want to stress the fact that it affects the standard of workmanship in those centres which are given over to the production of the better grades.
  Now as to its effect on quality production. At its prevent level the D line forces manufacturers to step down in the use of materials from the good to the not so good, from calf to kip, from good sound leather to leather whose wearing qualities are suspect. It is not generally appreciated that the shoe sold from the factory before the war at 10s. 6d. a pair would carry Purchase Tax under these regulations, and that shoe today would be the wrong side of the D line. No self-respecting boot and shoe operative of those days would have dreamt of going out for a walk on a Sunday wearing anything of a lower quality than box calf or willow calf, but if he bought it today he would have to pay Purchase Tax.
  In consequence of the tax manufacturers will be forced to cut down in all directions to avoid it, and in consequence quality will be sacrificed. It will have a depressing effect on the reputation of British footwear, and it will impair our reputation in foreign markets. The argu-
  1144
  ment put up by the party opposite when they were on this side of the House has always appealed to me, namely, that there must be a good home trade as the basis of our export trade. We can only exploit foreign markets by insisting on quality production.
  For instance, I do not believe we have any hope of exploiting the American or Canadian markets with mass-produced stuff. The Americans can do that much better than we can. They have a much wider market to exploit. We can only hope to get in there and hold the market by high-grade quality production, and in this I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering. I think that we are wasting our time in trying to exploit the American market by mass-produced footwear.
  But I have always felt, even in the days of depression, that we were not doing what we might have done with regard to the American market. My own experience leads me to that view, and I am quite sure that the firm with which I was working was not doing what it might have done in that respect.
  We as operatives have always had an interest in the export trade. I remember, when quite a boy, seeing in the industry an emblem, which was a recognition of continuous membership of my trade union, with the caption: "Let the trade be trodden underfoot the world o'er." That is a desire that is properly held by the operatives. We keep our chins up in every other respect, but we do not mind our product being trodden on.
  It is because we think that the present D line is too low, that it is causing unemployment in certain centres and firms, that it is depressing quality and craftsmanship and that it will hinder, rather than help, our export trade, that we seek in this series of Amendments to the Schedule to raise the line to a level at which its effects will be less mischievous. The operatives' union is appealing to the Chancellor to go even further than he has already gone, and to lift the level to that suggested in the Amendments and to help us to do the things we are hoping to assist in achieving on behalf of the industry.
  Mr. Leather: I wish only to detain the Committee for a few minutes to deal with a point which has been already mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells

  1145
  (Lieut.-Commander Maydon). I should like, however, to say a word about the argument which was put forward about stocks by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), because the point has not been discussed further. Perhaps I did not put my question very clearly. The importance of the argument about stocks is that when one begins to study a lot of the statistics—and I know that they are very interesting just now in the boot and shoe trade—a lot of them are not nearly so alarming as they at first appear.
  It is wise to say that, because we may be in a very real danger of talking ourselves into a slump. It has been done before, and it can be done again. It would be most tragically unnecessary and unfortunate if, by looking simply at all the gloomy signs, we persuaded ourselves that we were in a slump. Before we knew where we were, we would be in it.
  I am not disputing the hon. and learned Member's figures—he has had the advantage of studying them and I have not; but I have studied similar figures recently, and one so often finds that a year or so ago, and for a continuous period up to that time, the retailers were carrying the stocks because they were buying everything they could lay their hands upon. They knew that they could sell it, and the manufacturers were carrying virtually no stocks. The stuff was going off the assembly lines and straight out of the factory.
  Suddenly, things changed. Retailers cut down their stocks, having seen that prices were dropping, and the manufacturers built them up. The total level of stocks, however, has not altered radically; it has merely shifted to another section of the trade.
  Mr. Paget: That is not the case so far as the boot and shoe trade is concerned, save, possibly, with some of the very small retailers. The big retailers are tremendously overstocked and have far higher stocks than they had a year ago.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Leather: That being so, I accept what the hon. and learned Member says, because I have not got the figures and I am sure that he has. But we want to study all these statistics very carefully before we derive any gloomy forebodings which may not be justified.
  1146
  I should like to draw the Chancellor's attention to an Amendment in the names of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells, my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) and myself: In page 75, line 24, at end, insert:

  (b) articles made wholly or partly of fur or imitation fur

  4 0 0 per pair

  (2 0 0 per article)

  The West country industry is a high-quality industry, largely based on fleece and fur-lined footwear, and so on. In Schedule 4 there appears to be an effort to differentiate between varying qualities, but the effort does not seem to me to have any great logic to it.
  Item 19, to which I am referring, contains
  "(a) articles which are either unlined or lined only with cotton fabric or leather, and are not made wholly or partly of fur or imitation fur"
  and category (b) comprises
  "articles of any other description."
  The "any other description" might mean articles a great deal better or articles infinitely worse than those included in category (a), and yet they all appear to be lumped under the "any other description."
  We merely put to the Chancellor—we hope he will consider it seriously—that although the industry is a small one, it is of great importance, especially in the smaller towns in Somerset. It is based on the higher quality and we say that it is most unfair to make the higher quality pay a D line rate which is even lower than for the standard quality.
  I concede that there is an argument to say that the D line should be the same as for the standard quality, although I hope that that is not what we will be told, but it is completely illogical to make the industry pay at a much lower line than the standard quality. I hope that when my right hon. Friend is considering the Amendments, he will look at the question of the higher quality fur-lined or fleece-lined article to see if he can put it right
  Mr. William Ross: So far, we have heard pleas from Members with constituencies in England, and I should not like it to be thought that the Scottish part of the trade and Scottish consumers do not have exactly the same

  1147
  feelings. I represent a constituency which is probably traditionally better known for engineering and for what might be termed the "spirit of Scotland" and that brand of whisky that is "still going strong."
  We have in Kilmarnock, however, a very important boot and shoe industry—the best in Scotland and, probably, the best in Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All that I ask hon. Members to do if they wish to prove my statement is to buy some Saxone shoes, and they will find out. We have a very high reputation for that craftsmanship and for the quality of footwear that was spoken about so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. A. Allen).
  We have to take into account the incidence of the D scheme against the present background of the industry. We already have rising unemployment. The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), suggested that we should not talk ourselves into a slump and that we have to look very carefully at the statistics. There is one group of statistics that shouts very clearly that the Government must take action, and that is the statistics of production. As far as Scotland was concerned, production in the last quarter of the past year was down by as much as 12 per cent., and I think that the figures for the industry throughout England would show that in many cases production has fallen even more.
  We are not being alarmist in drawing to the Chancellor's attention the fact that that is already the situation in an industry which at present retails 98 per cent. of its shoes in this country tax free. I doubt whether even the Minister of State for Economic Affairs would be able tortuously to argue that by putting on the new imposition we should help the industry. We have short time weeks in the industry and, for the first time, young people are experiencing unemployment. Naturally, they are looking to the Government and to the Chancellor with some anxiety on this question.
  Since the war this industry has been expanding to meet national needs and in Kilmarnock an extension has been built to a very big factory. A great deal of export trade has been developed. Up to now unless boots were retailed at a price of more than £6 7s. there was no
  1148
  Purchase Tax, but now the position will be that if the retail price is more than £4 a pair Purchase Tax will be paid. My constituency is a big railway centre. Although it is all right for hon. Members to use the same pair of boots or shoes for work and in the streets, the engine driver has to have a special pair for working on his engine. I can tell the Financial Secretary that they cost more than £4 10s. The same applies to the farmer, the agricultural worker and also to miners.
  These are the people who will have to pay Purchase Tax on footwear for the first time. On their ability to buy depends the prosperity of the boot and shoe operatives in Kilmarnock. The prosperity of each is complementary. But in this D scheme for the boot and shoe industry the Government are destroying the ability to buy and the chances of employment of the operator. The question of shoes is even worse. Under the old Purchase Tax, unless a pair of shoes for a man cost more than £5 15s. there was no Purchase Tax, but now the amount is to be £2 13s. I guarantee that there is not a Member in this Committee whose shoes cost £2 13s. or less. Even for us, as well as people outside this will mean an additional burden.
  This 98 per cent. includes shoes of very high quality, medium qualities as well as the high quality are going to be hit very hard. The figures were quoted by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and are worth repeating. A pair of shoes retailing at £3 9s. will now have to bear an additional 2s. 6d. Purchase Tax. If things are bad at the moment they will be very much worse in future.
  We have heard the argument that the D scheme will be a grand thing for the export drive because it will wipe out the gap and spread over the whole field, making more strong the home basis for the export market. But, in the case of boots and shoes, the export is from the 98 per cent. The 2 per cent, of boots and shoes now subject to Purchase Tax, as the Douglas Committee Report states, gives freedom from tax on all but handmade shoes, but we are exporting factory made shoes, shoes from the 98 per cent. The application of Purchase Tax in the home market, therefore, will not assist in getting the necessary export of these shoes.

  1149
  The whole scheme means a driving down of standards and that manufacturers who hitherto have been competing in quality will now start competing in price. Standards will be driven down to catch what trade is available. The industry, I think, is by no means alarmist in the attitude it has taken up. We would be failing in our duty if we did not try to draw to the attention of the Chancellor the fact that what applies to textiles does not apply to boots and shoes, but that it is an entirely different argument. I think there is need for new thinking on the Government Front Bench. It is not good enough to say that such changes as are to be made have already been made. If anything calls for action it is the incidence of the D scheme on the boot and shoe industry.
  I can assure the Chancellor that a considerable amount of thought and consultation has gone into the consideration of the Amendments which we have put down. If he raises the D level as we have suggested he will help the industry considerably. Before he suggested the application of this scheme the industry was already suffering. To give the industry a chance, the consumers at home a chance and those who are anxious to continue the export drive a chance, he should accept the Amendments.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: I regret that the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. A. Allen) has left the Chamber because he echoed the words of a former Member for the constituency of Stafford, which I am proud to represent. No less a person than Richard Brinsley Sheridan said:
  "Let the whole world tread the trade of Stafford underfoot."
  I am certainly joining issue as a rival of hon. Members opposite in trying to get something out of the Chancellor and on this occasion I confess that I am a bitter critic.
  This issue, for hon. Members representing boot and shoe industry constituencies, is a grave one. I believe it is especially grave after the concession which was given last night to the textile industry. Hon. Members opposite may not appreciate it, but, apart from the help given to Rolls-Royce cars by a former Socialist Chancellor, the concessions given last night were the biggest since 1945. They were concessions of something like £14 million
  1150
  for an industry. Yet we find that the boot and shoe industry has to face new tax which may run up to £4 million or £5 million. After last night's magnificent concession we in the boot and shoe trade are all the keener to see some reciprocation regarding the industry in which we are interested.
  As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) pointed out, the arguments which apply to textiles obviously do not apply to boots and shoes. The main argument put forward by the President of the Board of Trade, who also, like Richard Brinsley Sheridan, was a Member for a part of Stafford at one time, was that the advantage of the D scheme was that it got rid of the blind spot in textiles, and there is a great deal of truth in that argument. Blind spots were created by the clash of Utility with Purchase Tax in certain textiles and manufacturers necessarily reorganised their production to go into either one group or the other, leaving a large range which, so to speak, formed a blind spot.
  But precisely by applying Purchase Tax and a D scheme to a trade where previously 98 per cent. of the trade was free either from Purchase Tax a wide blind spot is created such as the Chancellor is trying to avoid by creating the D scheme for textiles. The same arguments which apply to textiles cannot apply to boots and shoes. If the D scheme is good for textiles on which there was Purchase Tax automatically it must be a bad thing to support the D scheme for boots and shoes where there was none.
  It was not entirely foolish that for the last 10 years or so boots and shoes have been free from tax. It was not some strange whim of the party opposite, but was based on the reasonable thought that one of the chief ways of preserving the health of the nation was to see that they are well shod. The argument that the D line will help the boot and shoe industry will, in fact, do precisely the opposite.
  5.30 p.m.
  Some hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee have addressed themselves to the question of stocks. I think that we should address ourselves much more to the question of the type of production which the manufacturers will go in for now. They will try to pull their products below the D line, and that is

  1151
  the danger. As hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said, they will try to depress the standard of boots and shoes in this country. The Chancellor will not get the return he anticipates from this tax; we will lose some of the export markets we might have been gaining, and were on the point of gaining, not merely with hand-made shoes, but with the middle range which used to sell for £4 and £5 in the American market. This market can only be sustained by an active home market, and now, naturally, the production equipment will be used to produce shoes to beat the D line.
  There is another argument which I am not sufficiently knowledgable about the industry to advance, but which should be advanced by somebody, regarding the use of leather. If high standard shoes are produced, leather will be made available which may be used for the cheaper type of shoe. The manufacture of the more expensive shoe automatically produces, as a by-product, the type of shoe which may be sold at a cheaper price. The hide has an entity, and there is a technical argument about leather which can be worked out to prove that a ready sale of the moderately high priced shoe will afford leather for the cheaper type of shoe.
  There is, further, the question of leadership in the shoe industry throughout the world. If we lose that leadership, if we lose the lead in styling which we have until recently enjoyed, any chance of building up further exports will be lost. Therefore, I hope that when the Chancellor regards this scheme he will either make a concession, or, if he is unable to do that, he will, between now and Report stage, consider whether there should be a raising of the D level and whether the necessary machinery may be used, whether by Order in Council or otherwise, to see that the shoe trade is given a better deal.
  We see unemployment and threatened unemployment in our constituencies and a danger to the export trade. We see the sign of what I believe is unfairness between one industry and another. Another former Member of Parliament for Stafford was no less a person than Bradshaw, a revolutionary Member of the House of Commons. When he was
  1152
  asked to sign the death warrant of King Charles I, he merely scrawled across the paper the word, "Now." I ask the Chancellor to consider making concessions soon.
  Mr. Barnett Janner: I do not think the Committee will need more influencing as against the Chancellor. Indeed, I hope that by this time the Chancellor will be convinced himself that there is a strong case for the removal of the tax on boots and shoes: or at least that it is time to return to the position where 98 per cent. of the boots and shoes were untaxed and 2 per cent. bore a certain amount of taxation.
  A little while ago I was in New York and I saw some Leicester shoes advertised there. A very brave attempt was being made to build up a good export trade in those shoes. I understand that there was a large store which contained only those shoes and that they were there because they had something different in their style. There was a difference in the craftsmanship put into them which distinguished them from similar shoes generally sold in the States. It may not have been a very great difference, but there was a distinction between the craftsmanship put into those shoes and the craftsmanship put into other shoes which made those particular Leicester shoes saleable in the United States.
  I would ask the Chancellor to consider whether he is not making a big mistake if, instead of encouraging the production of the better kind of shoe—I do not mean the best type; I am talking about the better type within what was previously the Utility range—he imposes a tax which, of necessity, must make the firms producing that type of shoe attempt, so far as possible, to compete with those firms producing a cheaper type of shoe.
  Taking a long view of the matter, the Chancellor should realise that he is discouraging craftsmanship in this industry and that ultimately, if this type of taxation continues, he will eliminate the best type of craftsmanship. The result will be that the only type of boot and shoe produced will be that which does not bear a tax. That kind of product will not be marketable abroad and will not be as useful as it might be at home. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a considerable amount of unemployment

  1153
  in those centres where boots and shoes are produced. In Leicester itself, a city which has a variety of industrial interests, the figures are indicative of the present trend.
  I should like to quote some of the figures. For example, in the two industries hosiery and boots, in March, 1951, there were only 29 registered unemployed. But on 17th March, 1952, the answer to a Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Bowden) revealed that the number of unemployed was 1,351. A few weeks ago that figure was increased to 2,767. It is a significant increase. Operatives in many factories are today working only 75 per cent. of full time in order that the work available may be shared out.
  This is a very serious matter, and I suggest it is not in the interests of the Treasury that any further bar should be put in the way of production in those centres. The right hon. Gentleman will find on the contrary, as I have already said, that he will lose on the exports side and he will lose by having to support those put out of employment in consequence of an action of this sort.
  It has been correctly stated that the question of health is one which has to be considered when the boot and shoe industry is discussed. A good, reliable pair of boots or shoes affords a considerable amount of protection to the wearer. A poor type of boot or shoe can not only do injury to the feet, but also to the general health of the wearer because it is not reliable. In addition, it means that the person who buys the cheaper grade of shoe will find himself saddled with doubled expense. He will have to buy more shoes within a shorter period than would be the case if he had bought a pair of the higher quality. I hope that the question of health will be taken into consideration by the Chancellor and his advisers as an additional reason for conceding the requests made in the series of Amendments that we are considering.
  There is another matter. The Chancellor had not the opportunity before of hearing fully the case for those who produce and sell boots and shoes. It is obvious that the Douglas Committee had not and did not seek the opportunity of inquiring fully into what the trade and
  1154
  its operatives thought about the matter or hearing their representatives. The Douglas Committee made certain suggestions which have been hurriedly accepted before the trade and the operatives were given an opportunity of placing their views before either that Committee or the Treasury.
  Since the publication of their Report the Chancellor has had memoranda placed before him and has heard verbal arguments which have given him an idea of the circumstances in this industry, and I think he would now agree that the case for the industry has been made out. In the existing circumstances there are a number of districts in this country which, if this tax is imposed on the levels at present suggested, will begin to experience largely increased unemployment, apart from the present serious unemployment, and the cost of living will be further increased to the users of these commodities. He will not gain any benefit in tax and the exports from this trade, which is even now not a very large one, will suffer. This is a trade which should be encouraged by the Chancellor rather than discouraged in the interests of the consumer, the producers and the Treasury. In those circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will concede the points that are requested in the various Amendments.
  Mr. Douglas Marshall: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary will have been impressed by the strong and reasonable arguments of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), which were put forward at the beginning of the debate, as well as by those of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee who have supported the principle that my right hon. and gallant Friend put before them. I have been impressed and delighted by the arguments advanced by several hon. Members opposite who have supported the principle that it is objectionable to tax craftsmanship and quality. 'That is an argument with which I shall deal briefly before I sit down.
  The only method we can adopt to overcome our economic and financial difficulties is the expansion of our export trade. Therefore, any view that there should be a temporary collection of taxes on certain commodities to help the Budget is not a

  1155
  principle which we consider right, because, ultimately, it will hurt our main objective and is, indeed, hurtful to our trade generally and to the maintenance of the standard of life we want to see in this country. I trust that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary will approach this matter in the same sense as when they decided to lower the percentage level of taxation instead of raising the level of the D scheme as a principle. By that method our exports can get a greater crack of the whip. That is what the Chancellor said in support of what he did, and I want him to apply the same principle to these Amendments.
  5.45 p.m.
  The boot and shoe industry is building up an extremely good export trade both to the Empire and to hard currency countries. The one thing which the Chancellor should not wish to do is to raise the global figure of taxation on that industry above the actual taxation at the present moment which would hurt the export trade. I was a little alarmed just now when the Chancellor, in answer to a question put from the opposite benches, pointed out that boots and shoes which are exported do not carry tax. All Members in the Committee are fully aware of that, but they are equally aware that unless the trade is supported by the actual home consumption of the industry, then our export trade cannot compete in the world markets. I am applying myself to that argument only, and in order to take up as little time of the Committee as possible. I will content myself by saying that I sincerely trust that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary will approach this matter reasonably and give us some hope about the future export trade of this industry.
  Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer is impressed by the very cogent arguments which have been addressed to him from all sides of the Committee. What I shall be interested to see is how far the cogency of the arguments put forward from the benches behind him will be matched by action when it comes to a Division. I was particularly interested in the new technique of Government back benchers produced by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for
  1156
  Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse). Apparently he learned a lesson from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton). He committed himself to a bold Motion and then did not follow it up, exposing himself to some ridicule.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-East was not running that risk. He confined his strong words to a speech in the Committee, but when it comes to putting something on paper all he does is put down a very inadequate proposal when compared with the argument put forward.
  Captain Waterhouse: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has noticed the new Clause which I have put down on the Order Paper, to which my right hon. Friend referred yesterday, and on which he has based the concession which he has already given.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: I am dealing with the three Amendments which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman put down and to which he has just spoken. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman brings a big rod to the Committee which is worthy of a really big fish, but, when he comes to use it, he is merely dealing with tiddlers. That may be because he is fishing in troubled waters, as he perfectly well realises.
  The trouble which has been concerning hon. Gentlemen supporting the Government, and some on this side of the Committee as well, and which has been voiced in more than one speech, is that they are really not satisfied that the Government have properly considered the strong arguments which exist in this case. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred to the Douglas Committee, and said quite rightly that it was primarily a textile committee. Shoes only come into this Purchase Tax question because two per cent. of them have been subject to Purchase Tax.
  That is a very small, almost minute, element in the Purchase Tax problem, and the Government cannot really attempt to cloak themselves with the Douglas Report and then say that all they have done is to adopt that Committee's conclusions. They must meet the strength of the arguments that have been addressed to them from all sides of the Committee.

  1157
  and they must, if they turn down these arguments, give specific reasons why they are turning them down.
  The two objections to this tax are against the weight of the tax and also against the distribution of the tax. To take the weight of the tax first, my figures are different from those which have been quoted by the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East. My figures show that, so far as we can calculate it, the tax paid under the old scheme was rather more than the figure which the right hon. Gentleman gave, and, correspondingly, what will be obtained by the new tax is also rather more than the figure he gave, but the relationship is approximately the same, and that relationship is something in the region of an increase of between 800 and 1,000 per cent.
  That is an enormous proportionate increase to impose on this industry at this time, and on an industry in which the tax collected is only a comparatively small amount in relation to the Treasury's general taxation position. Therefore, these arguments result in the conclusion that a comparatively small concession by the Treasury would mean a substantial advantage to the industry with which we are dealing.
  Secondly, on the distribution of the tax, previously, of course, it was only on about 2 per cent. of the industry, whereas now it is proposed to distribute it over a large proportion of the remaining 98 per cent. What are the consequences of these two proposals—an additional weight of tax and this new distribution of the tax? I will deal shortly with the consequences of these changes.
  First, there is unemployment and loss of production, with everything which it means. It is most unfortunate—and this is a matter of general argument, and not applicable only to the boot and shoe industry—that the Government should be seeking to increase the taxation on the whole of the industry, and should be distributing it in such a way that a large part of that industry which never paid tax before will have to pay it now, and that that should happen at the very time when serious unemployment is beginning to develop in the industry. It is, in fact, a course which is the very opposite of the course which any responsible Government with the welfare of the industry
  1158
  at heart would pursue in present circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner), referred to the drop in productivity, as did some other hon. Members. My figures for Leicester show that the drop from the production figures of last year is something in the region of 18 per cent., and that is a very serious matter when the industry is centred in comparatively few localities. But what is important, of course, is not the figure of unemployment in the industry, but the fall in productivity, coupled with the concealed unemployment which is actually taking place.
  I am dealing with the fact that this unemployment is often concealed, and does not show itself in the unemployment figures, largely for the reason that the activities of the industry consist, in any factory, of a number of separate operations, all of them highly skilled, all requiring to preserve, as something of the utmost value to that particular factory, the sequence of manufacture. That means the sequence of skill, and, therefore, of the team of skilled workers in that factory.
  Therefore, rather than discharge anyone, which action might result in the disruption of the production of that factory, the manufacturer will, if he possibly can, hold on to his workers to the very last moment. We have tested this on the productivity figures which I have given, and also on the guaranteed week. The industry is working the guaranteed week, but, although the workers are receiving the wages for the guaranteed week, they are not working up to that level, and this fact is shown in the accumulation of stocks.
  The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), who is no longer in his place, challenged my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), on the fact that stocks are being accumulated in retailers' premises. I have been informed by one of the largest retailer organisations in the country that they now have an accumulation of stock one-third more than they should carry, and would normally carry, and one-third more than is economically prudent for them to carry. Not only have they done that in the last

  1159
  few weeks, when there has been an accumulating increase, but they have given instructions to the manufacturers who supply them telling them to reduce their orders by one-third. This is a very serious position.
  Mr. D. Marshall: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman any information as to how stocks compare with pre-war stocks?
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Yes, I gather that there are much more than pre-war stocks; that is my information.
  In addition to that, at the moment we have the further fact that leather is selling at an extremely low price, and the position will be still worse if leather makes a recovery and the price goes up, which will add again to the difficulties of the industry. Further, we have the general effect of the Government's economic policy, which is affecting the cost of living, and directly affecting this industry, because in this industry wages are on a sliding scale based on the cost of living. It is because we are reducing the food subsidies, which means an increase in wages, that further difficulties are being created for the industry itself.
  6.0 p.m
  Now I come to the points on the quality markets which have been developed so fully by so many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) rightly emphasised that the important point to realise in dealing with quality production and the export market is that it was the top Utility range, which previously was free from tax, that was the quality production which was sold in the United States and Canadian markets.
  It is vital to appreciate that. It is not the 2 per cent. top luxury goods which were bearing tax before which supplied the bulk of our returns from Canadian and American markets. It was the top Utility grades and the Chancellor is, for the first time, now proposing to put a tax on those very grades which provided us with dollars from the export markets.
  But the general result of this policy is even more serious than losing what is perhaps a temporary advantage in the dollar market. It really is a blow at quality production generally, as was so fully explained from the benches opposite. What happens is that manufacturers inevitably
  1160
  try to secure a home market as a basis for their export markets. In attempting to secure a home market they continually tend to press down the cost of the boot or shoe below the D level. What is apt to go on under a tax of this kind is that the manufacturer, continually pressing down below the taxation level, is chased by the Treasury trying to tax him, as well they may.
  That is exactly what has happened in the French market, with very bad results. Time was when French design was the model of quality and was followed everywhere. That is no longer so, and I understand that it is due to a system of taxation in that country which bears the same kind of fault as is inherent in the type of taxation which the Chancellor proposes to introduce here.
  Once that happens one cannot recover quality production. One cannot switch men on and off from highly skilled quality production of this kind. It is a skilled job in which a high standard of workmanship is required. One cannot tell a man one year to produce goods of a certain quality and then have him produce goods of a higher quality the following year. The same quality and standard of production must be maintained and the whole working team must adhere to that standard.
  In our boot and shoe trade we have in different factories the appropriate quality and standard of production being pursued. This tax interferes with and scrambles that pattern in the industry which has been worked out over the years and which produces the quality articles now made in this country. Therefore, there are very serious considerations affecting the whole future welfare of the industry involved in the introduction of this scheme which exacts a bigger tax from the industry as a whole and spreads a tax over a large part of the industry that never bore it before.
  I hope the Financial Secretary will consider seriously these strong arguments addressed to him from all sides of the Committee, based on quality production for the export trade and upon the cost of living, and founded upon the strong suspicion that really inadequate consideration has been given to the position and to the future of this industry. I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give the Committee some strong reassurances about this industry.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) began by saying that this has been an impressive debate, the sort of debate one would associate with this rather impressive industry. As the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. A. Allen) said, I had the pleasure a short time ago of receiving representatives of both sides of this industry and, as the hon. Gentleman I think appreciates, they put their views with the moderation, skill and courtesy which one would expect of so ancient an industry.
  The position of the goods covered by this Amendment is in some degree, of course, unusual, by reason, in particular, of the fact which was mentioned by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), in moving the Amendment. It is the fact that at the conclusion of the Utility scheme 98 per cent. of the output of this industry was free from tax. That, of course, is a feature of the matter which very properly has to he borne in mind.
  But there is another facet to the picture. It is that while the leather boot and shoe industry have reached the stage to which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East, referred, at the same time the rubber footwear industry—which manufacture, for example, the agricultural labourer's Wellington boots or Plimsolls—had no Utility scheme at all and bore the full rate of tax even on the cheapest of their products. That is not a state of affairs that, in particular from the point of view that has been urged throughout these debates from the benches opposite, could be described as wholly satisfactory.
  One has one form of footwear with virtual exemption from tax, even on quite expensive products, and another form, serving ordinary necessities just as well. with no tax exemption at all. That, from the point of view put in these debates by hon. Members opposite and put in this debate by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—the effect on the poorer section of the community—was obviously not a satisfactory position.
  It was no doubt satisfactory from the point of view of the leather boot and shoe industry, but I think it is essential that we should get the matter a little
  1162
  into proportion. The right hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East, referred once or twice to imposing tax where it had never been borne, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) suggested that it is a matter of deliberate policy that the greater part of this leather boot and shoe industry should be left out of taxation.
  That is not a wholly accurate impression. The state of affairs in which 98 per cent. of its products was clear of tax a few months ago was not the state of affairs that existed throughout the duration of the tax by any manner of means. It was the result of a steady widening of specifications that took place throughout a large part of the Utility scheme, but perhaps most conspicuously in this industry. In 1948, when right hon. and hon. Members opposite were responsible, the total output of this industry exempt from tax was only 62 per cent. It was in the years since 1948 that the change took place that resulted largely in exempting leather boots and shoes.
  It is wrong to assume that there was a deliberate policy carried out over the years of all but complete exemption. On the contrary, the state of affairs at which we have now arrived was arrived at largely accidentally, due to the extreme difficulties administratively of laying down precise specifications under the old Utility scheme.
  As has been pointed out by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East, the result of the changes that have been made is to leave substantially the same the total tax burden on the footwear industry as a whole —leather and rubber together—but to transfer a good deal of the burden from rubber—which gets an exemption below the medium point and the concession which the D scheme involves above it—while putting leather into the same position, with the lower half exempt but with the D scheme operating in the upper half.
  But, from the point of view of the consumer, the position is that the total tax burden on footwear remains, in substance, the same. The difference is that instead of having one category of footwear in which even quite expensive makes bear no tax, while in the other category even the cheapest types bear tax, we now have a system under which

  1163
  the consumer who decides to buy in the cheaper half of the range can buy, free of tax, either in leather or rubber. That is the effect of the change as it was before my right hon. Friend announced his general concession, about which I shall say a word in a moment.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not denying that the Government are making a switch in tax gains from the more expensive to the least expensive footwear?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It depends whether the right hon. Gentleman confines his gains to the leather industry or looks over the industry as a whole. If one looks over the industry as a whole, over half of the total types of rubber boots or shoes—every one of which bore tax prior to this change—is to be exempt. Looking at the question from the point of view of the consumer, we are making available in the bottom half of the scale more types of tax-free footwear than there were before. That is a very serious consideration from the point of view of the consumer.
  Captain Waterhouse: Surely, in bringing rubber footwear into juxtaposition with what he calls the boot and shoe trade the hon. Gentleman is doing a quite artificial thing? It is as if he were comparing the herring fishing industry with dairy farming because they both produce food. There is no connection between the rubber boot industry and the leather boot industry.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I had hoped that I had made it clear that I was dealing with the question not from the point of view of the industry but of the consumer—to which aspect of the matter several hon. Members have referred. I think my right hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the comparison is relevant from that point of view. Just as in the analogy which he used dairy farming and fishing both provide food, so in this case both are articles which people wear on their feet.
  Mr. Paget: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of rubber boots he is releasing from taxation is imported and what proportion is home-produced?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have not the import figures with me. It may well be that they can be obtained in the course of this debate and, if so, they will be given to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I would prefer not to speculate, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree with me about that. From the consumer point of view, the question whether the goods be imported or home-produced is not really in issue. What is in issue is the relationship to the cost of living, to which a number of hon. Members have devoted their arguments
  Mr. M. Follick (Loughborough): Although it is not an issue from the consumer point of view, it is certainly an issue from the unemployment point of view.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Gentleman had followed me he would have appreciated that I have been dealing with the consumer argument which some of his hon. Friends have raised. I did undertake—and I will now do so—to come to the particular aspect of the matter which affects the leather boot and shoe industry as a whole.
  The first factor which I would ask the Committee to bear in mind—because it affects the whole industry—is the substantial concession which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced last night—the reduction in the rate of Purchase Tax from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent. upon that part of the output of the industry which bears tax. As was pointed out by the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East, that is a very appreciable factor. All the arguments that have been used in relation to the effect of this tax on the industry have stressed the effect of increased price. To some extent that effect must be mitigated by the reduction in the tax and to that extent, over the whole of the output of this industry, the point urged by a number of hon. Members has been met.
  My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East, in his very authoritative and interesting speech, dealt not only with the general aspect but with certain particular and specific questions, to which I should now like to refer. He referred to the position of safety shoes. As he said, most protective

  1165
  boots are cleared in one way or another. Miners' and quarrymen's protective boots are exempt by statute in any case; but the question of safety shoes is a rather special and more difficult one. Representations have already been submitted to us on this particular point and, in view of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is prepared to look further into this matter to see whether a satisfactory solution can be arrived at. The Chancellor authorises me to say that he feels that that specific point is one—in the light both of what has been said this afternoon and the representations he has received—should be looked into further.
  My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East, also referred to another and somewhat wider matter of specific importance, namely, the question of the particular D level for men's slippers. A number of hon. Members have pointed out that as the Schedule now stands there is a substantial disparity between the respective charges with regard to men's slippers and women's slippers. I do not want to get involved in a feminist or anti-feminist riot on the subject, but that point is a material one and my right hon. Friend has been looking into the matter.
  The disparity arises from the fact that women's slippers are not given a separate D figure in the Schedule as it stands at present, for the reason that it is rather difficult, in the case of certain women's slippers, to distinguish them from women's shoes. What has been done in the Schedule is to give them three separate D figures, in the same category as different kinds of women's shoes. Slippers and shoes have been amalgamated for that purpose. But the position of men's slippers is a serious one and the D figure of 15s. given in the Schedule is undoubtedly low.
  On reconsideration my right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that it would be right, when we come to the Report stage, to table an Amendment which would raise the D level for men's slippers from 15s. to 25s. That would meet the charge of disparity between men's and women's shoes to a very considerable extent and—which is perhaps much more important—it would provide a more adequate figure.
  Mr. John Rankin: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could clear up one point in relation to men's slippers. There is a form of slipper known as a house boot, which is largely worn by men. Can we take it that such footwear will be included in the concession which the hon. Gentleman has just announced?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not know whether, in using that expression, the hon. Gentleman is referring to the article which is described in the Schedule by the rather less eloquent expression "bootee."
  Mr. Rankin: No. I understand that the bootee applies solely to incipient man and not to the completed article.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I must contradict the hon. Gentleman on that. I am advised that the bootee is worn not only by those of tender years but by mature persons, including even, I understand, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. On that point I correct the hon. Gentleman. I am not clear as to the precise definition of the article to which he has referred, and I do not know into which category it falls, but I will look the matter up and will communicate with him.
  I now turn to the other item to which my right hon. and gallant Friend referred, which is perhaps the largest in scale of the specific matters he raised. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been looking into the position in the Schedule of the articles which appear for men in item A 19 and for women in item B 22—that is, under the heading "boots and bootees." A good deal of criticism was levied, particularly in respect of men's footwear, at the low D given for various lined footwear, which I understand—and I convey this information to the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin)—are properly described as bootees, a most objectionable term but one which, I gather, one is compelled to use, even in legislation, if one wishes precisely to describe the article concerned.
  In looking at this matter my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that the D for what we generically refer to as bootees was too low—in fact for all the articles in the bootees and boot category other than boots. [Laughter.] I appreciate that that is language worthy of the statute, but it is none the less a precise definition. Sometimes the language of

  1167
  statutes has to be ponderous in order to be precise, and I am afraid that I found it necessary on this occasion to fall into the same way. If. we remove discrimination in respect of the scale and give the same D for bootees and similar articles as for boots—that is to say, £3; and this is a very substantial matter indeed—we feel that we meet the point raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend and others as to the position of this lined footwear. Whether they are fleece-lined, wool, cotton or fur-lined, we get rid of all the detail in item 19 and 22 of the Schedule and give the same D. The full £3 D for boots is applied to all those articles.
  That should substantially help to deal with the problem of these articles, in which case as I say, on consideration my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that the D was placed a little low. I should state, in order that we shall not have any interference with trade because of any delay, that it is intended to bring these changes into effect tomorrow, Wednesday, 14th May. My right hon. Friend hopes, and the Government hope, that these changes will succeed in clearing up what it is quite reasonable to regard as certain anomalies in this complicated scheme, without prejudice to its main structure.
  It is our object, in introducing this scheme, to make it as fair, reasonable and efficient as possible. It would be foolish to dispute the fact that where, for the reasons I gave in opening my speech, an industry has enjoyed virtual tax exemption for a year or two, it finds it perhaps difficult and uncomfortable to readjust to a system under which some burden of tax is imposed upon it. It would be foolish to dispute that, but I am sure the Committee will want to apply this scheme fairly, not only as between items inside an industry but also as between industry and industry.
  We feel that, having been able, first of all to make my right hon. Friend's major concession on the rates of tax, and, secondly, to make the adjustments of D which I have just announced, we shall be able to meet the real anxieties and the real apprehensions which I appreciate were expressed most sincerely by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We feel that this ancient, vigorous industry, with its admirable export trade,
  1168
  will be able to face its difficulties with the knowledge that, however much all of us may dislike taxation, the industry is having substantially fair taxation imposed upon it—and imposed with an understanding of its difficulties.
  Mr. Jay: Could the Financial Secretary tell us the cost of the concession which he has just announced?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am afraid it is not possible to give that figure to the right hon. Gentleman. As he will appreciate, some complex calculations inside three specific categories are involved. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question later, I hope to be able to give him the information.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): Is not the Committee ready to come to a decision yet?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. John Paton: I do not want to detain the Committee long, but I am sure hon. Members on this side of the Committee, as well as hon. Members opposite who are similarly interested in this most important footwear industry, will agree that we are not wasting a single moment of the valuable time of the Committee in pursuing this matter.
  I think nobody who heard the speech of the Financial Secretary and has any definite interest, either in his constituency or elsewhere, in the footwear industry, could protest that he is in the least gratified by the pleas which the Financial Secretary made to the Committee. It must have been obvious, even to the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), who has been so anxious to find cause for praising both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary in their handling of this question of Purchase Tax, that the Financial Secretary has not the remotest understanding of the industry, not even now.
  It is, in fact, no concession worthy of the name to lift the D level on bootees. The footwear industry is not built on bootees. The footwear industry is built on the solid leather footwear trade of ordinary boots and shoes worn by the average person throughout the country,

  1169
  and it in no respect begins to meet the claim which we have been pressing, together with Members opposite, to throw us now this miserable little bone of lifting the D level on bootees.
  Nor is it of very great value to the trade—and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appreciate this point—to give, amongst the other trades concerned and the other products concerned, the concession which was announced yesterday because, after all, what we are dealing with here is not the variation, the redistribution, of taxes already imposed on the products of an industry; what we are dealing with is the imposition of a new tax over a large range of products which have been free of tax for at least several years. Whether this dates from 1948 or from the day before yesterday, we are imposing a new tax, and it does not help the selling side of the industry to say that instead of sticking on an extra 6s. to a pair of ladies' shoes, we intend now to stick on only 4s. 6d. That will not solve the problem of selling shoes and boots in difficult circumstances and conditions.
  6.30 p.m.
  I was much interested in the Financial Secretary's argument—that extraordinary confusion of mind, that abysmal confusion of mind about this industry—in which he jumbled everything together—leather footwear and rubber footwear, plimsolls and all the rest of it. We on this side of the Committee, and hon. Members on the other side who have been pressing him on this matter, are not worrying about Plimsolls. We are worrying about craft-produced footwear, and to put those two together in the same category shows that he has not appreciated in the least the real problem we have been trying to present to him in a reasonable way. He says it is an advantage to spread the taxation from the rubber industry, on which it has been in the past, on now to large sections of footwear that hitherto have been out of tax. He thinks that is an advantage.
  What he is actually doing, of course, is giving a premium to the producer to buy shoddy rubber instead of good solid leather. That is what he is doing. He is giving a positive incentive to people to lower the quality of footwear they are accustomed to wear, and that is a very serious thing indeed, and I hope
  1170
  that he will get out of his head the idea that there is something right and proper in transferring a burden from rubber footwear to leather footwear. If he wants to reduce the burden on rubber, he will find it is a simple proposition: give rubber an advantage that it has not had before. That is the way to do it. Do not let him try to balance that by putting an extra burden on boots and shoes.
  He made the point also that the 98 per cent. freedom from tax which has hitherto characterised the leather footwear industry was very largely an accidental circumstance. I want to dispute that. I think he said that it had arisen more or less accidentally by continual enlargement of the specification. I want to suggest to him that it arose in an entirely different and far more logical way. He pointed out that it dates from 1948.
  The reason why that large exemption applying to footwear since 1948 came about was that it was the result of a deliberate policy pursued by the Labour Government of progressively reducing, as far as possible, the burden of Purchase Tax upon the necessaries of life and transferring it to luxuries; and it was in the course of working out that policy that we arrived eventually at a state of affairs in which 98 per cent. of all the leather footwear in the country was relieved of Purchase Tax.
  Mr. William Shepherd: For the sake of accuracy, let us get this reason correct. The reason why there was an increase in the sphere of boots and shoes coming within the Utility specification arose out of the fact that leather rose very rapidly in price, and so, very properly, the trade applied for increases in the Utility ceiling. In the meantime the price of leather went down. Clearly, that brought as a consequence a larger proportion of the trade into the Utility specification.
  Mr. Paton: The price of leather is only one element in the production costs of boots and shoes. While it is true that at the moment the price of leather has fallen, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Beverley (Mr. Odey) pointed out, other costs are going up—and other costs of the shoe industry will go up automatically because they are tied to

  1171
  the cost of living figure on a sliding scale arrangement which immediately operates, and will continue to operate while the Chancellor pursues a policy of making the cost of living high.
  I was making the point that it is quite absurd to try to claim that these concessions already made will have any marked effect upon the leather footwear industry. Let the Financial Secretary for a little while detach himself from this objective of perfectionism that has beset his mind—from thinking, "Now that we are introducing the D scheme, here is an opportunity to iron out all sorts of anomalies that beset the other scheme, for it would be nice to make it apply now in all directions over all the products that we consume. It would be nice to do all those things." Let him get away from that sort of Treasury tidiness, and let him look at the situation in which the leather footwear industry is today. Let him try to take a detached look.
  Here is an industry now facing a fierce buyers' resistance; suffering from a recession. Some of my constituents are now knowing again what they knew so well before the war—unemployment: registered unemployment of men and women. Here is an industry that is in a recession much bigger than the statistics reveal, because there is a very large amount of concealed unemployment in the leather footwear industry.
  Here we have this industry, hitherto almost wholly untaxed, in that situation of a trade slump, and the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary turn round and say, "Here is a point where we ought to put a tax upon the industry for the first time for several years in order to make the products produced by it still more difficult to sell." If they were looking at it from a detached point of view, they would say at once, "This is economic madness." Yet that is precisely what they are doing at this moment.
  I beg both the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary to give the Committee the assurance that they will look once more at this problem of the leather footwear industry—boots and shoes; particularly the quality ranges; for in Norwich it means that 70 per cent. of the whole of its production will now be taxed for the first time in years. I ask them to look at the special circumstances of this
  1172
  industry, and to think again about the need for raising the D line on these particular products from the absurdly low level it is now placed at to something much nearer the realistic figures we have included in our Amendments.
  Mr. Paget: The Parliamentary Secretary gave us a most unsatisfactory answer. He said that the lowering of the amount of footwear subject to Purchase Tax to 2 per cent. had been largely accidental. It was nothing of the sort. It was as a result of policy and negotiation. The policy of the late Government was not to tax necessities—not to tax goods which were not luxuries. In point of fact, as we pointed out during those years, £5 a pair of shoes on a mileage basis came as cheap or cheaper than 50s. a pair of shoes. That argument was a perfectly logical argument and appealed to the Government, and, therefore, these quality ranges were included within Utility.
  What is largely accidental is the imposition of the new tax which is being put on today. That is what is accidental. The Government had no idea of what they were doing when they put on this tax. I do not believe for one moment that it was their deliberate intention to put a tax on a British manufactured leather shoe in order to take a tax off in a considerable degree an imported rubber shoe—and a rubber shoe which, in any event, carried a very large dollar content. To take taxation off that dollar-content imported article to put it on to a British manufacture—of course, it was not their intention. They had not the foggiest idea what they were doing, and I can tell them why.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would like to know that there is a specific reference to this in the Douglas Committee Report on which nearly all our recommendations are based, so that we did have some "foggy idea" because we were following that Report.
  Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me in what part of their Report the Douglas Committee recommended that taxation should be taken off rubber boots and shoes in order to be put on leather boots and shoes not previously taxed? I venture to say to the Chancellor that there is no word to that effect in the Douglas Report?
  Mr. Butler: They did not put it like that, but they did draw our attention to the necessity of including certain articles under this scheme. One article was table oil-cloth and another was rubber Wellington boots, and that is why we have included those articles in this scheme.
  Mr. Paget: A great disadvantage of the Douglas Committee was that they knew nothing whatever about the boot and shoe trade; they were in hosiery a committee. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but I can tell them that there is the greatest bitterness not only on the trade union side, but on the manufacturers' side in the boot and shoe industry at the way they were treated by the Douglas Committee. There was nobody on that Committee who knew the first thing about this industry. The manufacturers were invited to supply written evidence, but they were not asked to come and give verbal evidence on the points they submitted, and, as I say, there is great bitterness in the trade with regard to that.
  Captain Waterhouse: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that the Douglas Committee was set up by his own Government, who laid down the terms of reference.
  Mr. Paget: In all conscience, we are not dealing with little party bickerings; we are dealing with a great injury that is being caused to an important industry. If hon. Members opposite like to make the point that it was our fault for not putting a boot and shoe man on the Douglas Committee, I will take it. I do not care in the least about that, but what I want to see is something done for an industry which is rapidly going into slump, because let there be no doubt about it that is what is happening.
  The first phase is the stocking up by the retailers. That has happened in a very marked degree. The retailers in the boot and shoe industry are carrying stocks such as they have never carried before. Then comes the stocking up of the wholesalers and the manufacturers, and then part-time in the factories. We have had that, and now come the sackings. That is the phase which has already started, and with all the cushioning effect exhausted, unemployment in the industry is going to mount with great rapidity. It is at the stage when it has started downhill that the industry is being given this
  1174
  additional push by a brand new tax imposed on it.
  I say again that the Government had not the faintest idea what they were doing when they imposed this tax, and I would refer the Chancellor to an answer he gave me to a Question as recently as 29th April, on which date, I suggest, he still did not know what he was doing. I asked the Chancellor:
  "(1) how much Purchase Tax the present D scheme is estimated to produce from leather footwear products in the United Kingdom; (2) how much Purchase Tax was derived from leather footwear products in the United Kingdom in the financial year 1951–52."
  I think it must have been very clear to the Chancellor that I wanted comparable figures. His answer was:
  "It was stated in reply to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), that the yield of Purchase Tax from footwear of all kinds is expected to amount to about £3½ million under the D scheme, as compared with about £3.3 million on the previous basis of taxation. I am afraid that the material on which these estimates were based does not permit a detailed analysis to be made as between the different kinds of footwear." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 69.]
  6.45 p.m.
  If when the Chancellor gave me the figure of £3.3 million he knew and appreciated that that sum was in respect of over 90 per cent. rubber goods and less than 10 per cent. leather goods, about which I was asking, I submit that it was a most dishonest answer. But I know very well that the Chancellor is not a dishonest man and does not give dishonest answers. I venture to say that when he gave that answer he had not appreciated that the effect of this D scheme was to transfer taxation from rubber to leather which was going into slump. It is not as a result of a deliberate policy that this industry is suffering this injury. It is not a calculated policy, and it is not a policy to transfer labour somewhere else, because it is the old people that the industry will be losing. It is just an injury which this industry is to suffer owing to the incompetence and ignorance of the Government who have by accident placed a heavy tax on it at the worst possible time.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In the few remarks I wish to make I shall, I hope, set an example of brevity which will be appreciated on both sides of the Committee. But before we pass to a Division, I want to say how very disappointed we

  1175
  are on this side, as, I think, are some right hon. and hon. Members opposite, at the limited extent to which the Government have been able to meet the demands made upon them.
  There has been a most remarkable unanimity of view on both sides of the Committee, and we certainly expected more substantial concessions than have been made. In fact, we felt certain that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have put their names to Motions and gone so far as to speak on them without having previously had a good guarantee from the Chancellor that their point of view was to be met.
  Captain Waterhouse: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is not the slightest truth in that. If he says that, then he does not know how the Chancellor works.
  Mr. Greenwood: The point I was making was that we felt confident that the Government were going to make more generous concessions because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had proceeded so far. I have no doubt that he shares the disappointment we feel that the Chancellor has not been more forthcoming.
  There are two points which I want to put to the Financial Secretary. The first relates to slippers, a large proportion of
  which come from the Rossendale Valley. The Government have come some way towards meeting us on that point. We had put down a D level of £1 10s. in respect of men's slippers, and the Financial Secretary now proposes 25s. That is slightly less than the D level for women's slippers. The second point I wish to make refers to fur boots and bootees. It was not clear from what the Financial Secretary said whether the concession he is making of bringing fur bootees within the D level of £3 also applies to fur boots as well. I should like to know whether he can give us an assurance on that, because hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have said that fur boots are very far from being a luxury in some parts of the country and are a necessity.
  Although we realise that there have been some concessions, in view of the fact that there is no concession on the ordinary D level of boots and shoes, we feel it necessary to press some of these Amendments to a Division.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 75, line 23, leave out "3 0 0," and insert "4 10 0."—[Mr. Anthony Greenwood.]
  Question put, "That '3 0 0' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 260.

  Division No. 124.]

  AYES

  [6.52 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Deedes, W. F.

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

  Braine, B. R.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E McA.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Donner, P. W.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P G T

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bullard, D. G.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Drewe, C.

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

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

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

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

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

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

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W E

  Baldwin, A E.

  Carson, Hon. E.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Fell, A.

  Barber, A. P. L.

  Channon, H

  Finlay, Graeme

  Barlow, Sir John

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Baxter, A. B.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Cole. Norman

  Fort, R.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

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

  Cooper-Key, E M

  Gage, C. H

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T D. (Pollok)

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon. H F C

  Garner-Evans, E H

  Birch, Nigel

  Crouch, R. F.

  Glyn, Sir Ralph

  Bishop, F. P.

  Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

  Godber, J. B.

  Black, C. W.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col A

  Bossom, A. C.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Gough, C. F H.

  Bowen, E. R.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Gower, H. R.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  De la Bère, R.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Grimond, J.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Harden, J. R. E

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

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

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Mackeson, Brig, H. R.

  Scott, R. Donald

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Shepherd, William

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Maclean, Fitzroy

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

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Hay, John

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

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

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Heath, Edward

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Speir, R. M.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Maude, Angus

  Stevens, G. P.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Maudling, R.

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

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

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

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Mellor, Sir John

  Storey, S.

  Holt, A. F.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Hope, Lord John

  Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Hopkinson, Henry

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Summers, G. S.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Teeling, W.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

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

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

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

  Noble, Cmdr, A. H. P.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

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

  Hurd, A. R.

  Odey, G. W.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

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

  Tilney, John

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

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Turton, R. H.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

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

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Osborne, C.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Jenkins, R. C, D. (Dulwich)

  Partridge, E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

  Jennings, R.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Wade, D. W.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone.)

  Kaberry, D.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Wellwood, W.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Rayner, Brig. R

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Redmayne, E.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Lindsay, Martin

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Linstead, H. N.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Wills, G.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  York, C.

  Longden, Gilbert (Hurts, S.W.)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Low, A. R. W.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Mr. Studholme and Mr. Oakshott

  Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)

  Russell, R. S.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Burton, Miss F. E

  Adams, Richard

  Benson, G.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Albu, A. H.

  Beswick, F.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Carmichael, J.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Blackburn, F.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Champion, A. J.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R

  Boardman, H.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Clunie, J.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Coldrick, W.

  Baird, J.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Collick, P. H.

  Balfour, A.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Cook, T. F.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Cove, W. G.

  Bartley, P.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Crosland, C. A. R

  Bence, C. R.

  Burke, W. A.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  1178

  1179

  Daines, P.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Rhodes, H.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Richards, R

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Keenan, W.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Deer, G.

  Kenyon, C.

  Ross, William

  Delargy, H. J.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Royle, C.

  Dodds, N. N.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Kinley, J.

  Shackleton, E. A A.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

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

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Short, E. W.

  Edwards, Rt Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Simmons, C. J (Brierley Hill)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Slater, J.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Logan, D. G.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Ewart, R.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Field, W. J

  McGovern, J.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank

  Fienburgh, W.

  Mclnnes, J.

  Sparks, J. A

  Finch, H. J.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Steele, T.

  Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)

  McLeavy, F.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Follick, M.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R R

  Foot, M. M.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mainwaring, W. H

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

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

  Swingler, S. T.

  Gibson, C. W

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Glanville, James

  Manuel, A. C.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon Robert (Morpeth)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Messer, F.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Grey, C. F.

  Mitchison, G. R

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Monslow, W.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Moody, A S.

  Timmons, J.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Morley, R.

  Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

  Tomney, F.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Mort, D. L.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Hamilton, W W.

  Moyle, A.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Hardy, E. A.

  Murray, J. D.

  Viant, S. P.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J

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

  Hastings, S

  O'Brien, T.

  Weitzman, D.

  Hayman, F H.

  Oldfield, W. H

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Rowley Regis)

  Orbach, M.

  West, D. G.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Oswald, T.

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Padley, W. E.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E Flint)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Paget, R. T.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Holman, P.

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

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Wigg, George

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pannell, Charles

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Hoy, J. H.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Hubbard, T. F

  Parker, J.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Paton, J.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pearson, A

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pearl, T. F.

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

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Porter, G.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Ivine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Proctor, W. T

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Janner, B.

  Rankin, John

  Yates, V. F.

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

  Reeves, J.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Hannan.

  Amendment proposed: In page 75, line 29, leave out "2 0 0," and insert "3 5 0."—[Mr. Anthony Greenwood.]
  Question put, "That '2 0 0' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 260.

  Division No. 125.

  AYES

  [7.3 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

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

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J

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

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Amery, Julian (Preston. N)

  Ashton, H (Chelmsford)

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J M

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hare, Hon, J. H.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.

  Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Barber, A. P. L.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Barlow, Sir John

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Baxter, A.B.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Mott-Radclyfle, C.E

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Harvie-Watt. Sir George

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Hay, John

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

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

  Heath, Edward

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Oakshott, H. D

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Lutton)

  Odey, G. W.

  Birch, Nigel

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

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

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon, W. D.

  Black, C. W.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Orr, Capt. L.P.S.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

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

  Bowen, E. R.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Osborne, C.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Partridge, E.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Holt, A. F.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O

  Braine, B. R.

  Hope, Lord John

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Hopkinson, Henry

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Peyton, J. W. W

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Horobin, I. M.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M

  Bullard, D. G.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hen. Florence

  Pilkington, Capt. R A

  Bulllock, Capt. M.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L.

  Butcher, H. W.

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

  Profumo, J. D.

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

  Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Carson, Hon. E.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Redmayne, E.

  Channon, H.

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

  Remnant, Hon. P

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Cole, Norman

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Jenkins, R.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr, Albert

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kaberry, D.

  Russell, R. S.

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

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Crouch, R. F.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Scott, R, Donald

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  De la Bère, R.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Shepherd, William

  Deedes, W. F

  Legh, P. R. (Patersfield)

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

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Lindsay, Martin

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

  Linstead, H. N

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Donner, P. W.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Snadden, W. McN

  Drayson, G. B.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herbs, S.W.)

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L

  Low, A. R. W.

  Speir, R. M.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

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

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Fell, A.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Finlay, Graeme

  McAdden, S. J.

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

  Fisher, Nigel

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight

  Stoddart-Scott, Col M.

  Fletcher-Crooke, C.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Storey, S.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Mckie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Gage, C. H.

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Summers, G. S.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T.D. (Pollock)

  MacLeod, Ian (Enfield, W.)

  Sutcliffe, H

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Garner-Evans, E. H

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon, Harold (Bromley)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

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

  Teeling, W.

  Glyn, Sir Ralph

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

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

  Godber, J. B.

  Manningham-Bulter, Sir R. E.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Gough, C. F. H

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

  Gower, H. R.

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col, C. N.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Tilney, John

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Maude, Angus

  Turner, H. F. L

  Grimond, J.

  Maudling, R.

  Turton, R. H.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

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

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Medlicott, Brig. F

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Harden, J.R.E.

  Mellor, Sir John

  Vaughan-Morgan, J K

  Vosper, D. F.

  1182

  1183

  Wade, D. W.

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Wills, G.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Trure)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Wellwood, W.

  Wood, Hon R.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  York, C.

  Ward, Hon. George(Worcester)

  Williams, Rt. Hon Charles (Torquay)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Williams, Gerald (Tenbridge)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon C.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Mr. Studholme and Mr. Drewe.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Fienburgh, W

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Adams, Richard

  Finch, H. J.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Albu, A. H.

  fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Mainwaring, W. H

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Follick, M

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Allen, Schofield (Crewe)

  Foot, M. M.

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

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Forman, J. C.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon H A.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Glanville, James

  Messer, F.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Baird, J.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Balfour, A.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield

  Monslow, W.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Moody, A. S.

  Bartley, P.

  Grey, C. F.

  Morley, R.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

  Bence, C. R.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Mort, D. L.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Moyle, A.

  Benson, G.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. (Oldham, W.)

  Murray, J. D.

  Beswick, F.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

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

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

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

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Hamilton, W. W

  O'Brien, T.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Orbach, M.

  Boardman, H.

  Hastings, S.

  Oswald, T.

  Bowden, H. W

  Hayman, F. H.

  Padely, W. E.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Healy, Denis (Leads, S.E.)

  Paget, R. T

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)

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

  Brockway, A. F.

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

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pannell, Charles

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pargriter, G. A.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Parker, J.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Holman, P.

  Paton, J.

  Burke, W. A.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Pearson, A.

  Burton, Miss F. E

  Houghton, Douglas

  Peart, T F.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Hoy, J. H.

  Porter, G.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Carmichael, J.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Price, Phillips, (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Champion, A. J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Rankin, John

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Reeves, J.

  Clunie, J.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Coldrick, W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Rhodes, H.

  Collick, P. H.

  Janner, B.

  Richards, R.

  Cook, T. F.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Cove, W. G.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jenkins, R.H. (Stechford)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Danies, P.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Ross, William

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Royle, C.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Schofield, S, (Barnsley)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Keenan, W.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Kenyon, C.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Short, E. W.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Deer, G.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Kinley, J.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Slater, J.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (cannock)

  Smith, Ellis, (Stoke, S.)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

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

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

  Lewis, Arthur

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Edwards, Rt. Hon Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Sparks, J. A

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Logan, D. G.

  Steele, T.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  McGovern, J.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon J.

  Ewart, R.

  McInnes, J.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon George (vauxhall)

  Fernyhough, E

  Mckay, John (Wallsend)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Field, W. J.

  McLeavy, F.

  1184

  1185

  Swingler, S. T.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Sylvester, G. O.

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

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Weitzman, D.

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

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  West, D. G.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  White, Mrs. Eirone (E. Flint)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

  Thurtle, Ernest

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Timmons, J.

  Whitley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Yates, V. F.

  Tomney F.

  Wigg, George

  Turner-Samuels, N.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Willey Octavius (Cleveland)

  Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Hannan.

  Viant, S. P.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Arthur Colegate): Before I call the next Amendment, I would remind the Committee that under the arrangements which have been agreed to we are dealing with Group 4, which relates to men's and women's hats. The Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn)—in page 75, column 1, to leave out line 39; and in line 40, column 1, to leave out "sou'westers or industrial hats"—are out of order. They are outside the Ways and Means Resolution. Therefore, I shall call the Amendment, in page 75, line 42, in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), and that will be discussed with the Amendments in page 78, line 7, column 1, to leave out "sou'westers or industrial hats," and in line 9, at the end, to insert:

  s.

  d.

  (b) of wool felt

  13

  0 per article

  (c) of fur felt

  22

  6 per article

  (d) of any other description

  13

  0 per article

  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. F. Blackburn: I beg to move, in page 75, line 42, at the end, to insert:

  s.

  d.

  (b) of wool felt

  13

  0 per article

  (c) of fur felt

  22

  6 per article

  (d) of any other description

  13

  0 per article

  I hope that hon. Members, after several hours of debating boots and shoes, will be able to transfer their attention to the other end of the human frame. I believe this Amendment is in the interests of the trade, of workers and management, and I believe it is also in the interest of the Chancellor, because if he grants these concessions I think we shall have increased sales and increased production, which will considerably ease the position in regard to the export market.
  I should have liked my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) to move this Amendment.
  He has been closely associated with all the inquiries which have gone forward and has a great constituency interest, for he represents possibly the most important hat centre in the country. At any rate, within his constituency is the largest hat factory in Europe. Unfortunately, he is unavoidably absent today, and I hope that I shall be able to put before the Committee all the points which he would have made.
  I am certain that the Chancellor is not surprised at seeing this Amendment on the Order Paper, because I believe representations have already been made. I hope that the Chancellor is looking forward with keen anticipation to the pleasure which he will have in a very short time of casting aside the mantle of Molotov and granting us this concession.
  I think all Members of the Committee will agree that this is a very skilled craft which at the present time, unfortunately, is undergoing very serious difficulties. I am certain that we should all regret it if the great skill which has been acquired in this country should be lost because of difficulties which are being experienced at the moment. The industry is at the present time losing workers because of the under-employment in the industry. However, I shall return to that point later.
  I should, first of all, like to deal with group 22 as it stands in the Schedule. This group does not make any great concession to the hat industry as a whole. In fact, there cannot be very many men who wear knitted headwear. I do not know whether the Prime Minister wears one with his siren suit, but there cannot be many men who wear them. I think a mistake has been made by the Government in the second line, which says:
  "… either articles suitable only for infants' wear…"
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), the President of the Board of Trade said that all children's wear was exempt from Purchase Tax. Therefore, there does not seem any great point in including those words in that group. It would have been helpful is sou'westers, industrial hats and, in fact, all industrial clothing were totally exempt from tax.
  Now let me turn to the Amendment which has been put down in order to cover other types of hats. The purpose of this Amendment is quite different from the other Amendments we have been considering. This is an attempt to bring within the D scheme articles which were outside the old Utility scheme. Hon. Members will appreciate that the reason that hats of wool felt and fur felt were outside the Utility range was that it was most difficult to put down exact specifications. Since there are no specifications within the D scheme, it is possible to bring these hats within it.
  We are grateful to the Chancellor for the concession which has been made, in the reduction from 33⅓ to 25 per cent., but I think he will agree that it does not go very far where the whole range of hats is bearing Purchase Tax. It is not a new principle to bring within the D scheme articles which were outside the Utility range. Woven scarves, which were outside the Utility scheme, have been brought into it. I seem to remember that the Chancellor, speaking yesterday about the religious favour of the Conservative Party, included surplices. Therefore, it is not a new principle that we should ask for these articles to be brought within the D scheme.
  As has been mentioned already, I think by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, this matter has been envisaged by the Douglas Committee. In paragraph 49, the Douglas Report says.:
  "Any reorganisation of the Purchase Taxi Utility arrangements should be such as to enable the removal as far as possible of anomalies of the kind we have mentioned, particularly those which result in the subjection to Purchase Tax of articles largely bought by the lower income groups."
  Therefore it is not a new principle that we are asking for in the Amendment.
  There is a serious contraction in the industry, compared with the position before the war. Let me quote the com-
  1188
  parative figures. What I have said is clearly indicated by those figures. If we express the sales of 1951 as a percentage of the sales of 1937, the figure in the case of men's fur hats is 70 per cent. and of wool hats 61 per cent.; in the case of women's hats, fur hats 56 per cent. and wool hats 58 per cent.
  If we turn to the employment position. we find that the number of workpeopie today is just over 50 per cent. of what it was pre-war. Of course, the improvements and the rapidly changing methods of production would account for the major drop. A much more serious aspect is demonstrated by the continual short-time working during recent months. In the eight months which ended in February of this year, the labour force in the industry fell by 9 per cent., a very serious drop.
  The industry has been suffering from the burden of Purchase Tax on all wool felt and fur felt hats, and on straw hats —I hope that the Chancellor will realise that the fur felt hat is quite distinct from the fur hat—the industry has been suffering also from an import duty of 10 per cent. on all imported fur while its competitors for exports have not had to suffer that burden. It is possible that if we gave the industry the help for which we are asking this afternoon, it would be able to do even better than it has done up to the present time.
  Of the production of the industry, 50 per cent. has been exported during the past few years. The Chancellor has stressed the importance of a sound, healthy home trade in order to keep a healthy export trade. That point was strongly stressed in the Douglas Report. Since I am trying to bring these articles within the Douglas D scheme, I hope I shall be excused for making further quotations from the Douglas Report. In paragraph 59 (a), the report says:
  "For any article, there is a minimum quantity which it is economic to produce. Unless a manufacturer can be reasonably assured of selling that quantity he will not make it at all. If it is unreasonable to expect that the whole of that minimum quantity can be exported, and the Purchase Tax is likely to prevent the sale at home of the unexported balance, then the goods will not be produced.
  Again, in paragraph 59 (e) the report says:
  "The home market serves as a permanent showplace in which the reputation of the

  1189
  goods is maintained; our export trade in many items of men's wear has been built up on the Englishman's reputation of being the best-dressed man in the world."
  That has been true from the days of woad.
  Since approximately 50 per cent. of the products of the industry is exported, there is great danger that consumer resistance in this country might endanger competitive capabilities in overseas markets. I would stress the point that there has already been consumer resistance in this country, judging by the number of people who have joined the "no-hat brigade" and a number of women who, instead of wearing hats, have been wearing scarves. It would be possible for the Chancellor to give some slight help to the industry in this way.
  The D scheme covers us from the feet to the neck. Why not the head? I hope there is no indication here of the relative importance the Government place upon the different parts of the body. I am certain that this is not true of the Chancellor, because before he sank to his very low position of sitting at the receipt of custom he held very high office as President of the Board of Education. I am sure that he has a true appreciation of the importance of the head and of the necessity for protecting it. I am sorry that the Minister of Education is not here. She might have supported me in this argument.
  Neither the classification in the Amendment nor the figures have been obtained as the result of a social survey, but after consultation with the industry and with wholesalers and retailers. I understand that the classification "wool felt and "fur felt" is quite clear to the trade and presents no difficulty. We have produced figures which are fair to the trade, to the consumer and, I sincerely believe, to the Chancellor. I hope he will appreciate that we have tried to incorporate within the Amendment figures reasonably fair to all those parties. If he accedes to our request, he will not be losing much of the revenue that he expects in this direction, while the help given to the trade at the present time might bring to an end its serious recession and the consumer resistance which is going on, and might lead to increased production and increased revenue for the Chancellor.
  7.30 p.m.
  Coupled with this Amendment on men's hats is a later Amendment—in page 78, line 9, at the end, to insert:

  s.

  d.

  (b) of wool felt

  13

  0 per article

  (c) of fur felt

  22

  6 per article

  (d) of any other description

  13

  0 per article

  No one moving an Amendment dealing with men's hats dare leave out women's hats. It would be quite wrong to ask women to endure unequal pay and then to tax their hats more heavily than men's. I am sure the Committee will appreciate that we had some doubts when it came to the classification of women's hats. We thought we should have to tread very warily. We were assured by the trade that if we classified them under the same headings as we have classified men's hats, that classification would meet the need, because whatever the final result may be the base is the same: either fur felt, wool felt or straw. Therefore, we included the same classification and the same median as for men's hats.
  I hope the Chancellor will be able to make this concession to this trade in order to keep alive this very important craft, so that he will thus be able to give help to an industry which is in some difficulty at the present time, and which unfortunately is losing its trained craftsmen at a rather alarming rate because of short-time working.
  Mr. George Chetwynd: I am very pleased to be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who moved this Amendment in so clear and persuasive a way. I do this with no direct constituency interest in the hat trade, but because, for the greater part of my earlier life, I was brought up in an area whose two main industries were coal mining and hat manufacturing. Whereas today the coal mining industry is in a flourishing condition, the hat making industry is suffering a decline, and it is in the hope that the Committee will today be able to do something to arrest that decline that I wish to support this Amendment.
  We wish merely to give the felt hat trade certain concessions which have hitherto been enjoyed by other parts of the hat industry with regard to woven cloth hats and wool knitted hats. Our

  1191
  main purpose is to bring the felt hat industry within the scope of the D scheme. I think that that ought to be done, first of all, on the broad principle that there is no justification for having one section of this industry outside the scheme.
  It is unfair and unreasonable to single out felt hats for exclusion, while seeming to discriminate in favour of woven or knitted hats. As a point of interest, I would remark that, whereas the velvet riding cap comes within the scheme, the trilby is outside, so that the rich fox-hunting squire can get his velvet riding cap at a concession rate, whereas the poor man's trilby is outside the scheme, and he is to that extent penalised. That does not seem to me a just reason for leaving felt hats out of this scheme.
  Another factor is that the industry needs an adequate home market to enable it to carry on the excellent work it has done so far with its exports. I believe that 50 per cent. of all men's felt hats produced are for export. That is a considerable advantage to the nation, and we ought to do everything in our power to enable that to be increased. One of the first essentials is to see that there is a wider basis for the home market, and I believe that can be done if the concession for which we ask is given today.
  My hon. Friend made it quite clear that, while under the old Utility scheme there were technical reasons why felt hats could not be included, with the change over to the D scheme, with a price level for taxation purposes, those difficulties have disappeared, and there seems to be no technical ground now why felt hats or fur felt hats should not come within the D scheme.
  It is quite clear to everyone in the industry that there has been a serious decline in the sale of felt hats over the past 10 or 12 years. When we compare the position today with that of pre-war we find that, whereas pre-war men's felt hats were selling at the rate of 600,000 to 700,000 dozen a year, today, even when we push it up to the maximum, we are selling only 450,000 dozen. On top of the sales resistance caused through high prices, there is the growing craze of many people to do without hats, and we ought to take every step we can to halt that by bringing down the price of hats as much as possible.
  1192
  One of the main things about which I am worried personally is the fact that the skilled craftsmen are leaving this industry at a rapid rate. This is one of our oldest craft industries, yet today the factories in North Warwickshire, with which I am concerned, are working an average of four days a week. As a result of that there has been a serious decline in employment in this industry. There is some unemployment today, but more significant than that is the short-time working.
  I understand that in 1937 there were 13,000 men employed in the industry, but today there is only half that—a cut of 50 per cent. That has been intensified in the last two years, so that today one of our skilled crafts is endangered because the price of hats is beyond the range of many people's pockets. We ask that this industry should be given the same advantages and privileges of the D scheme that are now given to other hats.
  One argument which I think should appeal to the right hon. Gentleman is that the felt hatting industry makes a big contribution in war time, and at other times, in equipping our troops, particularly those serving in tropical and semitropical areas where the felt hat is most important. The North Warwickshire industry has all along made a big contribution in supplying this military equipment, and if they are to continue helping the national need it is essential for the industry to be in a flourishing condition, which I think is a very good reason why the right hon. Gentleman should give favourable consideration to this Amendment.
  There is a genuine need for Purchase Tax relief in this field over and above the welcome reduction to 25 per cent. which has already been announced. It is unfair that this section of the industry should be left out of the D scheme. We could argue about the D level which we have selected, but it would satisfy me and, I think, those in the industry, if it could be brought at this stage within the D scheme. I hope that the Government will see fit to accept the Amendment.
  Mrs. Eirene White: I am afraid that the Financial Secretary has not noticed, because of the pressure of his Parliamentary duties, that there has been a most delightful summer day outside, but I hope that the weather will

  1193
  have the effect of making him and his right hon. Friend feel that they can meet us in this matter.
  I would hardly suggest that any hon. or right hon. Member on the Treasury Bench had a roving eye, but I hope that each and every one of them can feel that quickening interest and slight stirring of the pulse which the sight of a pretty hat should induce. We have, after all, been dealing with these matters of dress in a rather prosaic way. Yesterday we disposed of Julia's silks in a very matter of fact manner, and I think it would be a most charming and delightful gesture for the Treasury on this occasion to make a concession in this matter on hats.
  I am sure that the Financial Secretary himself feels the appropriateness of such a gesture. I am sure he realises what effect on the affairs of men a pretty hat may have, and I am sure that in his youth at least he read that charming verse:
  "I intended an Ode,
  And it turned to a Sonnet.
  It began à la mode
  I intended an Ode;
  But Rose crossed the road
  In her latest new bonnet …"
  I think he will remember what went after that:
  "Rose kissed me today.
  Will she kiss me tomorrow?"
  I am not I hope appealing in vain in the cause of feminine charm and beauty when I suggest it really would be desirable that this particular article of wear should be included in the scheme and that we should obtain such a concession as may seem fit.
  We have made a suggestion on the Order Paper and it would be regrettable if this concession were not made. My hon. Friends have pointed out that under the conditions of the Utility scheme it was not possible, because we could not define the quality of a hat. It has to be seen. The taste with which the trimmings are arranged, rather than the value of the trimmings may make all the difference, but, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, whatever the nature of the hat, the basic material can be defined and it is measurable in terms of price. Straw hats are included in the third item of the proposed Amendment with the felt hats already mentioned. Therefore, I think that the most sensible and proper
  1194
  thing for us to do is to include hats of all kinds.
  I have spoken with feeling, which I am sure would be shared by any woman, on the subject of ladies' hats. On the other hand, they would not wish to be ungenerous. A well dressed man should have a becoming hat. I like to see my male companions also well attired, and I hope that the concession will be extended to them. The arguments seem to me to be unimpeachable on grounds of justice and economics, and we have also to bear in mind the difficult state of exports. which are declining.
  Therefore, the considerations which apply to the other articles of dress which we have been discussing during these last few days apply equally to hats, and it would be Most regrettable if the Chancellor failed to take the opportunity of putting right something which the introduction of the D scheme makes possible for the first time. For all these reasons I hope we shall have a generous and forthcoming answer from the Financial Secretary.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady, in the course of a very agreeable speech, indicated that the sight of a pretty hat could have an effect upon the pulses, but if stern, fiscal matters were to be effected by such considerations, I should find it necessary to assure the hon. Lady that it is quite possible for that phenomenon to occur even when the cause of it is not wearing a hat.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) appreciated that he was doing an unsual thing. Whereas most of the previous Amendments put down by his hon. Friends have sought to take out of the D scheme certain industries or to limit the effect of the D scheme upon their products, he takes exactly the opposite course and comes forward to demand that the industry with which he is concerned should be given the benefits of the D scheme.
  Mr. Blackburn: I should like to say that the industry with which I am most concerned is the textile industry, but there is a difference about felt and wool hats in that they have a 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax levy over the whole range. There are no Utility hats at all, and that

  1195
  is the reason why we are trying to bring them within this scheme. If the Government scrap the whole of the D scheme and the whole of the Purchase Tax, I should be very well content indeed.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman's intentions are perfectly clear, but the industry with which he is concerned in this Amendment is one which he wants brought within the structure of the D scheme. That is rather an agreeable contrast to certain other hon. Members who have hardly a good word to say for the D scheme. It is rather nice to find that this particular dog can be given a good name when convenient.
  We have here followed the line of the old Utility demarcation. We have not, as the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) suggested, discriminated in any major sense against any one kind of headgear. What we have done is that, in bringing the Utility scheme to an end, we have taken that part of what might be called the headgear industry and brought it within the ambit of its successor, namely, the D scheme. We have not, and I am afraid we cannot, bring within the beneficent ambit of the D scheme the part of the headgear industry which never was within the Utility scheme at all. The line of demarcation adopted—
  Mr. Blackburn rose—
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will give way in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman made a reasonable speech and I am sure he would like to listen to the answer.
  Mr. Blackburn: It is the word "cannot."
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, and if the hon. Member will allow me I will tell him why.
  The line of demarcation adopted with the Utility scheme remained the line of demarcation to the end of that scheme for the articles set out in paragraph 22 of the Schedule. If hon. Members look at that, they will see that they are articles of the category which makes them comparable with most of the other articles for which there were Utility lines. That, no doubt, was the reason why successive Governments kept these articles within the Utility scheme while not extending the
  1196
  Utility scheme to the type of headgear referred to in this Amendment.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Does the hon. Gentle. man put forward the point that a trilby felt hat is a luxury whereas a woollen knitted hat or a woven hat is essential, because if he looks into this he will find that the real reason why felt hats were not brought within the Utility range was not on that score at all, but because it was completely impossible on technical grounds to define for Schedule purposes under the Utility scheme where a line could be drawn about felt hats? As we got rid of the difficulties by the D scheme, it should be possible to remove an injustice.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not say a felt hat was a luxury. I carefully did not use that expression, because I dislike introducing an element of prejudice into these discussions by describing something as a luxury. It is my experience that what some people regard as luxuries others regard as necessities and vice versa. All that I was saying was that previous Administrations have confined the limits of Utility to these categories, and no doubt had thought that in so doing they were following the general principles of the Utility scheme.
  The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the merits of the D scheme should now be extended both to felt hats and others. I can say to the hon. Lady in this connection that I am also remembering the type of hat to which she referred, not generally constructed of felt but of more decorative substances—
  Mr. John Edwards (Brighouse and Spenborough): Exotic.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Very well, more exotic substances if the hon. Gentleman prefers it.
  Mr. Edwards: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is the trimmings on the felt that are the important consideration.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, and the trimmings are made of more exotic materials and are much more relevant to the line of argument which the hon. Lady adopted.
  Generally speaking, the proposal in the Bill is not to extend the D scheme

  1197
  generally beyond the Utility range. We have taken advantage of the opportunity given to bring within the D scheme certain articles such as Wellington boots, which were specifically referred to in the Douglas Report as anomalies which for some reason had not been included before. In general, my right hon. Friend is not undertaking in this Finance Bill a general review of the entire ambit of the Purchase Tax. Hon. Members who have been discussing this for the last two days will appreciate that it is a complex subject giving rise to a good deal of debate, and the general proposals in the Bill are confined to what was the old Utility range with certain marginal additions.
  Once one departs from that, it is possible to put forward, as the hon. Gentleman has done, admirable arguments for extending this further to certain subject matters with which he is concerned. No doubt other hon. Members could put forward similar arguments, but we must deal with this in a businesslike way. At the moment we are dealing with the old Utility sphere plus certain marginal anomalies. We cannot, this year at any rate, be led into further extensions by way of reforming the Purchase Tax generally. For that reason, admirably though the argument has been put and although I have much sympathy for this industry, I am afraid that we cannot accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Edwards: I do not think there is any necessity for me to repeat the arguments fully deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) or the extra arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mrs. White). We can agree as to the importance of hats. Many instances have been quoted but, as we were talking about this, it occurred to me that George Bernard Shaw said something about this subject in "Pygmalion." Eliza Dolittle, explaining the demise of one of her relatives, said with great emphasis:
  "Them as done her in would have done her in for a hatpin, let alone a hat."
  We can all be agreed as to the importance of hats, or "crowns" as they are called in the trade. What I find rather remarkable is the absence of the two hon. Gentlemen who sit for Stockport the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport, North (Wing Commander
  1198
  Hulbert) and the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Sir A. Gridley). I should have expected them to be in their places, because of all the areas of Britain where the hat industry is important, Stockport is pre-eminent.
  The point I want to argue is that the introduction of the D scheme creates an entirely new situation. On this side of the Committee we have been consistent in arguing for the removal of Purchase Tax from all forms of textiles. If we must have the D. scheme, if our pleas fall on deaf Conservative ears, then clearly, whether on grounds of expediency merely or on more substantial grounds of the real needs of the industry, we are entitled to say," Let us make the best of this situation, and, granted the D scheme, let us see if we cannot get from it some help for this industry."
  After all, Utility is dead and if we examine the corpse we shall find the finger-prints of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. We start from where we are. The simple question, which I am putting again to the Financial Secretary and to the Chancellor, is: can we help this industry by altering the incidence of Purchase Tax? As to the needs of the industry there has been no argument. The Financial Secretary did not even begin to question the needs of the industry. He did not imply in any way that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde had produced an exaggerated picture. The industry is in difficulties and the considered view of those who speak for it is that this change would help them.
  To this point the Financial Secretary has addressed no reply. On this point he is completely quiet. He takes his stand on the line that what was in the old Utility scheme was in it and we must not interfere with it although we have produced an entirely new scheme. So I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether what is proposed in this Amendment could not be a means of helping the industry concerned in the making of hats. I do not say that this Amendment is necessarily the last word. It may not be that this is precisely what is wanted. I am sure, however, that by and large it is what is wanted. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree to think about this between now and the Report stage, to see whether he cannot do something of this kind? The amount in-

  1199
  volved is not large and I am sure it would help an industry that is very hardly pressed.
  The reply of the Financial Secretary means that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to do this, although they are not contesting that it would help the industry. If the Chancellor will give us the assurance for which I have asked, we shall be happy and the industry will be relieved. If, however, we cannot have anything more than what has been said by the Financial Secretary, I shall have to advise my hon. Friends on this side to divide the Committee.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I may reply briefly to one point made by the hon. Gentleman? What I ventured to say to the Committee was right, I am sure, namely, that we cannot by stages extend the general ambit of the D scheme. However I should not like to leave him or the Committee with the feeling that we were not anxious, insofar as Purchase Tax is a material factor at all in this matter. to assist this industry.
  If the hon. Gentleman is right and Purchase Tax adjustment can help it, then indeed we have helped it, because the announcement which my right hon. Friend made as to the general reduction in the rate of Purchase Tax covers the hats dealt with in this Amendment, even though they are not within the general ambit of the D scheme. So insofar as the argument of the hon. Gentleman is that we can help this industry by adjustments of Purchase Tax, the reduction from 33⅓ to 25 per cent. of the general rate of tax is, on his own argument, a substantial contribution to its well-being.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Blackburn: I am sure that the industry and the workers within it will find the reply of the Financial Secretary most unsatisfactory. Where the Government had an opportunity to help an industry but turn it down, they ought to be condemned. After all, it is not a great amount of money which is involved, and the Chancellor could make this concession without ruining his Budget. As I said earlier, the possibility is that the right hon. Gentleman might get even more revenue by this means than he would under the present scheme.
  1200
  It is useless for the Financial Secretary to suggest that this category was outside the ambit of the old Utility scheme and that, therefore, it cannot be brought into the D scheme. The Government themselves have already brought within the D scheme certain items which were outside the old Utility scheme. Surely. when a change of this type is being made, one of the things that ought to be done is to tidy things up.
  The only reason why fur felt hats, wool felt and straw felt hats were not included in the Utility scheme, was the difficulty of specification. But for that difficulty, the argument which the Financial Secretary has put forward could not have been used. What sense is there in excluding from the D scheme range of goods hats alone, when everything else from the feet to the neck is covered by the D scheme?
  For a small amount of money it is possible to help the industry, an industry which, as I said before, has made a good contribution, according to its ability, to the export market. Fifty per cent. of its products are being exported. The Government should have shown greater consideration, and in any case, if the proposal was being turned down, a much more considered reply could have been given.
  Mr. Chetwynd: May I make this last-minute appeal to the Prime Minister, who is well noted, and rightly so, for his headgear, to have a word with his hon. and right hon. Friends to make sure that this ancient craft can continue with great skill to provide him with such adornments in the future? I am sorry to say that unless we get this intervention, the craft may die out and we shall be deprived of seeing that article of headgear in such a wonderful position.
  Mr. J. Edwards: May I ask the Prime Minister, since he is now gracing our assembly: Does he really think that it is right to tax hats to the extent which his right hon. Friend proposes? It is most unfortunate, and it strikes at all the traditions which the Prime Minister has established for so long.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 254: Noes, 282.

  Division No.126.]

  AYES

  [8.4 p.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Grenfell, Rt Hon D. R

  Oliver, G. H.

  Adams, Richard

  Grey, C. F.

  Orbach, M.

  Albu, A. H.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Oswald, T.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Padley, W. E

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Pannell, Charles

  Ayles, W. H.

  Hannan, W.

  Pargiter, G. A

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hardy, E. A.

  Parker, J.

  Baird, J.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Paton, J.

  Balfour, A.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)

  Peart, T. F

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

  Hastings, S.

  Porter, G.

  Bartley, P.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Price, Joseph T (Westhoughton)

  Belenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Bence, C. R.

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

  Pryde, D. J.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Benson, G.

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Rankin, John

  Beswick, F.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Reeves, J

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

  Holman, P.

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Reid, William (Camiachie)

  Blackburn, F.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Rhodes, H.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Richards, R

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A

  Boardman, H.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

  Hughes, Gledwyn (Anglesey)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Bowden, H. W.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Ross, William

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Irving, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Royle, C.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Brown, Rt. Hon, George (Belper)

  Janner, B.

  Shackleton, E.A.A.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

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

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Burke, W. A.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Short, E.W.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  shurmer, P.L.E

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Carmichael, J.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Simmons, C J. (Brierley Hill)

  Champion, A. J.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Slater, J.

  Chapman, W. D

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

  Clunie, J.

  Keenan, W.

  Sorensen, R.W.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Kenyon, C.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Coldrick, W.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

  Sparks, J.A.

  Collick, P. H.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Steele, T.

  Cove, W. G.

  Kinley, J.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Stokes, Rt. Hon R. R.

  Crosland, C. A. R

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon J.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Daines, P.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Swingler, S.T.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Sylvester, G.O.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Logan, D. G.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  MacColl, J. E

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Deer, G.

  McGhee, H. G

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Delargy, H. J

  McGovern, J.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Dodds, N. N.

  McInnes, J.

  Thomas, Iver Owen (Wrekin)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

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

  McLeavy, F.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Timmons, J.

  Edelman, M.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Tomney, F.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Mainwaring, W H.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Edwards, W. J (Stepney)

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

  Viant, S.P.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Watkins, T.E.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Manuel, A. C

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

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Marquand, Rt Hon H. A

  Weitzman, D.

  Ewart, R.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Fernyhough, E

  Messer, F.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Field, W. J.

  Mikardo, Ian

  West, D. G

  Fienburgh, W.

  Mitchison, G. R

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Finch, H. J.

  Monslow, W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Moody, A. S.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Follick, M.

  Morley, R.

  Whiteley, Rt Hon W.

  Foot, M. M.

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

  Wigg, George

  Forman, J. C.

  Mort, D. L.

  Wilkins, W.A.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Moyle, A.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Mulley, F. W

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Murray, J. D.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Glanville, James

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Noel-Baker, Rt Hon P

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, T.

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

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon Arthur (Wakefield)

  Oldfield, W.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)

  1202

  1203

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Wyatt, W.L.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Yates, V.F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

  NOES

  Aitkin, W.T.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  McAdden, S. J.

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

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Aiport, C.J.M.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Gage, C. H.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T D. (Pollok)

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W.J

  Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Arbuthnet, John

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

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

  Godber, J. B.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

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

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

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

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Baker, P.A.D.

  Gower. H. R.

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

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J.M.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Baldwin, A.E.

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Grimond, J.

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Barber, A. P. L

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Baxter, A.B.

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Maude, Angus

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Maudling, R.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

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

  Bell. Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

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

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Mellor, Sir John

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Hay, John

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Head, Rt. Hon. A.H.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Birch, Nigel

  Heath, Edward

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Black, C. W.

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Bowen, E. R.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J.A.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nugent, G.R.H.

  Braine, B. R.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Oakshott, H.D.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Odey, G.W.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hollis, M. C.

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

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.D.

  Bullard, D. G.

  Holt, A. F.

  Orr, Capt. L.P.S.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Hope, Lord John

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P

  Partridge, E.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O

  Butcher, H. W.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Perkins, W. R. D

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

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Carson, Hon. E.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Peyton, J W. W.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Pickthorn, K W M.

  Channon, H.

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

  Pilkington, Capt. R.A.

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

  Hulbert, Wing Comdr. N. J.

  Pitman, I.J.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Hutchinson, sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

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

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.L.

  Cole, Norman

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Profumo, J.D.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Raikes, H.V.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Redmayne, E.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jennings, R

  Remnant, Hon. P

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

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Renton, D.L.M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Crouch, R. F.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon, L.W.

  Robertson, Sir David

  Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

  Kaberry, D.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Cuthbert, W.N.

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Redgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  De la Bère, R.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Russell R.S.

  Deades, W. F.

  Law. Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Ryder, Capt. R.E.D.

  Digby, s. Wingfield

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E McA.

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

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Donner, P. W.

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Lindsay, Martin

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

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Linstead H. N.

  Scott, R. Donald

  Drayson, G. B.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Drewe, C.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Shepher, William

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

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col J. C.

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

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col, Sir Walter

  Duthie, W. S.

  Low, A. R. W.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Fell, A.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Smyth, Brig. J.G. (Norwood)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Snadden, W. Mcn.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

  Spearman, A.C.M.

  1204

  1205

  Speir, R.M

  Teeling, W.

  Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)

  Spence, H R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

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

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt Hon. C.

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Watkinson, H. A.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon Richard

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Stevens, G. P.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

  Wellwood, W.

  Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W)

  Tilney, John

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Turner, H. F. L

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Turton, R. H.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Storey, S.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Wills, G.

  Staurt, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Vaughan-Morgan, J K

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Wade, D. W.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Summer, G. S

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  York, C.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Mr. Vosper and

  Mr. Richard Thompson

  Mr.John Peyton: I beg to move, in page 75, to leave out lines 44 to 50, and to insert:

  £

  s.

  d.

  (a) articles which, apart from any stitchings, fastenings or trimmings are wholly knitted or made wholly of woven or knitted cloth, other than asbestos

  4

  3 per pair

  (2

  1½per article)

  (b) articles for dress (apparel) wear, which, apart from any stichings, fastenings or trimmings, are made wholly or partly of leather; unlined

  14

  0 per pair

  (7

  0 per article)

  (c) articles for dress (apparel) wear, which, apart from any stitchings, fastenings or trimmings, are made wholly or partly of leather: lined

  17

  0 per pair

  (8

  6 per article)

  (d) articles for dress (apparel) wear which are made of fur skin or woolled lambskin, with leather palms; or made wholly of leather, fully lined with fur skin or woolled lambskin

  1

  6

  0 per pair

  (13

  0 per article)

  (e) articles of any other description

  12

  0 per pair

  (6

  0 per article)

  I should like to add my welcome to the concessions that the Chancellor has already found it possible to make, particularly the one relating to fur-backed gloves, which is a valuable move forward and is appreciated and welcomed by the industry. I think I can say to the Chancellor that it is taken by the industry as an earnest of his good intentions towards them and his appreciation of the difficulties of their present position. I hope that the Chancellor will take the opportunity, as the industry most earnestly hopes he will, to allay the anxiety
  1206
  and distress which have been current on both sides of the Committee since the original proposals were made.
  This Amendment is founded on the most reliable information which the National Association of Glove Manufacturers could produce. The figures contained in it represent a conscientious effort to arrive at the median price within the principles of the D Scheme. They have two principal aims. The first is to raise the level of D. It may be argued that the Utility scheme was particularly generous towards the glove industry, but I would ask the Chancellor if he does not think that a bad reason for inflicting such sever punishment on the industry as it would receive under the proposals of the Bill. I suggest to him that it is no ground at all for doing so and for inflicting this sudden and very drastic change.
  Under the Utility scheme, 97 per cent. of fur-backed gloves were entirely free of tax, but now no fur-backed gloves will be free of tax. Whereas under the Utility scheme 90 per cent. of leather gloves were free, now only 5 per cent. will be free. In the case of fabric gloves 75 per cent. were free and only 24 per cent. will now be free. In the case of knitted gloves 75 per cent. were free and now none will he free of tax.
  This Amendment seeks to raise the level of D only to the median price. The second aim, which I believe to be of fundamental importance and strictly in accordance with the scheme set out in the Douglas Report—to which the Chancellor has rightly declared his adherence—is to distinguish adequately between various categories of gloves. Is it not clumsy to lump unlined leather gloves with lined leather gloves and fur-backed gloves and make no distinction at all between them? In the Schedules to this Bill a distinction is clearly made between

  1207
  coats, jackets, waterproofs, waistcoats, and the rest, lined and unlined. Where is the difference in the case of gloves? Cannot the Chancellor see his way to giving us this distinction in the case of gloves as well?
  8.15 p.m.
  May I put to the Chancellor some of the results which have already followed from the proposals embodied in the Bill? Orders to this industry in April, 1951, amounted to 600,000 dozen leather gloves. This year they are down to one-third of that figure, approximately 200,000 dozen. In the case of fur-backed gloves the position is far worse. Whereas last year the figure was 112,000 dozen, in April this year it was down to 2,800 dozen, one-fortieth of the orders against which the industry was cutting last year.
  A further factor touching these orders is that they are mostly for the lowest quality for many years. Production at the moment is largely for stock which, I know the Chancellor will appreciate, is undesirable and speculative. Already, a number of firms have been obliged to close down, and many more at the present moment are working short time.
  I should like to read a telegram which I received today from the President of the Northern Association of Glove Manufacturers, which reads:
  "Imperative that D level on fur gloves be raised. Lowering Purchase Tax no solution to present crisis in fur glove trade."
  Mr. Butler: Does my hon. Friend claim that a reduction from 100 per cent. to 25 per cent. is no contribution? If so, I think it must very much alter the value of the case which he is putting forward.
  Mr. Peyton: I am not claiming that it is no contribution, but I am saying, and saying very strongly, that it would be a very much more effective contribution if my right hon. Friend could raise the D level to a reasonable point. This particular telegram, which has been addressed to me from the North country—from somebody I have never met—continues:
  "Unless this is done, the complete closing down of this trade will result."
  I admitted at the beginning of my speech that the Chancellor's concession is a valuable one, and is appreciated by
  1208
  the industry, but I say, very sincerely and earnestly indeed, that it does not go far enough. I repeat the point that I made just now—that there can be little justification for putting fur-backed gloves on the same D basis as unlined leather gloves.
  At present, as the Chancellor is probably aware, this industry—the fur-backed glove industry—has virtually closed down, and it is for the Chancellor tonight to give some encouragement about its future. May I also say to my right hon. Friend that, since these proposals were first put forward, the industry has been capable of making only the most limited plans directed towards the production of solid and first-class articles. These proposals will have one effect, and that is to lower the standard of the products of the industry.
  I should also like to say a word about the effect of these proposals on employment. Already, there has been a substantial decrease in employment, and here I would mention the peculiar position of out-workers in this industry. So far as I am aware, no other industry has such a large proportion of people who are self employed and working in their own homes. When they have no work, they are not registered as unemployed by the Ministry of Labour, and are not entitled to draw unemployment benefit. I do suggest to the Chancellor that these people are not the ones who ought to bear the full brunt of the effect of these proposals.
  Another factor is the loss of skilled workers in an industry which depends enormously on hand work. I have met and have discussed this matter with both sides of the industry, and on both sides I find that there is complete agreement in expressing dismay at the prospect which now faces them. I beg the Chancellor most earnestly to reconsider this proposal. In my own constituency of Yeovil, and in other parts of the West Country, this old craft industry has been established for 400 years, and it would be so easy to deal it a blow from which recovery would be difficult, if not impossible. In this particular instance, so little is needed to give the industry a chance to breathe again and make its own way.
  I should like to go back to the Douglas Report, and, particularly, to the

  1209
  main principle of that Report, namely. the removal of blind spots and the substitution of a general rising level of taxation. That is the declared intention of the Douglas Report, but I would say to the Chancellor that I believe that, if these proposals are carried through. apart from eliminating a blind spot, they will be introducing something like total blindness, particularly in the fur-backed glove industry.
  I know how familiar the Chancellor must be by now with the Douglas Report, but may I draw his attention to paragraph 131 (c) on page 38, which says:
  "that the deductions be fixed in such a way that a given proportion of current purchases of goods covered by the scheme would be free of tax; this proportion should, as far as possible, be the same for all the classes of goods concerned and be not less than one-half in each case;"
  I suggest to the Chancellor that these intentions have been undermined by these proposals, and that they lead one to the inevitable conclusion that there has been a mistake.
  I want to ask the Chancellor if he is really satisfied that the evidence on which these proposals were based was anything like adequate for the purpose. Does he know that it is the belief of, and information in, the industry that these proposals were based on a social survey, which was, in its turn, based upon information collected in March, April and September? Is he aware that, during these months, hardly any gloves, in the sense of being products of this industry, are purchased at all? I understand, also, that rubber gloves were taken into account, and I would say that there is absolutely no connection between rubber gloves or the protective type of gloves and the gloves which are produced in this industry, which are entirely used as clothing.
  These Amendments do not seek any special concession for the glove industry. We are not asking the Chancellor to make an exception of part of the glove industry; we are simply asking him fairly to implement the recommendations of the Douglas Report, and, if he does that, it is my very strong conviction that he must, quite apart from raising the D level, distinguish between these very different categories of lined leather gloves, unlined leather gloves and fur-backed gloves.
  1210
  If he does so, I know very well that he will be giving new heart to a very ancient industry, and, what is more, to an industry which has had a very good record for doing all, and more than all, that was expected of it. I therefore ask the Chancellor very earnestly to go as far as he possibly can towards accepting this Amendment.
  Brigadier Christopher Peto: I do not think that anybody in the Committee could possibly feel other than moved by the speech to which we have just listened from my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). It was a genuine speech, delivered right from the heart, by somebody who understands the industry and who put the case of the industry in Yeovil.
  I wish to refer to the Amendments which have been put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, because I have been in close consultation with him on the subject of the glove industry, and, like him, I believe that a genuine mistake has been made. I think that it has probably arisen from the method adopted, which was intended to be fair, by seeking advice from a social survey rather than obtaining the advice and the recommendations of the people concerned in the industry itself.
  8.30 p.m.
  One of the complaints made was that there had been no consultation with the trade. I, too, should like to tell the Chancellor that the trade, so far as I know it in North Devon—it is mainly the fabric trade—is grateful for the concession he has already made. Speaking for the fabric side of the industry, we feel that we are not so hard hit as those who are concerned with fur-backed and leather gloves. At the same time, there has been a great recession. It is not a recession such as has continued in the textile industry for 12 months but a definite recession since March this year when the D levels were originally made known.
  In the fabric glove industry there was practically no difference in the employment figures for either in-workers or out-workers in March, 1951, and March, 1952. They were almost identical, but in March and April, 1952, the number of those employed as out-workers fell by 50 per cent. Over 2,000 were taken off the books in one month. The change was not so noticeable in the case of in-

  1211
  workers, who, of course, are entirely indispensable. They are the skilled craftsmen and cutters. They have been kept on not because there is work for them to do, but because they are indispensable.
  I would impress upon the Committee that this is an industry which consists in the main of small firms which very largely are situated in agricultural areas where other employment is not easy for skilled men to obtain. These skilled men have been retained by the expenditure of capital. In some firms that capital has already run out, and some firms have closed down. The grave danger is that unless the Chancellor can see his way to raise the D level to somewhere near the level proposed in the Amendments on the Order Paper, other firms will have to close down too within a matter of weeks.
  Once these indispensable in-workers have gone the industry will suffer a blow from which it can never recover. That, of course, is not the whole story. I could enlarge very much on this subject, but I will be very brief. It is not the first time that this industry has nearly collapsed. As a matter of interest I was looking back in HANSARD and I found that in 1933 a Question was put down by the then hon. Member for Barnstaple, who was my father. Though the matter then was one of tariffs, if I could make the speeches which were made at that time they would be extraordinarily applicable today.
  In answer to a speech made by my father on 1st March, 1933, the then Secretary, Overseas Trade Department, said:
  "… we have fully in mind the desire of the fabric glove industry to know what future is in front of them." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1933; Vol. 275, c. 514.]
  He realised, as we all do, that there is nothing worse than uncertainty in industry, and I would urge the Chancellor to realise that the industry is now again in great danger and that it must know what the future holds for it.
  Mr. Blackburn: I should like to support this Amendment from this side of the Committee. As has already been said, the Amendment was movingly moved by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I am afraid that possibly the only person he has not moved will
  1212
  prove to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If this Amendment had not been put down, I should have put one down on somewhat similar lines, though perhaps I should have been a little more generous to the trade. My figures would have been slightly higher. However, when I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper, I thought it best not to strain the Chancellor too much, which I think is a clear indication to the Chancellor how reasonable we are on this side of the Committee and how he can accept our Amendments without suspicion.
  As has been stated, the figures in the D scheme were obtained as a result of a social survey. I believe the Chancellor will agree that the social survey went wrong when it came to gloves. I am sure he will admit frankly that there is no connection at all between the figures in the D scheme and the actual pricing of gloves.
  Hon. Members representing West Country constituencies may be surprised at my speaking on this subject. There are people who think the only manufacturing areas are in the West. But I would remind them that there is a very important glove manufacturing area in the part of the country from which I come. It is a very important industry in my constituency and I have a great interest in the fate of this Amendment. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Yeovil that I am not quite as hopeful about the outcome of this Amendment as I was before I moved the previous Amendment relating to hats.
  The social survey obviously has gone wrong. The figures do not match with the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on 13th March, when he said:
  "Put very briefly, it amounts to this: that about half the goods which are manufactured in any particular category will fall into the Purchase Tax free groups …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1580.]
  That is quite untrue in the case of gloves.
  To stress that point I should like to quote figures, to some of which the hon. Member for Yeovil has referred already. Under the old Utility scheme 90 per cent. of leather gloves were free of tax. Under the suggested D scheme, 5 per cent. are free.
  Ninety-seven per cent. of fur-backed gloves were free of tax under the old

  1213
  Utility scheme; under the D scheme none are free. Under the old scheme 75 per cent. of fabric gloves were free of tax, compared with 34 per cent. under the D scheme, and under the old scheme 100 per cent. of knitted gloves were free of tax compared with none under the D scheme. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that those figures make nonsense of the idea that the statement which the President of the Board of Trade made has been followed with regard to gloves.
  The most serious position in the trade at present is that with regard to fur-backed gloves. The trade will be very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the Ways and Means Resolution which has been moved today and which will bring some relief to that section of the industry. I was rather apprehensive before that, because the Chancellor had put down an Amendment in relation to fur-trimmed articles and, unfortunately. in order to comply with it not more than one-fifth of the total area could be covered with fur. I had visions of manufacturers of fur gloves endeavouring to come within that category by producing gloves which looked like French poodles. But the trade will be grateful to the Chancellor for the Resolution which he moved and which will help the fur-backed glove trade.
  That, however, is not enough. When details of the D scheme were published the fur-backed glove trade virtually came to an end. Manufacturers just could not compete with the prices. Under the old scheme fur-backed gloves were retailed up to almost £2 a pair tax-free, but under the D scheme they are subject to tax above 12s. As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Yeovil, when the social survey was made rubber gloves and plastic gloves were taken into account; but these articles are not recognised as gloves by the trade because they are moulded gloves. In any case, I submit that rubber and plastic gloves should be free of tax entirely, because they are used in industry and, as I stated in a previous debate, I think that all articles of clothing which are used for industrial purposes or in hospitals should be free of tax. I regard a tax in this case as an additional imposition upon industry.
  It is quite reasonable to differentiate between different types of gloves, as has been done in the Amendment put down
  1214
  by the hon. Member for Yeovil, and I hope that the Chancellor, on looking through it, will realise that by lumping all types of gloves together, as he has done, a serious mistake has been made with regard to this trade.
  I will not repeat what I said in connection with hats, but many of the things I said have a direct bearing on this Amendment. Just as the hat trade is in difficulties at present, so is the glove trade; just as increased sales in the hat trade would help the export trade, so would it in the case of gloves. The arguments I used about building up a sound and healthy home trade to create a healthy export trade apply to gloves just as much as to hats. I shall not weary the Committee by going over what I said then or by repeating the quotations I gave; but what I said with regard to hats and head-wear applies equally to gloves.
  If the levels remain unaltered I am afraid that production of the better types of gloves—particularly those required for export—will cease. Short time is already in evidence in the industry, and if the present D levels are not amended this may well develop into acute unemployment and the industry will be dealt a blow from which it may never recover. I was unsuccessful in my last appeal to the Chancellor, but I hope that I shall be more successful on this occasion. I hope that he will give very serious consideration to the needs of this industry and give it the help it requires in the interests of employment, in the interests of his own revenue—I tried that argument in regard to hats, but it did not work—and of our export trade.
  I understand that there are one or two other articles which are grouped with gloves and that in this particular section we are dealing also with scarves, shawls and handkerchiefs.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): No: we are dealing with gloves alone.
  Mr. Blackburn: I was under a misapprehension. In any event, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to give some help to this industry.
  8.45 p.m.
  William Darling: I want to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, although I doubt whether he will count my support as particularly worth having. I support

  1215
  him this year because we are passing through a crisis, following six years of Socialist mismanagement, and because we have to get the money to help us out of our difficulties.
  Mr. Blackburn: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it better to obtain the money by being fair to all industries, rather than by penalising one more than others?
  Sir W. Darling: I find myself in ready agreement with many of these plausible ideas which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) puts forward. They are the kind of arguments which a defaulting debtor frequently makes. I am, however, sufficiently alive to the fact that the Chancellor is facing a real crisis, and my one challenge to him is that he does not emphasise that fact sufficiently and act with sufficient boldness on these occasions. He allows himself from time to time to be influenced by the arguments of hon. Gentlemen and the seductions of hon. Ladies.
  Mr. Peyton: I should like to ask my hon. Friend what grounds he has for supposing that, in opposing this Amendment, he will increase the Chancellor's revenue, particularly from fur-backed gloves? What I have been suggesting is that opposition to the Amendment, far from increasing the Chancellor's revenue will decrease it very substantially.
  Sir W. Darling: I shall be prepared on another occasion to discuss that view. It may well be the Chancellor's view, and I think it is, that there are many industries which, in this time of crisis, we cannot afford—and we are a well-to-do nation. It may well be that the production of fully fur-backed gloves is one of these. I am not saying that it is, but it may well be that there is, in a year of stringency and difficulty, much that we appreciate, that we want, that we admire, that we desire, but that we have to sacrifice in order to secure our solvency.
  If the only sacrifice which we have to make is the sacrifice of the fur-backed glove industry, which is not a very large industry, in order to attain national solvency, then, grim though the prospect is—and I deeply sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)—I should be prepared to face
  1216
  it. We are in a very grave and serious crisis. Gloves are important, but there is a supreme importance which overrides even their importance.
  Mr. Jay: As I know the opinions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), are very weighty and very well informed, may I ask him this: is he still in favour, as he was last year, of a large reduction in the duty on whisky?
  Sir W. Darling: I think if I ventured to enlarge upon the subject which the right hon. Member has raised I should be out of order, but if you give me the slightest indication of your indulgence in this connection, Mr. Hopkin Morris—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to any indulgence here.
  Sir W. Darling: I feel I must have the advantage of your protection against the allurements, the challenges, the throwing down of the gauntlet, from the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), and I shall not, therefore, discuss whisky.
  Reverting to the grievous misfortunes of the glove industry, I think it is deplorable that a business which brings so much art and craftsmanship to our general industry and which has a not inconsiderable export business, particularly with the United States of America, where they follow English fashions—
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Is the hon. Member talking about gloves or about whisky now?
  Sir W. Darling: It is deplorable that such an industry should fall under the axe of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nonetheless, the responsibility is not with him. The deplorable state of our finances is due to the somewhat light-minded and light-hearted people who sit on the other side of the Committee. I want to tell the Chancellor that I shall support him in the Division Lobby if a Division is called. If we are driven, as we may well be, not only to a gloveless society but to a hatless society, a stockingless society and a shoeless society, the responsibility will not be upon my right hon. Friend. It will lie with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and what I admire in my right hon. Friend is his courage in facing the situation.

  1217
  I say—and I have said it before—that it is surely beneath the dignity as well as the competence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I put them in proper order—to deal with matters of this detail, and it should not be the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, indeed, of the President of the Board of Trade, to go into these small niceties which only highly expert people like my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil can go into—these intricacies of design and manufacture of scores of commodities.
  I have told the Chancellor before. that the simpler way, the easier way, the better way to get the revenue that he requires is to have a universal sales tax of equal level upon all commodities from engineering products to gloves or whisky or any other commodity, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year will have my support if he brings forward such a project. We should then be prevented from discussing these intermittent, curious details which no Chancellor can ever possibly be fully informed about.
  He must be aware of the difficulties he has to face. For at one hour he will be defending waterproofs, and in the next hour asbestos gloves, and in another hour lambskin backed gloves. It is beyond the compass of my right hon. Friend to have all this detailed knowledge, and he should not be put in that position. He does not ask for any details as to the kind of profession or industry that a man or woman follows in order to produce the Income Tax that he wants from them, and I do not see why we should expect him to have all this detailed knowledge on every one of the many items in this Schedule.
  I support the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has to get this revenue. It is, in my opinion, tragic that six years after the war we have been driven to this desperate strait by Socialist maladministration. If we have to go shoeless, hatless, gloveless, or, for that matter, without whisky, in order to pay the price of the maladministration during the last six years, and if we can pay that in one year, I willingly would pay it in one year rather than five; but next year, I warn the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I shall be joining hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in protesting against these detailed imposts which are so obscure in their origins—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think the hon. Gentleman should say now what he will do next year. He must deal with the Amendment.
  Sir W. Darling: I entirely bow to your Ruling, Mr. Hopkin Morris, and especially to a Ruling from you, for I know that you and I have less to look forward to than most. It is right that I should bring myself to the matter of the Amendment, and I say that I shall support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter. He has no argument to justify it—but only the supreme overriding argument that the country must be made solvent. The trivial arguments, the counter arguments of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and, indeed, of my hon. Friends, are slow, indeed, against the overriding consideration, and the overriding consideration is that if the taxing of fur-backed gloves or gloves with lambskin wool faces can help to save us, then it will be worth doing.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I am sure that we have heard more sense from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), than we have heard for a long time, and if he could in any way shield me from having to become the master of so many different subjects, and, at the same time, share with me some of his future untaxed whisky, I should feel myself in a much stronger position.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has made a case on behalf of the glove industry which, I think, it can rightly be said, both interested and moved the Committee. He is one of those hon. Members for whom I had the honour to speak in the last General Election, and one of the few who survived that event. I have every reason to feel a certain sympathy with him in his present troubles. I do not think that anyone could possibly better represent his own constituency in such a matter, in which he himself is deeply interested. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto), who supported the case, also brought forward some interesting arguments.
  First, I should like to get clear, in answer to the arguments that have been raised, the nature of the very considerable concession which has already been given to the glove industry, namely, the reduc-

  1219
  tion from 100 per cent. to, not 33⅓ per cent. but 25 per cent. in the tax on fur-backed, rabbit-backed, or whatever you like to call it, gloves. I should like to give the Committee some figures to illustrate the nature of the concession which has been made in this matter—on which I frankly think there was a mistake in the original scheme.
  The retail prices of such gloves, upon which this concession has been given, ranged from about 22s. 8d. to about 33s. 4d., and under the 100 per cent. rate the tax was to have been 4s. 8d. on the lower end of the range and no less than 13s. on the upper end. Therefore, I can quite believe what my hon. Friend has said, that this had a disastrous effect upon the industry, and definitely had an effect on production.
  At any rate, I have made it my business to go into this to the best of my ability. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee and of the trade, and of the gentleman who sent my hon. Friend telegrams, to the fact that the tax on the lower end of the range has now been reduced, being now only 25 per cent., to only 1s. 2d., and the 13s. has come down to 3s. 3d. That is a very major change for the whole outlook for this industry.
  The Committee should realise that in giving these detailed figures I am trying to indicate that we have made an effort to put right an anomaly which did exist in the glove trade, and which I frankly think was not right in the original Schedule. It will mean that this industry will have a better outlook, so that this will have an effect on employment, and so on.
  I should now like to answer the general point which has been raised by several hon. Members, as I am taking part in the discussion on this Amendment, knowing its importance as compared with many others—although if I could I would take part in all of them, including answering the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), who spoke so well on an earlier Amendment. I would observe—and this takes up the gist of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South—that the background against which all this taxation has been introduced, and against which it is necessary, should be realised.
  1220
  The Committee should also realise that, although we have in six months succeeded in restoring the position in regard to our gold and dollar reserves, and so fostering confidence in sterling, we are by no means through the wood. There is a long and painful task before us, as I have frequently said both inside and outside this Committee. It is against that background that we have to work. We have also to remember that it is only through greater production and confidence at home that we shall pull through—by the very old-fashioned and simple device of earning by our exports enough to pay for our imports.
  I am sorry to make these very simple statements, but they are as eternally true today as they were before. I honestly and sincerely ask hon. Members on both sides of the Committee not to make exaggerated remarks about their own industries, and to say that they are in a state of immediate decay. That has been the tendency on some sides, and so great has been the sincerity of hon. Members that I think they have exaggerated the effects of Purchase Tax as a deterrent.
  Purchase Tax is only one feature of the life of an industry. In the case of gloves, for example, I have taken as much trouble as I possibly can about the industry, and I find that its difficulties are by no means due only to Purchase Tax. Part of the trouble is that gloves are not an absolutely essential feature of our make-up. They may not even be so effective as the adornments which the hon. Ladies the Members for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) and Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) have imported to our Chamber. Gloves are useful articles, and the trade is one of the most honourable and traditional in our country, and I am convinced that it has a great future.
  9.0 p.m.
  It will not pay hon. Members who represent the glove industry, the hat industry, the texile industry, the hoot and shoe industry or any other industry to exaggerate the importance of Purchase Tax as such. I do sincerely hope that they will continue with the work, which they can do much better than I can, of working in other ways, to improve the conditions and prospects of their industries as well as pressing the Government on Purchase Tax. If they will do that, they will have

  1221
  combined their services to their own districts with their legitimate interventions in this debate.
  I want to follow that up with some practical examples. In the case of gloves, the hon. Member for Yeovil quoted paragraph 131, which, of course, I know, of the Douglas Committee's Report, which says that the proportion of gloves kept free, of tax is not less than one-half. I think that he claims, and it has been claimed by others in the course of this debate, that the fixing of D levels for gloves was, first of all, not done on sufficient evidence and, secondly, it has been so fixed that there is not an adequate proportion outside and below the D level of popular prices which will be free from tax.
  Let me take examples of the cheaper, popular lines on which the D figure, for example, is 3s. of men's knitted and fabric gloves with a popular price range of between 4s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. The tax burden on the cheaper part of that range is only 1d. and it goes up to a limit of 8d. at the top of that range. That is under our 25 per cent. concession made yesterday, and it shows the result of what we have tried to do under the Purchase Tax.
  In the case of women's knitted and fabric gloves with a D figure of 3s. and a popular price of 3s. 6d. to 8s. 6d., again the lowest part of that range pays no Purchase Tax and the top limit is 10d. Then take men's leather gloves with a D figure of 12s. and a popular price range of 13s. to 35s. At the lowest range the Purchase Tax in my table is nil at the new 25 per cent. concession which I announced yesterday and asked the Committee to pass this afternoon. The top range of tax even on the 35s. ones is now reduced to 3s. 6d. and on the bottom ones is nil.
  For women's leather gloves with a Dfigure of 12s. and a popular price range of 11 s. 6d. to 30s., again we find the lowest part of that range is nil in Purchase Tax and the top part is 2s. 6d. When we come to women's fur-backed gloves with a D figure of 12s. and a price range of 17s. 6d. to 40s., again we find there is no Purchase Tax at the bottom of the range and at the top range it amounts to 3s. 8d. These are the reductions caused by the concession which the Government have already made of
  1222
  25 per cent., and in the case of the fur-backed glove industry that is allied with the reduction of 25 per cent. from 100 per cent. The Committee will see that we have most sincerely tried to help the glove industry more than it has ever been helped under the scheme before.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the affect of his reductions of yesterday as distinct from what they were before?
  Mr. Butler: I have not got the figures with me, but I can no doubt get them shortly and I will let the hon. Gentleman have them. It is the difference between 25 per cent. and 33⅓ per cent., with the exception of fur-backed gloves which were at 100 per cent. One thing said by hon. Members opposite yesterday was that even with the concession of 25 per cent. the tax would be very heavy. But those who have examined the tax since know that on many other articles besides gloves in the popular range at the top of the old Utility scheme the tax is not very heavy.
  I have not been able to start carving up the types of gloves into categories, such as leather, lined and unlined, dress gloves—the ordinary ones that we wear when we walk about—industrial gloves, rubber gloves and fabric gloves. I could not accept the Amendments in the form in which they have been drafted even if I had wanted to accept them, because they do not seem to make clear the differentiations which we have been unable to draw. The position of fabric gloves under the Amendment is unsatisfactory.
  In his speech my hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that under the old Utility scheme it was the industrial glove which "caught it" in the tax range. Under this scheme it is the dress glove which gets the tax, and the industrial glove is virtually removed from tax. There is a further point in regard to rubber gloves. As has been said, these are used by surgeons, nurses and so forth. I am assured that rubber gloves will be virtually free from tax under the operation of the Schedule of this Bill.
  Consequently, I see very considerable advantages to the glove trade as the result of the concessions that have been made. The fur-backed trade, in so far as it was menaced by the Purchase Tax,

  1223
  has now been saved, and I hope that it will build up again as a result of this. In the case of the other types of gloves, I have not hitherto been able to devise different schedules. It is very difficult to differentiate between one article and another. There is a difference between gloves and hats in that they have a different history in regard to the old Utility scheme. As has already been explained, it is very difficult to draw a distinction between them in the case of manipulation of the Ds. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  The most I can say to hon. Gentlemen who are interested in the glove trade is that I am aware that the trade regards itself as not having been sufficiently consulted. This arose from the fact that in all these financial matters one has to be very careful about consultation. One has to treat these matters almost as Budget secrets. The hon. Member opposite who said that I had been in collusion with my right hon. and hon. Friends would have been disappointed even if he had put on a private detective. He would have found that I have been like an oyster. In my position I cannot go about sharing concessions with all and sundry; that would make my position as Chancellor of the Exchequer quite impossible.
  This may account in a general way for the reason why the authorities who serve me have not been able to seem to give sufficient attention to the glove trade. We apologise for that. The only thing I can say to the hon. Member, though I fear this will not give him very much satisfaction, is that if, during the next week or two, he wants to bring to us any further representatives from the glove trade—although we think our proposals fair—we shall, of course, consider them between now and the Report stage.
  Mr. Jay: I have listened as carefully as I could to the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto), and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn). I thought the Chancellor spoke with a certain complacency, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, with a certain levity,
  1224
  and the other hon. Members with great wisdom and persuasiveness.
  The Chancellor is attempting to put over the Committee in each of these debates two contradictory arguments. He tells us that the Purchase Tax is having very little effect on the situation at all and that its influence as a deterrent is greatly exaggerated, and he also tries to argue that a reduction in it by 25 per cent. will have a very great effect. However great the total effect may or may not be, 25 per cent. of it must be very much less. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, tried to persuade us that the tax on gloves ought to go up and that the tax on whisky ought to come down.
  Sir W. Darling: The Committee will note that the reference to whisky has not been made by me but by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
  Mr. Jay: I am making every effort to remain strictly within the terms of this Amendment. I take that to be the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the average level of tax which he gave us notice he is going to advocate next year. The hon. Member for Yeovil and the other hon. Gentlemen made very cogent speeches. The hon. Member for Yeovil and the hon. and gallant Member for Devon, North, represent not merely industrial but very agreeable parts of this country with which I am proud to have some familiarity. I hope we shall have further speeches from these hon. Gentlemen in the course of our debates. I found the speech of the hon. Member for Yeovil so cogent that I can assure him we shall give him our support in the Division Lobby tonight.
  His speech was a very great tribute to the general policy and administration of the recent Labour Government. He told us—and I hope I have got the figures correctly—that under the administration of the Labour Government 97 per cent. of fur-backed gloves were free of tax; under the scheme of the present Chancellor none would be free of tax We are very glad to have that tribute from the hon. Gentleman.
  In the case of leather gloves 90 per cent. under our scheme were tax free, and under the scheme now proposed only 5 per cent. are to be tax free. Knitted

  1225
  gloves, which are obviously very important, under the previous scheme of the Labour Government were tax free to the extent of 100 per cent.; under the scheme now proposed none are to be tax free. Finally—
  Mr. Frederic Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Socialist Government did not remain in power for a few more years to carry on this extraordinary good work?
  Mr. Jay: That again is another very interesting subject. I should be induced to take the gloves off and get outside the bounds of order if I followed the hon. Gentleman. I was going to say that in the case of fabric gloves 75 per cent. were previously tax free, while under the Chancellor's proposals, even as amended, only 34 per cent. are tax free. If we leave everything else out of account, those figures, which are not contradicted, are a further interesting comment on what was said during the recent Election, to which the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris), referred, about the subject of the cost of living in this country.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil paid a further tribute to the previous administration. He told us that in April, 1951, orders for leather gloves were running at the rate of 600,000 dozen per month, whereas they are now running at only 200.000 dozen a month, a reduction of two-thirds in orders. Therefore, presumably before long production will be down by that amount this year compared with last. In the case of fur-hacked gloves, lie said that the reduction was from 112,000 dozen to a figure about one-quarter of that level. That again is rather a dismal situation under the present administration compared with a year ago. He also told us that production was seriously diminished.
  The Chancellor said that he wished to make some references to the general background to all this. I presume that when he did so he was in order. He said that our home situation today would only be improved—we all agree with this—by a general increase in production. On the evidence of the hon. Gentleman, which the Chancellor did not controvert, his proposals as they affect the glove
  1226
  industry have had the result of a very serious reduction indeed.
  9.15 p.m.
  Secondly, the Chancellor claimed—and here he got rather back-handed or left-handed support from his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling)—that the really important consideration was that he bad to have this revenue or the solvency of the nation and the Budget would be in danger. The remarkable thing about that, if the argument is based on revenue, is the Chancellor did not tell us how much revenue he would lose—I do not know whether he can do so now—if he accepted the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North. I do not imagine it can be more than £1 million or £2 million or something of that kind.
  He has already told us that the total amount of the concessions he is making by way of Income Tax for people with incomes of more than £1,000 a year is £50 million. I only mention that figure in order to compare it with £17 million, which is the total of the concessions he announced last night by way of Purchase Tax on all types of goods. When we put those two figures together they form an interesting and instructive comment on the statement that no more help can be given to the glove, the boot and shoe or the textile industries on grounds of revenue.
  Sir W. Darling: Is it not a fact that the Chancellor is releasing £50 million of spending and purchasing power which can be spent on the goods which have been relieved to the extent of £17 million in Purchase Tax?
  Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman's argument relates to the release of purchasing power, I suggest that the release could have been effected by the reduction of Purchase Tax proposed in the Amendment. I presume that we shall have the hon. Gentleman's support as well as that of the hon. Member for Yeovil in the Division Lobby in a few minutes' time. For all those reasons, because the Chancellor seems to have been unduly complacent in his attitude to this very important industry, and because a case has been made out for further relief, we

  1227
  shall have the greatest satisfaction in giving our support to the hon. Member for Yeovil.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: The Committee have been surprised at the attitude of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am filled with amazement at the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I have never heard such attempts to coerce and invite other hon. Members of the Committee to commit an indiscretion.
  My right hon. Friend last night announced very considerable concessions to a great number of industries. The glove trade will benefit with the other industries. Many of us would like to see the D level raised because we consider that there are some comparatively insignificant anomalies. My right hon. Friend has already intimated that those anomalies can be ironed out with the aid of the trade. He has shown already that he is prepared to invite representations where the trade consider that there are anomalies.
  The trade in general will agree that the Chancellor has shown by his general reduction in Purchase Tax a much more realistic outlook to the taxation of merchandise than was shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite, in everything that they were able to suggest. I am perfectly sure that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, and his hon. Friends would have been very happy if it had been as the result of an Amendment they had put forward that the announcement of a general reduction in Purchase Tax had been made.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Why then did the Chancellor impose the tax at the rate he did in the first instance?
  Mr. Burden: In order that hon. Members opposite could make the mistakes they have made and my right hon. Friend could please the trade and show that the Tories believe in a reduction of tax.
  Mr. Jay: May I ask the Chancellor whether he accepts the interpretation of his motives which we have just heard from the hon. Member?
  Mr. Burden: My right hon. Friend is always inspired by the best of motives. That does not always appear to be evident from what Hon. Gentlemen opposite do.
  Mr. Hughes: Has the right hon. Gentleman not beaten a hasty and most ignominious retreat in this matter of which he ought to be ashamed?
  Mr. Burden: If my right hon. Friend has beaten a retreat it has been with all his flags flying and not, as hon. Gentlemen opposite did at the last General Election, with their tails down. There is no doubt whatever that as a result of the concessions announced by my right hon. Friend there will be an improvement not only in the glove trade but in other trades. The glove trade has suffered a serious setback during recent months, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite know full well that the symptoms of a decline in the trade, as in other industries, were already there before they went to the country, and they went to the country in order to be able to say that the recession had not taken place then.
  Mr. Follick: As a matter of fact—
  The Deputy-Chairman: Order, order. This discussion is getting a little too wide.
  Mr. Burden: I will now come right down to the question of gloves. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North, remarked that the output of leather gloves had dropped since last year. That decline my right hon. Friend is doing his best to halt. Quite apart from whether there may or may not be some disappointment at the amount of the concessions he announced, there is no doubt the glove trade is highly conscious of their psychological effect on the public.
  My right hon. Friend has for the first time slashed taxation vigorously, which is something right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not done. The Press have already stated that Purchase Tax has been reduced, and that will be a far greater inducement to the public to buy than if it were announced that separate concessions had been made at the D level which the public do not appreciate. These measures will help the glove trade considerably, and I believe that the House, the trade and the country will be grateful for the concessions made.
  Mr. Blackburn: I presume that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has now fulfilled the purpose for which he rose and that there are now sufficient Members on the Government side to save the Division. What his

  1229
  speech has been about, very few Members in the Committee will know. I have been in the Chamber for the best part of six hours, and we have had some good contributions to the general debate. The speech which we have just heard has been the only one which has been of no use whatever, except to the Government, whose Whips have brought in sufficient Members to vote for them.
  I have risen again because something should be made clear in order to keep the record straight. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it appear, when explaining the Ways and Means Resolution, which he moved today about the reduction from 100 per cent. to 25 per cent. tax for fur-backed gloves, that he was giving a concession of 75 per cent. to the trade, whereas the real position is that the trade is having to bear 25 per cent, more than it bore under the old Utility scheme. The case has been presented, however, in the way that the glove trade is to be better off than before.
  It is always useful when quoting figures to quote those which help one's case. Certainly, that is what the Chancellor did when he was quoting his figures. I should like Members, however, to look at the D scheme as it appears in the Bill, noting the figures of 3s. and 12s. for the D levels and comparing them with the figures under the Utility scheme.
  I have with me the Utility Gloves (Distributors' Maximum Prices) Order, 1952, dated 11th February. For men's leather gloves, unlined, the range is from 13s. 9d. to 21s. 5d. These are the wholesale prices, the same as in the D scheme. The range for men's gloves, lined, is from 15s. 1d. to 23s.; women's leather gloves, unlined, 12s. 6d. to 19s. 2d.: lined, 14s. 3d. to 21s. 7d.; women's fur backed gloves, lined, 22s. 3d. to 31s. 11d.; women's fabric gloves, 2s. 9d. to 11 s. 9d. If those figures under the old Utility scheme are borne in mind, I am sure that every Member of the Committee must agree that the figure of 3s. for the fabric glove and 12s. for other gloves bears no relation to the present position in the trade.
  Mr. Stephen Mc Adden: I do not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I do not follow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] I do not propose
  1230
  to begin until Members opposite behave themselves. It is important that one or two of the statements which have been made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), should not be allowed to go unchallenged. As I understood him, the right hon. Gentleman was arguing, with the support of figures which have been brought forward during the debate, that formerly, in 1951, production of gloves was running at the figure of 600,000 dozen per month whereas now it is 200,000 dozen pairs per month.
  Mr. Peyton: The orders were 600,000 dozen at this time last year.
  Mr. McAdden: That is what I said. I said 600,000 dozen per month in 1951.
  Mr. Peyton: It was not "per month."
  Mr. Jay: May I say that I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Yeovil?
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. McAdden: I am extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman accepts the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, because when he quoted them and made an argument on them he did know what the figures meant and went so far as to say, "I presume this means per month." If he now admits that he did not know what he was talking about and that he was relying on the figures of my hon. Friend to draw wrong conclusions, I am prepared to accept his withdrawal.
  If, in fact, it be true, as the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to argue, that there has been a two-thirds reduction in the rate of orders, I do not think it can be seriously contended that the whole of that reduction is exclusively due to the Chancellor's proposals. [Interruption.] Now the right hon. Gentleman mutters that he did not say so. So the whole edifice of the argument he built up rapidly collapses. He addressed his remarks to showing that the present position of the glove industry was due to the Chancellor's proposals whereas now, sitting down, he admits that his argument was falsely based.
  I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are anxious to do all they can to assist the glove industry and are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil for having put before

  1231
  the Committee these extremely interesting figures. I am glad that fact is appreciated by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, even though he drew a false argument from them.
  Nevertheless, I feel that the Chancellor is to be congratulated on his general approach to the question, which gives a greater measure of justice over the broad field than was available in the original scheme. Although it may present certain difficulties here and there which may be ironed out in our experience of the working of the scheme, it is better to give it a fair chance than to condemn it out of hand, because it is agreed on all sides of the Committee that the original scheme was not a success and it was on the advice of hon. Members opposite that the Douglas Committee investigated the matter and found that that view was correct.
  Mr. Peyton: I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the Committee but I think that it would be ungracious if I did not reply to the thanks I have received for my so-called tributes to the late Administration offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I do not know whether it would help him if I added the tribute that I am certain the discussion we are having in this Committee would not be necessary if it had not been for the wretched legacy he and his friends left us. [HON. MEMBERS: "What legacy?"] I am quite sure that you would rule me out of order if I attempted to deal with that question, Sir, but I would be delighted to satisfy hon. and right hon. Members opposite as opportunity offers.
  The concession which the Chancellor has made with regard to fur-backed gloves has gone further than the proposal in the new Clause, which stands in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. It has brought it down to 25 per cent. but I do ask the Chancellor to accept that the D figure of £1 6s. contained in the Amendment before the Committee was based on the reduction of 33⅓ per cent. and I say to the Chancellor that welcome as this concession has been and valuable as it is nevertheless at this moment the fur-backed glove industry is now dead.
  1232
  I am asking my right hon. Friend to bring new life not only to the industry, but into his own concession by considering an adjustment of the D level. I do so very earnestly. As a new hon. Member I would not consider it right to press this matter. [Interruption.] I welcome the remarks of hon. Members opposite, but I shall continue what I have to say.
  I am saying that, as a new Member I would not have pressed this Amendment as strongly as I have done, or worried the Chancellor so persistently as I have done since he announced his Budget proposals. unless I attached very considerable importance to it, and I am therefore asking him very earnestly to give a clear undertaking to leave this matter open until the Report stage, and to hear further representations from the industry which, it may well be, will convince him where, I regret to say, I have failed myself. I ask him for that assurance.
  Mr. Butler: I will certainly respond to the invitation, whether my hon. Friend is a new hon. Member or not. I would certainly respond to any hon. Member's request. I cannot go any further than what I said in my speech, namely, that the hon. Member has said that there was a grievance in the industry, that it felt that its case had not been properly heard, and that, if the industry liked to continue to put their case between now and the Report stage, as they are entitled to do, they could do so, but that it would not be right for me to give the Committee any undertaking which would mislead either my hon. Friend or the trade. I am sorry that I cannot go further than that.
  Mr. Peyton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Hon. Members: No.
  The Chairman: Is it the Committee's pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 276 Noes, 257.

  Division No. 127.]

  AYES

  [9.39 p.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E

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

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Markham, Major S. F.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Glyn, Sir Ralph

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Godber, J. B.

  Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Maude, Angus

  Arbuthnot, John

  Gower, H. R.

  Maudling, R.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

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

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

  Gridley, Sir Arnold

  Medlicott, Brig. F.

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

  Grimond, J.

  Mellor, Sir John

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

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr J M

  Harden, J. R. E.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hare, Hon. J. H.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Banks, Col. C

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

  Barber, A. P. L.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Baxter, A. B.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Hay, John

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Heald, Sir Lionel

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Heath, Edward

  Nugent, G. R. H.

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

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Odey, G. W.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

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

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Birch, Nigel

  Hirst, Geoffrey

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

  Bishop, F. P.

  Holland-Martin, C J.

  Partridge, E

  Black, C. W.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O

  Bossom, A. C.

  Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Bowen, E. R.

  Holt, A. F.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

  Hope, Lord John

  Pilkington, Capt. R A.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P

  Pitman, I. J.

  Braine, B. R

  Horobin, I. M.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O L

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Profumo, J. D.

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

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bullard, D. G.

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

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E E

  Hurd, A. R.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Roberts, Peter (Healey)

  Butcher, H. W.

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

  Robertson, Sir David

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

  Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Carson, Hon. E.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Robson-Brown, W.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hylton-Foster, H. B. H

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Channon, H.

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Jennings, R.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Russell, R. S.

  Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Cole, Norman

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Kaberry, D

  Sandys. Rt. Hon. D.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Keeling, Sir Edward

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

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

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Scott, R. Donald

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Crouch, R. F.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Shepherd, William

  Crowder, John E. (Finchley)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Leather, E H. C.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col Sir Walter

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Davies, Rt, Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)

  De la Bère, R.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Snadden, W. McN.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.

  Speir, R. M.

  Donner, P. W.

  Longdon, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

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

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Low, A. R. W.

  Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Drewe, C.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Stevens, G. P.

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Steward, W. A (Woolwich, W.)

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon O.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Duthie, W. S

  McAdden, S. J.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Erroll, F. J.

  McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

  Storey, S.

  Fell, A.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich. S.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Fisher, Nigel

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Summers, G. S.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Fletcher, Walter (Bury)

  Maclean, Fitzrey

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Teeling, W.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

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

  Gage, C. H.

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

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T D. (Pollok)

  Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  1234

  1235

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

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col C. N.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Tilney, John

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Williams, R Dudley (Exeter)

  Turner, H. F. L

  Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

  Wills, G

  Turton, R. H.

  Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.

  Wood, Hon R

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Watkinson, H. A.

  York, C.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J K

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Wellwood, W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wade, D. W

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Mr. Conant and Mr. Redmayne.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Fienburgh, W.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Adams, Richard

  Finch, H. J.

  McLeavy, F.

  Albu, A. H.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Follick, M.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Foot, M. M.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Forman, J. C.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Awbery, S. S.

  Gibson, C. W

  Manuel, A. C.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Glanville, James

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Baird, J.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Messer. F.

  Balfour, A

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D R.

  Mitchison, G. R

  Bartley, P.

  Grey, C. F.

  Monslow, W

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Moody, A. S

  Bence, C. R.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Morley, R.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

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

  Benson, G.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Mort, D. L.

  Beswick, F.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Moyle, A.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)

  Hamilton, W. W

  Mulley, F. W.

  Bing, G. H. C

  Hannan, W.

  Murray, J. D.

  Blackburn, F

  Hardy, E. A.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hargreaves, A.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J

  Blyton, W. R.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E)

  O'Brien, T

  Boardman, H.

  Hastings, S.

  Oldfield, W. H

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon A. G.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)

  Orbach, M.

  Bowles, F. G.

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

  Oswald, T

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Padley, W E

  Brockway, A F.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Paget, R. T.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Paling, Rt Hon W (Dearne Valley)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D

  Holman, P.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Brown, Rt. Hon George (Belper)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pannell, Charles

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Hoy, J. H.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Parker, J.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)

  Paton, J

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Peart, T. F

  Carmichael, J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Porter, G.

  Champion, A J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)

  Chapman, W D

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Clunie, J.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Coldrick, W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

  Rankin, John

  Collick, P. H.

  Janner, B.

  Reeves, J.

  Cook, T. F.

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P T

  Reid, Thomas (Swindon)

  Cove, W. G.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Reid, William (Camlachie)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Rhodes, H.

  Cullen, Mrs. A

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Richards, R.

  Daines, P.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Roberts, Albert (Normantan)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham. S.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Deer, G.

  Kennan, W.

  Ross, William

  Delargy, H. J

  Kenyon, C.

  Royle, C.

  Dodds, N. N

  Key, Rt. Hon. C W.

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Donnelly, D. L

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Driberg, T. E. N

  Kinley, J.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon Sir Hartley

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

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Short, E. W.

  Edelman, M.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Shurmer, P. L. E

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Simmons, C J. (Brierley Hill)

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Slater, J.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col M.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Logan, D. G.

  Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  MacColl, J. E

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Ewart, R.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Soskice, Rt Hon Sir Frank

  Fernyhough, E

  McGovern, J

  Sparks, J. A.

  Field, W. J.

  McInnes, J.

  Steele, T.

  1236

  1237

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham. E.)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R

  Viant, S. P.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Watkins, T. E

  Williams, Rev. (Llywelyn (Abertillery)

  Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)

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

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Swingler, S. T.

  Weitzman, D.

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

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Wells. William (Walsall)

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  West, D. G.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon A

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Yates, V. F

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Timmons, J.

  Wigg, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Tomney, F.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  The Chairman: The next group—group 6 of the Schedule—goes from items B.1, to B.9 inclusive. Group 6 will have to be divided into two parts—one excluding and one including fur. On the first Amendment, in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and his hon. Friends—in page 76, line 10, column 1, leave out "42″," and insert "36″."—fur will not be discussed. At the end of the discussion on that and relative Amendments the Committee will divide. I shall then call the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), his Amendment on fur will be discussed, and, at the end, I shall call for Divisions on the four Amendments selected in group 6.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: It was not very easy to hear what you said, Sir Charles. Is it the fact that we are discussing the non-fur Amendments first; then we are to have a Division, and then a discussion on the Amendments dealing with fur, after which there will be a general discussion on fur?
  The Chairman: That is so. On the first Amendment, in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South and his hon. Friends, fur will not be discussed. I have no doubt that we will have a Division on that. At the end of the discussion of all the non-fur Amendments, I shall then call the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Billericay, and on that Amendment we shall only discuss fur. After that, the other Amendments which are required on the whole group will be called. Who is going to move the Amendment?
  Miss Alice Bacon: I beg to move, in page 76, line 10, column 1, to leave out "42″," and to insert "36″."
  I understand that, together with this Amendment, the whole of the Amend-
  1238
  ments on women's outerwear and dresses, and, in fact, everything but women's underwear and furs, will be discussed as one group. The main purpose of the Amendments which are down in the names of my right hon. Friends, my hon. Friends and myself, is to raise the level of the D in order that it shall be equal to the old Utility level. The first Amendment in our names, however, which I have moved, is a separate Amendment designed to put certain coats out of one category in the Schedule into another category.
  For some time before I entered the House I was a schoolteacher, and I therefore believe in visual aids. I always think it is much better to be able to give one practical demonstration than to talk for a long time. It will have been noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) and myself have been sitting here wearing identical coats—at least, not quite identical, for there is one slight difference. These two coats both cost the same to manufacture and both have the same wholesale price. My hon. Friend's coat is under 42 in. and mine is over 42 in. I think hers is 40 in. and mine is 44 in. in length. But the curious thing is this: because my hon. Friend is short and, therefore, wears a shorter coat, she has to pay 12s. 6d. more tax on her coat than I paid on mine. Hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite look as if they do not believe that, and I shall have to go into a few figures to show that is true.
  Under the Schedule, coats of over 42 in. have a D figure of £6 10s., whereas coats of under 42 in. have a D figure of £4. My hon. Friend, therefore, in buying her coat, would have to pay tax on everything over a wholesale figure of £4, whereas in the case of the coat which I am wearing, I should have to pay tax only on the wholesale price over £6 10s. I think it is quite clear, therefore, that to

  1239
  serve the needs of short women—and I have here both my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison)—it would be much fairer to alter 42 in. to 36 in.
  The tax on the coat which I am wearing is 7s. 5d. under the D scheme and the tax on the coat which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham is wearing is 19s. 1 1 d. Under the Utility scheme, of course, both coats were tax free. In each case, this is an extra tax and not merely a difference in tax. Yesterday, we discussed outsizes, and some concession was promised for outsizes, but it is rather strange to think that, under the Finance Bill, not only my hon. Friend for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) are being penalised, but also my two hon. Friends the Members for Peckham and for Lanarkshire, North.
  Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) talked about what he called the "Fatties." I wan', to speak tonight on behalf of the "Shorties." Of course, if under this Government one happens to be both short and fat, then, of course, it is just too bad.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: What about the Minister of State for Economic Affairs?
  Miss Bacon: My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North, sitting beside me, is wearing a coat that is referred to in the trade as a three-quarter coat. It is a little too big for her, but that rather strengthens my argument. A three-quarter coat is, in effect, very much like an ordinary overcoat except that it is a little shorter. It is worn by both tall women and short women—the kind of coat that comes to three or four or five inches of the hemline. The length of the coat that my hon. Friend is wearing is 38 inches. Therefore, being under the line of 42 inches, that also has to be in the category of the D figure £4, and not £6 10s.
  It therefore appears that the various coats that my hon. Friends are wearing ought not to be classified with other costume coats, as they are under this Schedule, but that they ought to be classified in the overcoat section, and this would come about if the Financial Secre-
  1240
  tary would accept this Amendment and change the 42 inches in the Schedule to 36 inches. Then both the short person wanting the full size coat and any woman wanting a three-quarter length coat would not have to pay such additional tax.
  Perhaps I had better clear up one misunderstanding before going any farther, and state quite definitely that these coats came off the peg yesterday and that they are going back on the peg tomorrow. I want also to make one further thing clear, and that is that there will be no more demonstrations under this Schedule. I come to the other points which there are in these 20 or more Amendments in our names. As I say, the main purpose of these Amendments in each case is to raise the D figure to the figure which was the old top Utility level, and I think that if we go through the whole of these items, and compare the prices that were and the prices that will be, we can see that every woman in the country will have an additional expense because of the D scheme adopted by the Government.
  It will be seen, for instance, that the full length overcoat is to have a D figure of £6 10s. The old top Utility wholesale figure was £10. Therefore, there is going to be a very great additional tax on every woman's coat that is within this range. Let me just give one or two examples. A coat which previously cost £13 6s. 8d. is now, even taking account of the Chancellor's concession of last night—and one thing about that concession I was not pleased with was, that I had to do my arithmetic all over again between last night and now—a coat with the ceiling price under Utility of £13 6s. 8d. will have a new selling price under the D scheme of £14 7s. 11d.
  Even a cheaper coat which was £10 under the old Utility scheme is going to carry tax of 7s. 10d. and cost £10 7s. 10d under the new D scheme. There is something rather curious, even with the £6 lOs coat. The coat with a wholesale price of £6 10s. is supposed to be free from tax, but because of what in the trade is called the uplift—which is a sort of notional wholesale value—that coat will carry a tax, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and the trade ought to go into this question of the uplift, and this rather false wholesale figure which is being given.

  1241
  10.0 p.m.
  Coming to the next category, I would point out that in the Amendment as printed on the Order Paper there is a misprint, because the second £4 12s. should be £4. These items are overcoats, coats, capes, mackintoshes and raincoats, and we do not wish to alter these except for the outsizes, which I am not discussing tonight. The question of outsizes was discussed yesterday.
  Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) talked of the very great variety of articles of men's wear which were grouped together. That is also true of women's wear in group 3, in which we see grouped together jackets, blazers, coats, cloaks, capes, overalls with sleeves, cycling capes, waistcoats with sleeves, blouses, shirt-blouses, shirts, cardigans of woven or knitted cloth and jumpers of woven or knitted cloth. Somehow or other they are all put into the same category with the same D figure. How the Treasury arrived at this classification I just do not know. They have said something about finding a median line to fit the D figure. It is very strange that that median should come up in exact pounds like £4 and £2. If the true median had been fixed I should not have expected it to come to whole pounds like that.
  There is a very wide variety in this group, and what puzzles me is that there are included cardigans of woven or knitted cloth and jumpers of woven or knitted cloth, with a D figure of 16s. for not fully lined nor double texture cloth, and for class A material, which is wool, not fully lined the figure is £2. Yet under group 5, we see blouse-type jackets, sleeveless waistcoats, knitted jumpers, knitted cardigans, jerseys, sweaters and bed jackets. Why some cardigans and jumpers are in one category and other cardigans and jumpers in another, with a different D level, I am not sure. Perhaps whoever replies will be able to give us some enlightenment on that.
  I should here like to mention a point dealt with admirably yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) when we were discussing men's wear, namely, the allowance for lining. It really is ridiculous that the D figure for a fully lined jacket should be £4 and for a not fully lined jacket £2. As my right hon. Friend
  1242
  pointed out yesterday, under this classification it would be possible to have an unlined coat costing more than a lined coat because of the tax. Yesterday, the Financial Secretary said that this matter would be looked into with regard to men's wear, and I hope that it will also be looked at with regard to women's wear.
  The Committee will notice that we propose to raise the D level in every case. We propose to raise the D level of a jacket from £6 to £6 12s. 6d. I think that in group 5 where we get knitted cardigans, jerseys, and so on, it would be a good thing if we had two categories of material—Class A and Class B—and that is what we propose.
  Now I come to dresses. Dresses, pinafore dresses, gym tunics, housecoats, dressing gowns and bathrobes, are all put together in one category, and then we have, in another category, overalls exceeding 42 inches in length, boiler suits and overall gowns. I have gone into this list very carefully and have done quite a bit of work on it in the last few weeks, but I cannot understand what is happening with regard to overalls. In one Schedule, we have overalls lumped with jackets not exceeding 42 inches in length, and further down in the Schedule we have overalls exceeding 42 inches in length, boiler suits and overall gowns with quite different D levels.
  I do not propose to comment on this, because I do not really know what is the intention. The Minister will notice that we are asking that for overalls, too, the length should be altered from 42 inches to 36 inches, because there is a kind of smock overall which costs just as much as the long type overall but which is less than 42 inches in length. For dresses we get in Class B material a D figure of £2, but just think what a variety of materials there are under Class B—everything except wool—and we feel that the D figure of £2 is much too low.
  I should like to give two further examples of the way in which the new tax will work in regard to a woman's suit and dresses. A woman's suit which sells wholesale at £10 8s. 9d. and which was free of tax at £13 8s. 4d. under the old Utility scheme will now cost £15 3s. 1d. under the D scheme. The Chancellor last night tried to say that he

  1243
  was giving a great concession. From that suit he has taken off 8s. 3d. but he has left a tax on of £1 4s. 9d. and our proposal would take off not 8s. 3d. but the whole of the 33s. A dress which cost £6. Class B material, will in future cost £6 12s. 6d. Again the Chancellor last night, with great benevolence, gave 4s. 2d. of that back, but he still leaves 12s. 6d. tax to be paid on a £6 12s. 6d. dress.
  Before I sit down, there are one or two general remarks I should like to make about this Schedule. First, I want to stress the point which I stressed on men's clothes, and to which we have not yet had any satisfactory answer, namely, the discrepancy between the price levels which have been fixed for cloth and clothes. In some instances, the level on cloth has gone up and the level on garments made from that cloth has gone down.
  Let me give one example which I quoted yesterday, but which was not answered at all by the hon. Gentleman who replied; so I will repeat it. A certain type of Utility cloth was 21s. 11d. The D figure now puts that cloth up to 22s. 2d., but the strange thing is that a coat made of that cloth goes down from £8 16s. 9d. to £6 10s. That is a point which is worrying the trade a great deal.
  I want again to stress that our main objection to the Schedule is that it puts taxes on goods which were never taxed before, a heavy tax in some cases. It is no use saying, "What does 5s. or 6s. amount to?"; 5s. or 6s. is a great deal these days when a woman is buying a dress.
  The Chancellor said yesterday that as we went through the Schedules he would make concessions or adjustments if there were any to be made. I hope I have shown that in regard to certain sizes as well as in regard to cost there are many adjustments which ought to be made in women's outer wear, and I hope that some concessions will be made this evening.
  Mr. Burden: We have had a very interesting dissertation from the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon). Most of us are very pleased to see her hon. Friends in their party clothes. A demonstration on some of the earlier
  1244
  Clauses might have been extremely interesting, if rather brief.
  Some of the points made by the hon. Lady were very good ones, but in some of her remarks she was on very unsure ground. She complained that an increased D allowance was given for coats over 42 inches in length and suggested that that D level should be paid for garments 36 inches in length. If we reduce the length to 36 inches and still have the same D level, there will be a tendency on the part of manufacturers to make garments shorter than they should. It is a very good thing for garments to be made on the long side and for the D level to be such as to encourage manufacturers to make a full length a really full length. It is easy for women to have a coat shortened, but it is not nearly so easy for them to have it lengthened.
  The hon Lady brought along her hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), in a three-quarter length coat and said that that coat had a lower D level than a coat of 42 inches. It is a well-known fact in the trade that a three-quarter length coat uses less material than a full-length coat and the cost of production is generally less than for a full-length coat, and therefore the wholesale selling price of the garment is less. Although the D level may be less in relation to the cost of the garment. the D level is—
  Miss Bacon: Perhaps I might explain to the hon. Member, who does not seem to know what he is talking about, that the wholesale manufacturer's price for each coat is £7 19s. 6d. Both coats are the same wholesale price, but the three-quarter length coat of my hon. Friend has a bigger wholesale price.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Lady is not on sound ground. Generally speaking, the three-quarter length coat is cheaper than the full length coat. The hon. Lady when she was speaking pointed to her hon. Friend on her left and then to her hon. Friend on her right, and said that one garment, the three-quarter length coat, was more costly than the other. They are entirely different materials, and that is nothing unusual. Again, she is on weak ground.
  If the lengths in the D scheme are not maintained and the higher D levels are

  1245
  going to shorten lengths and measures that are worked out with the trade, it will encourage skimping and faulty manufactures, which was one of the failures of the Utility scheme, and it will be debasing and not improving garments made in this country. There is also the important factor that the failure of the Utility scheme was made perfectly clear by hon. Members opposite over a considerable period and they were demanding a revision.
  There is no doubt that there was a debasement in woollen material and in the definition of what was called wool. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) on one occasion defined wool material as a material containing more than 15 per cent. of wool and on another occasion as material that contained not more than 15 per cent. wool.
  There is every need for this revision, and the D scheme in general has been approved and accepted by the trade. The trade are convinced that, as a result of the new D scheme and the abolition of the old Utility scheme, free competition and free marketing will result in an improvement in quality from which the public generally will benefit.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that because the statutory definition of wool material a year or two ago was a material containing not less than 15 per cent. of wool there has been debasement in the Utility scheme? If that is his suggestion—and it seems to be implied by what he says—may I remind him that, in the first place, that has been the definition of wool materials for many years in Statutory Instruments; and, secondly, unless he is trying to suggest this is an improvement on the Utility scheme, in the very Schedule we are debating tonight the Government have defined Class A material, which is taken for this purpose as wool, as:
  "textile material containing more than 15 per cent. by weight of fibre"
  including a fibre such as wool.
  Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman has risen to the bait perfectly, because what I was complaining about was that he made two different statements. On the first occasion when he spoke about the wool material—and I ask him to look up his own words—he said it was material
  1246
  containing not more than 15 per cent. wool. On the second occasion, as I pointed out in an Adjournment debate in this House, he said it was material containing more than 15 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman should make up his mind.
  Generally, this is an improvement. The trade accepts that it means intensive competition, and they are not tied as they were by the old Utility schedules, which many manufacturers tried to get round. There have been complaints about this matter from the British Standards Institution, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds) not so very long ago said that the whole Utility scheme had failed and spoke of the shocking manufacture of some of the garments.
  Mr. Norman Dodds: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that no one doubts or disagrees with that? Does it now show the hollowness of his argument that he has to flog something that we all agree about? Why does he not get on with the argument?
  Mr. Burden: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have condemned the D scheme, but the scheme has not had a chance. The Utility scheme has had a chance, and the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has this very minute shown what a failure this scheme was at the end
  The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East, drew a harrowing picture of how ladies are going into shops and have to pay so much more money for a costume that they could buy more cheaply when the Utility scheme was in being. The fact is that general suits and ladies' costumes costing £9 wholesale before the D scheme paid £3 in Purchase Tax and now pay only 12s. 6d. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that happens to be true. I ask her to work it out for herself. If the D level is £6 10s., on a coat which sold at £9 before the D scheme came into operation and paid tax at 331 per cent.—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady agrees with that?
  Miss Bacon: No.
  Mr. Burden: I assure her that it is correct. If the wholesale value was £9 it paid a tax of £3.
  Miss Bacon: I am not quarrelling with the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic. I was

  1247
  a teacher of mathematics before I came into this House. I have just added together the old Utility levels of jacket and skirt to make a suit, and they come to £9 18s. 9d. How could a suit at the wholesale price of £9 pay any tax at all?
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Lady does not understand. Surely she will accept that there were general garments and Utility garments and that the general garments were not in the Utility scheme at all.
  Miss Bacon: The general garments that paid the tax were at the higher price.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Lady does not realise the facts.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: Did the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) ever buy a lady's costume in his life? If he did, he would realise that the Utility range went right up to £20. The top Utility was £20. Now, under the new cost of living that we are getting from his party, the £25 costume will be reduced in price but the £6 10s. costume will go up.
  Mr. Burden: There was no top Utility price of £20, never. I may not have bought costumes, but I have been manufacturing them for quite a number of years. [Interruption.]
  Hon. Members: Now we know.
  Mr. Burden: If the hon. Lady were—
  Mr. A. C. Manuel: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Since the hon. Gentleman has made that candid admission, he ought now in all fairness to the Committee to declare his interest in this matter.
  Mr. Burden: Further to that point of order. I said that I had been—I do not manufacture them myself now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I have an interest If hon. Ladies opposite will consult with the right hon. Member for Huyton, he will inform them that there was no question of a D level in regard to the Utility and general specifications. A general garment had no portion free of tax under the Utility scheme, and it paid tax on the whole amount of the wholesale value.
  As I pointed out before to the hon. Lady, if a general garment cost £9, it
  1248
  attracted 33⅓ per cent. tax under the old Utility scheme, paying £3 in tax. Now, under the D scheme, it pays 12s. 6d. tax. So there is this levelling out which has been welcomed by the trade. Although some of the garments under the old Utility scheme were either tax free or paid only a small tax, the better quality garments were denied to the general public because of the high tax of 331 per cent. imposed by the previous Government. Now, because of the D scheme, the public are able to buy those better-class garments much more cheaply.
  The hon. Lady said that she and her hon. Friends had taken the garments they are wearing off the peg and that they would be going back tomorrow. I hope that they will be marked "shop soiled"—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is cheap."] It is not meant in that way.
  Mr. Manuel: Changed your mind?
  Mr. Burden: There are certain anomalies which must be studied, but it is better for my right hon. Friend to go into them in consultation with the trade in order to arrive at reasonable levels in regard to measurements which the trade may want, rather than that questions of measurement should be argued across the Floor of the House.
  The trade will know the most acceptable way of curing these anomalies, and if my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that this will be done, the trade and the public will benefit. There are certain points on other categories which my hon. Friends and myself have raised in Amendments to this Schedule. I hope that, when my right hon. Friend is considering the question of anomalies, he will take into consideration the further anomalies we have indicated to him. If he will do that, he will find the trade responsive. They will recognise that revenue has to be maintained, and any concessions he may give will not only please the trade but will help to maintain the revenue of this country.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Freda Corbet: Thank you for calling me, Sir Charles. May I say that I find the atmosphere of the Chamber rather warm, for this debate has taken a long time and I feel that this demonstration by my hon. Friends and myself has been the cause of some suffering on our part. We hope

  1249
  it will make an appeal to the Chancellor and the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, who is now on the Front Bench opposite.
  I want to make another appeal to the hearts of Ministers. I have been described as a little lady, which is better than being dubbed a "shortie." All my life I have been faced with the awful handicap of trying to get clothes which fit me—and I can assure hon. Gentlemen, and also hon. Ladies who are of a normal size, that the problem in the case of small people is as bad as in the case of out-sizes. It is a little unfortunate, too, if, on the rare occasions on which I find a coat to fit me, I have to pay more for it.
  I am an unfortunate person altogether, really, and after what has been said tonight I am not at all sure how I am going to face the future. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) says he has been a manufacturer, but he must be a little out of touch with things now, judging by what he said in the debate, and I can assure him that I speak from the consumer's point of view—and I should have thought that he, too, would have looked at the problem from the point of view of the person who is to wear the coat.
  Take the problem of fitting the short person. What about the fit of the shoulders and across the back? This coat is obviously a perfect fit—not too long in the sleeves, the exact length and, therefore, the sort of coat I should want to buy. It is true, as the hon. Member for Gillingham said, that if I buy a coat which is too long for me I can turn it up, but the great probability is that it will be completely out of proportion. If I have to wear a short coat, the same sort of trouble arises.
  Mr. Burden: If the hon. Lady is fair, she will admit that there are very few occasions on which anyone, even with the slightest difficulty in figure, can go into a shop and buy something which does not need an alteration at all. That is the case unless they have a perfect figure. If the hon. Lady goes into a shop, even when the D scheme is in full operation, she will find that she will get fitted just as well as, if not better than, under the old Utility scheme and will pay no more.
  Mrs. Corbet: That is not so. An alteration in length is not very serious, but
  1250
  alterations in the sleeves, the shoulders, the waist line, are very serious matters indeed. I hope the Minister will consider this point very seriously, and particularly the fact that we have to pay more for an identical coat, the wholesale price for which is exactly the same. The coat for the short person needs less material and, to be fair, she should pay less, but it is certainly wrong that she should pay substantially more.
  The principal point we are making, however, concerns the level at which the D is fixed. Hon. Members opposite are happy to impose upon the people of this country a still further increase in the cost of living, but I would remind them that they made a promise in October about the cost of living. I warn them to be very careful about how much they raise the cost of living.
  Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I am not going to be rash enough to argue about women's clothes with any of the lady Members of the Committee, and certainly not with a covey of them, or a flock or gaggle, whichever they like to call themselves. Nor am I going to be dressed for the part, although I have beside me the garment to which I wish to refer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Put it on."] The hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) mentioned a whole lot of garments, but she did not allude to the last Amendment on the Paper, which refers to aprons.
  It is to nurses' aprons that I wish to refer. This matter has been brought to my attention by a firm in Dundee, many of whose members live in my constituency, which borders that city. This firm has specialised for many years in making nurses' dresses, aprons and uniforms. It is a specialised trade, and in the past it has been specially treated by the Board of Trade under the Utility scheme. If one feels the material of this garment, one has a strange suspicion that it ought never to have been classed as high-grade Utility. In my opinion it is far too good for the Utility range. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is a very high class material. Speaking as a layman, it seems to me that it should never have been the subject of one of the wangles of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dodds)

  1251
  admitted just now that the Utility scheme had become in a way a sort of wangle. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  This article is a Utility white nurse's apron. It was priced at 12s. 6d. and was tax-free high-grade Utility. The same apron still costs 12s. 6d., but under the D scheme, even with the 25 per cent. reduction announced last night, it will cost 14s. 3d. These Utility standards, which were a safeguard and support for manufacturer, supplier and buyer—so my manufacturer informs me—for a minimum quality and guarantee of standard, are re-acting unfavourably on manufacturers who have tried in the past to give hospitals first-class service and a guaranteed quality which would stand up not only to hard work in the hospitals but to the hard conditions suffered in laundries today.
  Hospital buyers are now tending, since the D level came in, to buy on the keenest market a grade of apron which is tending to put out of business those who are trying to keep up the standard of the quality. The bulk of our hospitals today are national hospitals. Therefore the Government, in an attempt to deal with the expenses of the National Health Service, and waste in the National Health Service, are quite rightly asking all hospital boards to economise, and one of the methods of economy is that the buyers of nurses' aprons and other goods for the hospitals are taking the aprons at the keenest price and cutting out my manufacturer because he is trying to maintain his standard and quality and now has to charge a higher price than the new D level.
  Mr. J. Edwards: I am following the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument with very great interest. Am I understanding him aright when he says that the first consequence of the new D scheme in respect of nurses' aprons is debasement of the quality?
  Captain Duncan: That is what my manufacturer says is happening. They are buying an article which is of lower quality than he has been in the habit of manufacturing under the Utility scheme.
  Those are the facts, and I submit that this is in the nature of a special case, because if we are to maintain the stan-
  1252
  dard and the hard-wearing qualities we ought to raise the D level. If that is done, it is not a question of charging the public more or the taxpayer losing money, because the taxpayer is paying for the hospital service anyway, and the bulk of these aprons go to the national hospitals. It is true that there may be a few private nurses who will possibly benefit, but the bulk of these aprons go to regional hospitals boards and hospital management committees, which is the main market for this specialised trade run by this factory.
  If the Chancellor cannot agree to the figure I have put in my Amendment, of £1, I am quite prepared to alter it to a figure which he considers more on the median level. Either I will alter it or ask him to alter it by the Report stage. This seems to be a special case in which the taxpayer gets hit whichever way it goes. Alternatively, would the Chancellor submit this type of case to the Order procedure under Clause 8 (3) and allow an inquiry to see what the right D level is, so that when an inquiry has been held an Order can be laid later on this year to put this matter right?
  I remind the Committee that yesterday the Chancellor said this:
  "I would remind the Committee—and I say this in a constructive spirit—that there are powers under the Bill to renew and alter the Ds by Order. I will give this undertaking: that this matter will always be kept under consideration, and, while I can give no date and therefore create no uncertainty, if there are difficulties at any time we can lay an Order and thereby correct a D if we find it to be wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 12th May. 1952; Vol. 500, c. 985.]
  I therefore ask whoever replies, either to give me the right figure if mine is wrong, or to suggest himself a figure on the Report stage, or to give an undertaking that it will come under the procedure of Clause 8 and be put right in the end.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. H. Wilson: I thought from his first two or three sentences that the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) was going to demonstrate his unfitness to contribute to the Committee's discussion on this matter. When he said he was surprised that a garment of high quality had been allowed in the Utility scheme he appeared to be one of the many Tories who appear to think the Utility scheme is synonymous

  1253
  with something cheap and nasty, whereas if he confers with the majority of his constituents he will find that those who have had to do the buying—the housewives—regard the Utility scheme as one of their best protections.
  The hon. and gallant Member suggested, perhaps rather fancifully, that the inclusion of that garment in the Utility scheme was a wangle on our part. But, of course, we went very fully into the question of extending the Utility scheme from time to time, and if there was any wangling the result was that the nurses in his constituency and elsewhere obtained these garments very much cheaper than if there had not been a Utility scheme.
  However, before he finished, the hon. and gallant Member well justified his claim to contribute to the discussion, because he made the very powerful point some of us have been making for the last few weeks—that the replacement of the Utility scheme by the D scheme will lead to serious debasement of quality and standards. He was quite frank about that. I take back all my first thoughts about the hon. and gallant Member, and my only regret is that he did not contribute to the debate yesterday when we were discussing men's wear from the same point of view.
  Captain Duncan: I only talk on what I know about.
  Mr. Wilson: I am glad to hear that, because it is a quality not shared by the hon. and gallant Member's hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). If ever there was an example of anyone who has been in the trade—I am not sure whether he is still in it: he was not very clear about that—knowing so little about it when it comes to practical debate, the hon. Member for Gillingham is a case in point.
  Mr. Burden: I am still in the trade, though not manufacturing myself. The right hon. Gentleman talks about debasement. During the later years of the Utility scheme, the right hon. Gentleman will surely admit that the word "wool" was debased when the then President of the Board of Trade defined it as cloth which contains not less than 15 per cent. of that commodity.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member will keep on referring to that subject. I recall
  1254
  that for many years it was almost impossible for him to open his mouth in this Chamber without returning to the problem of 15 per cent. wool. I have a certain amount of sympathy with him on that point. I know he is concerned with the Act relating to merchandise marks. I recall that when we first de-rationed wool we de-rationed those garments which were 15 per cent. wool or more. I also remember buying a pair of pyjamas coupon-free. I shall not pursue that point, because it would be out of order as they were men's pyjamas. But they are still tickling me when I wear them, so I understand the hon. Member's embarrassment and difficulty.
  I thought he was less than fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon), particularly on her very powerful argument about 42″ and 36″ length coats. He said that if the length were altered, as in the Amendment, the result would be that many manufacturers would be tempted to make goods too short, and that it would be more difficult to alter them upwards than it would be to shorten them if they had been made too long. That is really a fantastic argument. It does not place very much faith in the manufacturers of this country. I hope it is not representative of his own practices in his own business.
  I was always told that manufacturers made these garments to meet consumers' needs, but now the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that is not so. If there is anything in his argument, all I can say is that as a result of maintaining 42 inches instead of 36 manufacturers will, perhaps, make the garments too long, and that that would be a waste of material which the country cannot afford at the present time, as the Minister of State for Economic Affairs will agree.
  The hon. Gentleman used one or two other strange arguments. He said—and I do not think anyone on this side of the Committee contested it—that because we are easing up on certain restrictions on Utility in the interests of the export trade there was undoubtedly some debasement of some Utility goods. He seemed to proceed from that to suggest that, because there was some debasement in the Utility scheme, that was an argument for supporting the D scheme, under which debasement will be a great deal more marked.
  Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely no foundation for saying that. It is pure hypothesis.
  Mr. Wilson: I would back up the hypothesis by two points: first, by the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Angus, South; second, by this very simple argument. If, in fact, under the fairly rigid specifications, qualities were not all they might have been, what quality does the hon. Gentleman think he is doing to get with no specification at all? It is exactly like the argument of the Government Front Bench, when right hon. Gentlemen say that textiles are not selling in the shops that are tax free. That is the burden of their argument on the Purchase Tax. So now they are suggesting that if they put up the tax on a large range of goods previously tax free there may be a better chance of selling them.
  We have had over the last day or two debated a number of other groups. It is right, of course, to remind the Committee that some of the considerations we have advanced in connection with men's wear apply to the group at present before the Committee, but I am not going to weary the Committee by repeating all the arguments deployed yesterday, because that was understood, certainly by the Front Benches. However, I should like to give one or two figures to show what will be the effect on this Group of the Government's proposals.
  Yesterday I gave some figures on men's wear derived from a number of representative Co-operative societies, taking the percentage of goods which were previously tax free and which will now carry tax. I take now a couple of figures of women's wear. A Co-operative society on the South Coast suggested 40 per cent. OF the women's wear previously tax free will now carry tax. An East Midlands society thought 33 per cent. OF coats would carry tax and 50 per cent. of other goods. A South Midlands society reckoned 30 per cent. of those which were previously tax free would now carry tax. So I could go on with more details, but I will not weary the Committee, because I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the point I am making.
  It is also clear—though once again I shall not give all the details it would be possible to give—that there are many
  1256
  anomalies in this scheme. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman. There are bound to be anomalies in any scheme of this kind, and it must be the duty of this Committee to remove at any rate some glaring anomalies, seeing that we are unable to persuade the Government to drop the scheme as a whole, which is the only way of getting rid of all the anomalies.
  For instance, I think there should be in the matter of women's dresses a real differentiation between cotton and rayon, and in that connection I think many people in the trade would support a separate figure for silk—£5, I think, has been suggested. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) were here, I am sure he would support that idea of separate treatment for silk dresses, though it may be that after last night, when he joined the cohorts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), who wished to wound but not to strike, he would not support us in any Amendment in favour of silk.
  Another anomaly is between the price of overalls at £2 in the D scheme compared with aprons at 5s. That is a very serious difference, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, has pointed out quite correctly that the example, of which I gave very full details to the Committee last night, about lined and unlined coats applies as much to women's as to men's coats. Last night I indicated to the Committee—and the Chancellor undertook to look into it—that as a result of the inconsistent D levels the unlined men's coats cost more in the shops than the fully lined men's coats. That was obviously an anomaly, and I have sent the full particulars this afternoon to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, the same applies to women's coats, and I hope that any redress that the Chancellor is able to give when he studies the details I have sent him about men's coats will be applied to women's coats as well.
  The last point I want to make about this—and it is a very serious point—relates to the fixing of these D levels on which we had a little discussion last night. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East pointed out the extra-

  1257
  ordinary thing that, although the Chancellor and other Ministers have told us that this was fixed on a sort of scientific basis, these scientific calculations always seem to come to round figures at the close. It might be £4, £3 or £2 10s. I think the Chancellor would be the first to admit that they had not got very much information, that it was a shot in the dark, and that shot in the dark resulted in the round figures of £3 or £4.
  All this adds weight to the argument that we used last night. I asked the Financial Secretary about the basis of these calculations of the group we were then discussing, and tonight I should like to ask the Minister of State about the basis of fixation of these D levels for the group we are discussing tonight. We were told by the Chancellor that a survey covered 1,500 families and that was a sample of the whole country; that for fixing these figures a further sample was taken from the 1,500. How many families were taken for this group? How many figures were obtained from the samples for nurses' aprons or three-quarter length coats?
  I do not think the Financial Secretary last night quite got my point, when he said that it had been fixed in as fair a manner as possible and that it was not good enough for me to suggest that the figures were wrong. But these are not figures of mine. The Government fixed this D level, and they admitted frankly last night that they did it without any consultation with the trade or anyone who knows anything about it. My comments on the figures were not to say that they were automatically wrong, but it would be really remarkable if they were right considering the method used. Such information as one can obtain from the trade in the light of the trade's experience suggests that many of them at any rate are wrong.
  11.0 p.m.
  Some are not right. Some appear to me, if we accept the D scheme in principle, to be fair and reasonable. The Chancellor will have noticed that we have not put down Amendments to those which we consider fair and reasonable. It has not been the desire of my hon. Friends and myself to waste time on the Schedule
  1258
  or to put down time-consuming Amendments. What we have been doing is simply to put down Amendments where. After close study and discussion with the trade, we have thought that the figures were anomalous and wrong.
  I hope that the Minister of State for Economic Affairs will tell us how the figures for the group which we are discussing were reached. All we have heard so far is that there was this mysterious social survey. Apparently the first part of it was taken last May—a year ago. Buying and selling conditions have changed very considerably since then.
  The second part was taken in September or October. In October or November there was something of a depression already in the clothing trade. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been at great pains to accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) of having precipitated it, which attributes to him greater powers than he would claim. I think his very timely speech last year perhaps had a slight effect on an already rather rickety structure. But I will not go into that point in detail.
  The important thing is that there was at that time some recession already in buying. A lot of people in the country had got it into their heads that there would be a Conservative Government, and the extraordinary thing is that a lot of people at that time thought that a Conservative Government would bring prices down. They had seen the posters on the hoardings. Some people obviously believed them and, as a result, said, "We will wait until the new Government has been in a few months and then we shall get the things more cheaply." I suggest that the time at which the social survey was taken was highly unrealistic and that its figures do not give a proper pattern for calculating the D levels.
  I am extremely suspicious about the whole method of fixing the D levels. I am not attributing to the Government any desire to wangle the figures; I just think that in regard to the figures which the Chancellor said had to be fixed at the official level—I understand that—the staff were told to produce the scheme and they simply did not have the facts and figures on which to produce the right answer.

  1259
  I did not understand why the Financial Secretary said that they could not consult the trade. The Douglas Report was out on 24th February, but it was not until 11th March that the Chancellor announced that it would be put into force. Consultations were already going on about the quality aspects. I do not see why there could not have been discussions in those few days, without prejudice, on the question of what would have been a fair D level.
  I still feel that the figures of the group that we are discussing—the same argument applies to the other groups—have been produced in an arbitrary and capricious manner. There has been no attempt to justify them. The Minister of State is asking the Committee to introduce what is, in effect, a new system of taxation in this country on a very wide range of consumer goods, clothing and household textiles, and to take on trust the so-called median figures which the trade—not I—say are quite wrong.
  As he is asking the Committee to do so much for the Government, I wonder if he will agree to publish or put in the Library the report of the social survey, item by item, on which the median figures were based. If the figures were based, as simply as the Chancellor said last night, on the results of the Social Survey, then he has nothing to hide. I suggest to him that these figures are at least put in the Library. If he will do that, perhaps the Government will get rid of the suspicions which rise in my breast—although I try to repress them—that many of these median figures were based on a token sample of garments of five, six, seven, eight or nine purchases. Someone then took a shot in the dark and selected a middle figure. If, however, the figures were realistic, the Government cannot object to giving them.
  We are being asked to agree to this special change in taxation without any information, apart from the trade, on which to base our decision. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us that he will make the figures available to the Committee and, for the benefit of the trade, I hope it will be possible to publish them.
  The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Sir Arthur Salter): I rise with a good deal of diffidence on this subject, because I do not claim to have any intimate commercial knowledge of this class of article, and my personal experience is limited. I am also the more diffident because we have had this evening a debate which has been made the more interesting and vivid by the unusual form of evidence produced by the hon. Ladies opposite. I have in my time seen dress parades, but never quite one of this character or one produced for this purpose. I have never, for example, heard anyone in a dress parade state, as one hon. Lady did, that she wanted to demonstrate how badly an article fitted. That is not the usual object.
  Miss Bacon: I think the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my hon. Friend. She said that the coat fitted her perfectly but that she usually finds it difficult to obtain good fitting coats.
  Sir A. Salter: I am sorry if I misunderstood the argument. What has been shown quite clearly is that there are special difficulties in dealing with the articles which come under this scheme—difficulties which in some respects are similar to those we faced in dealing with men's outerwear, but greater in the case of women's outerwear for several reasons, which I hope I can mention without offence.
  In the first place, there is a greater variety in women's dress. Man is, after all, the uniform sex. It is man's desire and pride so to dress that he will not be distinguishable among other men. That is probably the opposite of woman's ambition. That means a greater variety of articles. It also, of course, leads to a greater mutability of fashion; and it means that the differentiation between one article and another is less clear and stable. While we men have just our coats, waistcoats and trousers, B.3 shows, as has been pointed out, the extraordinary variety of the corresponding women's articles of dress, which cannot be clearly or definitely, or for any length of time, distinguished one from the other. That is the difficulty of the task, and it is the explanation of the very long list which was adversely criticised just now.

  1261
  Before I answer the questions asked me and deal with the particular claims made, I should like to recall to the Committee the framework within which we must consider any Amendments, and which also should determine the perspective in which the judge the weight and importance of each Amendment. First there is the D scheme and its purposes and general character. I do not propose at this stage to go over those again, but we have to remember what is its purpose and character, as distinct from the older system which it superseded.
  Secondly, running through all these claims for concessions is the general concession made by my right hon. Friend last night in reducing the rate of tax over practically all these articles by a quarter. Taking the D scheme and this concession together, it is not only true that the tax borne by the trade and by the consumer is less than it was before, but it is also true to say that that would also apply to the lower income group purchasers.
  That does not mean every single one, still less does it mean in respect of every article, but taking the D scheme with its shading gradually above the point at which the D level comes, and taking the 25 per cent. general reduction and the extent to which people who largely bought Utility now buy just about Utility range, I think it will be found that the total result of all that is to make the burden of tax both to the trade and the consumer, and including the great bulk of the lower income customers, less than it was before. I think that is an accurate statement.
  Mr. J. Edwards: Would the right hon. Gentleman be more precise and say what he means by the lower income groups. This generalisation is interesting, but it does not mean anything unless some precision is given to it. Would he give us the exact figures?
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Before the Minister resumes, is it his intention to address himself to the case presented, namely, the contradiction in the taxes with regard to the sizes?
  Sir A. Salter: I am coming to those. I said that I wanted to make a few general remarks first. No, I cannot give a precise definition of the lower income groups, but for the great bulk of the lower income,
  1262
  as well as for the other people, the combination of the small tax above the D level, the gradually sliding upward tax, and the concession of the 25 per cent., it means on the whole a relief by comparison with their previous experience.
  Mr. H. wilson: If the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is true—and I am surprised to hear him suggest that it could be true—it would imply that the lower income group, however buying, has been up to this time making a fairly substantial part of its purchases above the top Utility price or goods below the top Utility price which were carrying Purchase Tax, and that the gain on the revision from 33⅓ to 25 per cent. on that will offset the increase they will now have to pay on the goods previously untaxed which now carry tax. That must be the case if there is any truth in what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what proportion of the goods in this group was bought above the old Utility price? In other words, what proportion does he assume of all their purchases paid tax before. because, without that, it would be impossible for that statement to be true?
  Sir A. Salter: I cannot profess to base myself upon more than a general impression of those who have been concerned with the working of the old system and constructing the new system for a considerable time. I do not desire to press that point further.
  11.15 p.m.
  There is another comment I want to make, because it refers to several arguments put forward by hon. Members on both sides: the suggestion that there should be a distinction with regard to certain materials other than the simple distinction that appears here, in accordance with the recommendation of the Douglas Committee, between wool and non-wool materials. We were very definitely recommended that it would be extremely difficult to have further distinctions, for example with regard to silk, lace, linen, or other materials, beyond this major one between wool and non-wool, which was relatively simple.
  Woollen goods, for example, are suitable for winter wear, non—wool goods for summer wear, and we do not get the same kind of competition and all the complica-

  1263
  tions, too, of admixture in different forms and different degrees. Of course, there are and must be certain anomalies. Before I come to the particular cases put before us today, I would remind the Committee that of course the anomalies are now not so serious as they would have been under the old system, under which we jumped straight from Utility into the full rate of tax. One of the ways in which we are, not removing the anomalies, but making them less serious, is by having this sliding scale.
  I now come to the question of the hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). He called attention to the percentage of articles that were previously free and are now taxed. Of course, it is possible to get rather impressive percentages by assuming that the real distinction is between the taxed article and the untaxed article and ignoring the extent to which the scale now slides so gradually that a large part of the articles that are now taxed but which were untaxed before are taxed on a very small rate indeed.
  Mr. Jay: That would, of course, be equally true if the Government were to adopt our suggestion and raise the D levels. That argument is quite irrelevant to the proposal we are raising.
  Sir A. Salter: I agree that it would be true. But I want to make this more general remark: not only must I confine myself to what is directly relevant to this group of articles, but I do not think it is very useful now to deal with questions which have been adequately and fully dealt with before in this debate.
  It is part of the purpose of this Amendment that the level should be so raised that no articles would now carry any tax whatever that did not carry a tax before under the old Utility scheme. It is of the very essence of the D scheme—at any rate, we could not really have introduced the D scheme if we had subjected it to that disability from the revenue point of view. That case has been put before the Committee in regard to other articles, and the arguments that prevailed then must prevail now.
  As regards the method of fixing D levels, I cannot add anything to what was explained yesterday. The Committee
  1264
  has been told of the method of the social surveys, which, of course, were supplemented by the evidence available to the Departments concerned, including the Board of Trade. We have not the evidence in such a form that we could present it for each article as the basis upon which we arrived at the present figure for the D level.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Is that because you have not got it?
  Sir A. Salter: The method has been explained. I was asked why the result came out in round figures like £2 or £3. We have not pretended for a moment that we have the kind of information on which one could reach an exact arithmetical conclusion amounting to, say, 19s. 6d. or some such figure. To have taken a figure upon the public in pretending to a scientific precision which, of course, these figures do not possess. I remember very well how suspicious I used to be when the Egyptologists used to argue between themselves as to whether a certain dynasty was 4004 or 2520 B.C. Obviously they were guessing within a wide margin of error. We have not wide margins of error of that kind, but it would be a deception of the public if we presented that in each one of these articles we had a calculation which arrived at £2 rather than £1 19s. 6d.
  Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman says it would be a deception of the public to say that the Government were proceeding in a scientific manner, but I think "scientific" was exactly the word used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. He said there was a scientific basis for the D level. Is the right hon. Gentleman now throwing the Chancellor's argument over?
  Sir A. Salter: No, Sir. I said, if we pretended that we had a scientific basis carried to a point of precision at which we could say that the result, arithmetically, was £1 19s. 6d. rather than £2. That is all I said.
  Mr. Dodds: This is very important. It has been mentioned that in arriving at some of these fantastic D levels the social survey was concerned. I understand that it came under the Central Office of Information, and that information was obtained through 1,500 inquiries and re-

  1265
  ferred to the appropriate Departments. Was the D level fixed by the Treasury or by those people of the Central Office of Information or by the officials of the Board of Trade, or did they all sit in a room and decide these fantastic D levels? Who did it?
  Mr. H. Wilson: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, may I put a point to him? Will he bear in mind what the Chancellor said last night? After describing the random sample of 1,500 inquiries and a random sample from the sample, he said:
  "That shows that there is some basis for this scheme which is not political, and whether hon. Members agree with it or not, it was meant to be scientific."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 12th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 983.]
  Now the right hon. Gentleman says it is not much more than guesswork. How was the figure reached?
  Sir A. Salter: I cannot answer more about the method tonight. The method has been described, and it is not in the least inconsistent to say that the method was scientific and also to say that it was not carried to a point of precision which would enable us to say that the arithmetical calculation was £1 19s. 6d. rather than £2. That was the point I was answering. That was all I said.
  I should like to come to some particular examples which were put to me by the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North—East (Miss Bacon). She gave us the ocular demonstration to which I have referred, and she argued that if we did not change the length which determines the difference between the D levels one result would be that the coats worn by herself and her hon. Friends would bear a different rate of tax and would result in considerably different prices to the consumers.
  This is in some respects the converse to the case which was argued yesterday—that about outsize persons. This is the case of the hardship of the person of less than normal size. I think that we were all moved by that case and were interested in the evidence and the arguments. But I would like to remind the hon. Ladies of the purpose of this provision in the Schedule. It is a reasonable and necessary purpose, namely, to draw a line between two quite different articles—the ordinary full-length coat,
  1266
  and the three—quarter length and half—length coat. It is reasonable to make a distinction, because it is clear that the half—length coat would normally be the cheaper coat. It uses less material. It ought therefore to have a lower D level.
  There is, I think, truth in what the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) argued on that point, although in certain respects he pushed his argument rather too far. Having said that, I think that there remains something in the hon. Ladies' arguments which merits special consideration. The present purpose and effect of the provision is to draw a line between the ordinary full length and the three—quarter or half—length coats. There are, however, perhaps three different kinds of coat, rather than two. I can see the difficulties with regard to the particularly short person, when it is a question of the three—quarter—length as against the half-length coat.
  I should like to have the matter, especially the case of coats from the peg, looked into, and if hon. Members will send me the evidence of the cases put forward tonight, I will see that these matters are looked into urgently and sympathetically.
  I turn now to the case brought before the Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). It was, I think, a real case, but one which is very difficult from the point of view of classification and administration; but there ought to be careful consideration with regard to the wrap-round apron. That also will be looked at carefully, to see whether we can make a distinction. I am not quite sure whether that can be done in time for the Report stage, but, if not, it would be possible before the next Budget to deal with such cases by administrative action.
  Before the Committee considers whether what I have said gives reasonable satisfaction, I should like to remind hon. Members of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said regarding a similar Amendment concerning men's outerwear yesterday. He had, of course, announced his general concession, which was intended to be an alternative to giving relief through successive small concessions in a great number of cases. The Chancellor said that he maintained that it would be wrong to concede a number of points about Ds unless we were satis-

  1267
  fied there were genuine grievances or abuses.
  If anomalies exist—and many do, and must—and if they are also serious and can be changed without creating other anomalies not less great, I think we ought to consider them carefully. But, in view of the general concession in the reduction of the rate, we cannot have a great number of separate concessions. Some have been made, but my right hon. Friend was not able to regard the Amendment in relation to men's outerwear as justifying a special concession. On the whole, the difficulties of our making such concessions are greater, while the reasons for making them are not greater, in the case of women's outerwear because of the special complications to which I referred in the course of my remarks.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. H. Rhodes: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer this question about the fixing of the D level? The survey was made in September-October. The D levels were not announced until March. Which level of prices was taken into consideration, the September—October prices or the prices ruling about the time of the Budget?
  Sir A. Salter: The survey in May and the other survey in September were important sources of evidence and information. They were evidence only, as I explained just now, and what they produced was examined and commented upon, and used by the Departments in the light of the conditions and prices at the time when the Departments devised the actual D levels which we have now decided upon.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: I think most hon. Members on this side of the Committee will be pleased that perhaps we have obtained a little concession. I hope before sitting down to be able to show the Minister of State for Economic Affairs a very easy way in which he can make a complete concession on what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) has been asking.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that with the concession the Chancellor made last night the tax borne by the trade and the consumers would be almost the
  1268
  same as before this D line was introduced. It may be true that the tax borne by the trade and the consumers will be almost the same as before, but what concerns us is that the lowest wage earners and the middle wage earners or salary earners will have to bear a far greater tax under this Government scheme than they did under the scheme operated when the Labour Government was in power.
  Tonight we have been offered no proof but just general statements from the right hon. Gentleman that, by and large, even the lowest wage earner will be paying no greater amount of tax. I live in a working-class district; I live amongst the workers of that district, and I would be hard put to it to find one woman from those working-class homes who in the past years has bought anything, either textiles for her home or clothing for herself or her elder daughters, and paid any Purchase Tax on it.
  These women have not been able to buy either textiles for their homes or clothes for themselves or their daughters in the range in which Purchase Tax applied before this Budget. Most of them, possibly because of the amount of money they had, had to be discriminating shoppers. Even those women who might at times have been able to buy a non-Utility suit or frock went, if they were discriminating shoppers, for a good class Utility garment, usually in the top or second top range. Now all these people will have to pay tax under the D scheme.
  On the other hand, it means that those who are very well off indeed, who rarely bought any Utility article but bought in the luxury ranges and could well afford to do so, will now have a rebate on the tax. It seems to me a most inequitable thing for a Government to do at the present time. This Government were returned on a policy of bringing down the cost of living. Indeed, in the pamphlet "Britain Strong and Free" the Tories told the electors any Government would be judged by their effect on the cost of living. This Government have been judged seriously already in the country. and I have no doubt that in the counties of Scotland today our people will be judging them.
  I remember that when I made one of our political broadcasts I spoke about what the Tories might do with our

  1269
  Utility ranges of goods. After that speech there was a great deal of criticism in the Tory Press that one should dare to suggest that if the Tories were returned to power they would interfere with our Utility scheme. But it is only one of the many promises that the Tories have broken. I am very glad the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is in his place.
  Mr. Burden rose—
  Miss Herbison: No, I have no intention at the present moment of giving way to the hon. Member. He made a most excited and noisy speech today, the sort of speech one always expects from someone who is not very sure of his ground. He has tried to tell the Committee that he knows everything that should be known about the trade. He told us the trade accepted this D scheme as a good thing. That is very different information from that which we on this side of the Committee have been able to obtain from the trade.
  I would say to the hon. Member, who has a vested interest as one of the traders, that we are concerned about the effect of the D scheme on our constituents as consumers. It is definitely having a very bad effect on the lowest wage earners and the middle income groups. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Gillingham is married. I do not know whether his wife is tall or short or whether she is normal in size.
  Mr. Burden rose—
  Miss Herbison: In due course I will give way to the hon. Member. He knows very little about the problems of the short woman when she goes out to buy something. He suggested it was very simple to cut a piece off when a short woman bought a coat. When one buys a straight coat that has no line it may be a simple thing to cut a little off the bottom. Under this D scheme we short women will have to pay extra Purchase Tax. But that is not the only thing. That does not worry the hon. Member for Gillingham.
  Mr. Burden rose—
  Miss Herbison: He is so impetuous. this hon. Gentleman the Member for Gillingham. I have already said that I will give way to him in due course. We
  1270
  are not only going to have to pay this extra Purchase Tax, but we are going to have to pay for the alterations, and payment for alterations adds to the price the small woman has to pay. If we buy a coat that is shaped, then it is not a simple matter of just getting a bit cut off the bottom. If there is a waist, we may find it a hit too far down, and that would not be stylish. If it has pockets we may find the pockets at our knees, and no woman would want that. The hon. Member for Gillingham has shown very clearly that, although he may be a director of the manufacturers, in this case he just does not begin to know anything about the problems of the short woman when she goes to buy a coat.
  Mr. Burden: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, but I think her own views on this subject are not very sound, because she calls it "our" Utility scheme, whereas the Utility scheme was in being long before the Labour Government came in. It was never their Utility scheme at all. The party opposite debased the Utility scheme, and that is why the D scheme is coming in. I should like to inform the hon. Lady that I am married, and very happily so, too.
  Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman has taken great objection to my talking about "our" Utility scheme. Well, I will give way on that. It was a Coalition Government that brought in the Utility scheme, and it was a Coalition Government in which very excellent representatives of ours sat in the Cabinet and had excellent representatives of ours in the Ministries that had something to do with the Utility scheme, and, of course, they gave some of the best ideas to that scheme. Then we formed the Government for six and a half years, and we continued what the Coalition Government introduced. Immediately the Tories were returned to power they found ways and means of putting it out of court altogether.
  Mr. Burden: The Socialists set up the Douglas Committee.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Tories did not have to accept its Report. [Interruption. ]
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I hope hon. Gentlemen will allow me to hear the hon. Lady.
  Miss Herbison: This is something that really gets under the skin of hon. Members opposite. Such trifling remarks as "our" scheme or committee upset them. I remember one committee that was set up—the Sankey Commission—that put forward some excellent ideas, but when they were presented to the Tories they did not accept the ideas.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Lady is straying from the Amendment.
  Miss Herbison: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Thomas. I was using that only as an illustration. But no Government at any time are forced to accept in toto or in part the results of any committee set up. The Government are the policy-making body in the country, and they decide the policy that is to be followed. I would say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we were very proud of the great im- provement that took place in the dress of the ordinary people. During the war and after the war it was very difficult indeed to find any class difference between our women who worked in factories and our ladies who had nothing whatever to do but look after their dress. That was due to the fine Utility clothes our women could buy without payment of Purchase Tax.
  The object of this Amendment is to bring completely out of the Purchase Tax range all the goods that previously carried no Purchase Tax, and if it is not accepted, then we will return to the days we knew once in Britain when there will be a great difference in the dress of the women and the men of the lower income groups and those people many of whom never wet a finger or do any work at all to produce any of the goods that are bought.
  11.45 p.m.
  A very strong case has been made out for this Amendment. The Minister has gone some way to meet us in the matter, but something more is needed. This is a three-quarter length coat that I am wearing, and it is classed in the same category as the costume jacket worn by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). Mine is an overcoat, even though it may be three-quarter length, and it would save difficulty in searching for ways and means to try to get over the problem of these two coats which are identical except for length if the three- quarter length coat was put into the same
  1272
  category as that worn by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East and not in the category of that worn by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East. I hope what I have said will help the Minister of State to solve the problem with which he is faced.
  Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the hon. Lady tell us who is sponsoring this programme we have heard so much about?
  Miss Herbison: I do not think it matters a bit who sponsors it as long as what we are trying to prove has been clearly thought out.
  Captain Duncan: May I put my point more briefly and more gratefully than the hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), by saying that the Minister has to a large extent met the point raised and that we hope that on the Report stage we shall see the results of his speech tonight.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: After sitting through the whole of this debate, I cannot help wondering how Members on the other side of the Committee view the speech of the Minister of State for Economic Affairs. I listened with great care to what he had to say. Almost before he had got 10 words out of his mouth I thought it was a pity that the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) did not hand that white garment he had to the Minister of State, because if anybody—
  Captain Duncan: He had it already.
  Mr. Hall: —should appear before this Committee in a white sheet it is the Minister of State. He said that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look at this question, raised so vividly by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon), Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and Peckham (Mrs. Corbet).
  I feel that there is little more that one need add to those speeches and the demonstrations which accompanied them. Obviously and demonstrably, the absurdity of the scales was made plain. When the Minister of State said that the Chancellor would look at them, I wondered why they had not been looked at before. It is astonishing

  1273
  that those who advise him had not been aware of these anomalies when they came to build up the schedules. understood him to say that they would be looked at. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether he meant before the Report stage or before next year's Budget.
  Sir A. Salter: We will look into it before the Report stage in the hope of reaching a decision then. If that should be impossible, there is an intermediate possibility between that and next year's Finance Bill. It is possible to act by administrative order where a case proves to need alteration.
  Mr. Hall: That is what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean, with the emphasis on its being looked at before the Report stage is reached. To leave the matter where it is is quite unrealistic. We get constant complaints from the trade that they are left in a state of complete uncertainy. They have already been in a state of uncertainty for several weeks. The Chancellor resolved their uncertainty to some extent by the concessions he made last night.
  But we are now putting them into a state of uncertainty again in a very substantial fashion, and I urge the Chancellor not to wait but to do something about it when we reach the Report stage. To the satisfaction, I thought, of every quarter of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East showed beyond any doubt that something should be done and that in any case the Government should not be allowed to get away with it without registering our protest against what is a gross piece of inefficiency, in that they have put into this Schedule scales which are obviously absurd.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) asked the Minister of State if the Government would place in the Library the social survey upon which these Schedule scales were based. I have heard some astonishing things said at that Despatch Box, but few have been more astonishing than the reply which the right hon. Gentleman made to that request. The answer amounted to this, that the Government were really guessing when the D levels were laid down and that there really is nothing which could be placed in the
  1274
  Library upon which a sensible view could be based.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not add to anything that the Chancellor had said. When my right hon. Friend interjected to remind him as to what it was that the Chancellor had said, the Minister of State rode off on a different tack. That just will not do. Either what the Chancellor said last night is correct, that the Schedule has been built on something like scientific data, or else the Minister of State for Economic Affairs is correct and they have not been built on anything tangible but were arrived at by guess and by God. There must be something on which the figures were based, and I would press the Government to put in the Library what they have so that we can judge for ourselves just what the evidence is.
  I do not want to detain the Committee any longer, because we have had a number of speeches, particularly from this side, which have covered the ground completely. We also last night argued the case for a very long time, and I do not want to go over that ground again either. But I do want to inform the Government that, in view of the undertaking the right hon. Gentleman has given—vague though it is—so far as this particular Amendment is concerned, we do not propose to divide the Committee. But we do reserve our right to divide on other Amendments which are on the Order Paper, and which I take it we shall be discussing either later tonight or when we meet again.
  Mr. James H. Hoy: Before we pass from this Amendment, may I put one question to the Minister. I was interested in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). For the first time he said something with which I agreed, but he made it perfectly clear that as far as nurses' aprons were concerned the quality was going to be debased if this scheme is carried through. The State will have to provide nurses with an inferior article to what they now get. I thought the Minister of State said that he would be able to consider this matter in time for this year's Report stage of the Bill.
  Sir A. Salter: That was not quite what I said. I said we would consider it at once in the hope of being able to deal

  1275
  with it on Report. If that proved impossible there was a later procedure, but I said we would try to look into it before Report.
  Mr. Hoy: I would point out, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that this matter is urgent not only from the point of view of the article itself but because here is a manufacturer of good quality cloth attempting to keep a business going, and unless there is some quick decision that type of trade is likely to go out of existence. In view of that we want a firm undertaking, and I hope we may take it the Minister of State's words were intended as such, that a firm which produces good quality manufactured goods will be encouraged to do so.
  Amendment negatived.
  12 m.
  Mr. Jay: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  I move this Motion in order again to give the Chancellor an opportunity to tell us his intentions tonight. I am not sure after some of the speeches we have heard from the Treasury Box this evening whether I should not ask what are the intentions of the Government. I think we have had in the Committee up to now serious, solid and constructive debates, with perhaps one or two exceptions. I do not think it will be suggested that there has been anything in the nature of time-wasting, at any rate on this side of the Committee. Even the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) was doing his best in his own way to help the Chancellor.
  It seems to us desirable to continue these debates in that spirit. We are, after all, discussing serious and sweeping changes in taxation, and these issues are not of a character on which one would like to take light or hasty decisions. I think it will be agreed that sometimes when we get to three, four or five o'clock in the morning there is a tendency for discussions even in this Committee, to become perhaps a little less serious and constructive, and even on occasions perhaps somnolent or even hilarious.
  Therefore, we see some case for following the precedent of recent nights and ending our discussions about this tax.
  1276
  We ought also to remember that there is a shadow overhanging this debate, and that is the shadow of unemployment in the textile areas. That is really what is behind these discussions, and it is a reason for not undertaking them in any lighthearted way.
  Finally, after the last two hours it seems to me that the Government themselves need more time to reconsider some of these matters. We are discussing the whole structure of D levels fixed at exact figures throughout all these different types of garments and cloths. It is rather startling that we heard from the Chancellor yesterday that these were fixed on a scientific basis, yet we heard from the Minister of State for Economic Affairs this evening that they were not fixed on a scientific basis. That, in itself, seems good ground to give the Government, in their own interests, rather more time—at least the rest of tonight and tomorrow morning—to think this matter over. For those reasons, I ask the Chancellor whether he is willing to accede to a suggestion of that kind.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not have any complaint at the nature of the debates we have had or the spirit in which they have been conducted. However, it would be a great mistake if we were to allow the Fourth Schedule—Purchase Tax—to continue into another day. The position is that we have only three more groups. One deals with furs, which were not included in the Ways and Means Resolution, and on which I should like to give my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary an opportunity of making a statement. Another is on women's underwear, and the third is on the general furnishing fabric question.
  As almost every argument in the world has been canvassed by both sides of the Committee, I do not see any reason why we should need to take very long on those subjects. We have to remember that the financial business of the country has by long practice over many years to be finished by a certain date, and that we cannot indefinitely protract the discussions on the Finance Bill, on which we still have a great deal of work to do on the later Clauses.
  We have dealt only with Clause 9 and one big Schedule. I did not anticipate that we should get further than this, so

  1277
  I have no complaint to make on that score, but I did anticipate that we should finish the discussion of the Purchase Tax. Therefore, as we are allowing plenty of time in which to consider the other vital Clauses of the Finance Bill—Clause 9 to the end—in the remaining days we have available, and as I do not believe that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have reason to complain of the time we are allotting to the Bill, the only course possible is to finish our work on this tonight.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised two other matters: the question of unemployment and the question of Government uncertainty. On the question of uncertainty generally, this argument has been used a good deal in our debates and, if there really is uncertainty, the sooner we put an end to it by our debates tonight the better. And that is all the more reason for finishing it and not waiting until next week, thereby prolonging the uncertainty referred to by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Lastly, in regard to the uncertainty of the Government. I have been quite astonished by some of the arguments put by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Just because my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Economic Affairs accedes to the charms and arguments of the hon. Ladies who have put their case so decorously attired tonight, and says that the Government will give consideration to a point put, at once the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government do not know their own mind. What is Parliament for? Are we or are we not to listen to the arguments of hon. Members? When we listen to them we are told the Government is uncertain; when we do not, we are told we are obdurate. I am brought up in the ordinary Parliamentary tradition of our free democracy, and I consider that Parliament ought to have a say on schemes of this sort and that the Government ought to listen, especially when matters are so clearly and cheerfully put as they have been this evening.
  Therefore, if we are to continue in the same sort of spirit of give and take as hitherto, there is no reason why we should unduly delay hon. Members. It is essential to finish Purchase Tax tonight.
  Mr. Jay: That is not my question at all. The question is whether or not D
  1278
  levels have been fixed on a scientific basis. I thought that in the interests of both himself and the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, the Chancellor might want longer to think over that question.
  Mr. Ede: I am very glad to see that we now have the Leader of the House and the Chief Patronage Secretary with us. It is a great pity they were not here with us a little earlier, because they might then have exercised a restraining influence on the exuberance of their supporters, when undoubtedly the debate was unduly prolonged, not by speeches on this side, but by speeches, which probably seemed longer than they really were, from the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). I would commend to the Leader of the House the possibility of reducing that hon. Gentleman to comparative silence by seeing that he is appointed to the vacant post of Secretary for Overseas Trade. His speeches would sound much better when translated into German or Russian than when left in the vernacular.
  It is no use the Chancellor adopting the line of ending uncertainty. This Schedule and its component parts have been before the country and the Government for some time, and each discussion leads to the statement that. "We will consider them further and we will make some statement at a further stage of the Bill," or, as the right hon. Gentleman has hinted on one or two rather important matters, "We are rather afraid that we shall not be able to deal with it then, but we shall have to carry the matter on and possibly deal with it by administrative order at some unspecified date in the future."
  One would have hoped that on a matter of this kind, in view of all the consideration that has been given to it some of these Amendments could have been accepted during the course of the Committee stage, if only as an earnest that we are going to see some fruit for our labours.
  I begin to fear that, in a manner not unusual with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there will always be a promise of something good to come in the not too distant future, but never at the precise moment when we are discussing the matter. I have had some very consider-

  1279
  able experience not merely of, but with, the right hon. Gentleman, and I know how skilled he is as a Parliamentarian in pushing off any decision until we come to the conclusion that the decision ought to have been taken at an earlier stage, when he was not really quite satisfied with the arguments that had been heard.
  I would have thought that, inconvenient as it is for most of us now to leave off our labours and convenient as it might be to continue for another five hours, it would be a good thing in the interests of the Bill if we could now adjourn. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, he really has no complaint about the way in which the debates on this Schedule have been conducted, at any rate from this side of the Committee. A Bill of this complexity really ought to be considered at hours when it is possible for the Committee to give its undivided and quite wide awake attention to the matters before it.
  Mr. Butler: I should like to reply to the speech of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), whom I might describe as my right hon. Friend, for we served for so long together in a distinguished office of State. It would be much more convenient to finish the Bill tonight—
  Mr. Ede: The Bill!
  Mr. Butler: It would be convenient, rather, to finish the Schedule tonight. We have the matter fresh in our minds and to leave it would be dangerous, because we should have to renew all our discussion on the Purchase Tax and we should probably delay the progress of the Bill.
  It is remarkable that in a Committee of this size, with so many different human considerations and so many points of view put forward from one's constituency and area and district, that it has been possible to make so much progress without the use of a single Closure and on terms of considerable amity and common sense. The fact that we have one late Sitting on the Finance Bill is not unusual: sometimes we have more. If we can approach the matter in the spirit I have mentioned, I do not see why the Committee need be unduly delayed.
  Mr. Ede: Is that a promise that this will be the only late Sitting?
  Mr. H. Wilson: The Chancellor said it would be convenient to finish the Schedule tonight, but that is not the only point before us. It is not only a question of whether it is convenient, but a question of whether the Schedule and the Bill will be better or worse as a result of the discussion.
  I want to support the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). The Chancellor said, and I agree with him, that the debates have been extremely good up to now, and he added that it was remarkable that we should get through so quickly. I think he was quite fairly paying a tribute to this side of the Committee as well as to his own Front Bench in what he said, but I am bound to point out that we on this side are a little disappointed about the way in which the Schedule has gone so far. The Chancellor knows that the suggestion that it should be taken in groups came from this side of the Committee because we felt that that would lead to more helpful debates on the various groups.
  Of course, in suggesting that we were helping the work of the Government forward and speeding the Bill, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is grateful to us for making the suggestion, but when we surrendered our rights to debate Amendment by Amendment, or at least those Amendments which you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, and the Chairman, selected, we hoped that at the end of the debate on the whole group of perhaps 20 or 25 Amendments we should get some concession—certainly more than we have had so far.
  We have debated something like five or six groups of the Fourth Schedule and, as the Chancellor says, there are still three groups to come, of which one is quite small and one is very big, the latter affecting the cloth group. I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman referred to it as the furnishing fabrics group, and we are interested to know why he should call the whole cloth group "the furnishing fabrics group", but we shall come to that later.
  We have three groups ahead of us. We have had few concessions, and we on this side of the Committee feel that there has not been an adequate explanation by the Government of the method by which

  1281
  they calculated the D level. I made a perfectly serious suggestion to the Minister of State for Economic Affairs a few minutes ago—that Members of the Government should make available to the Committee the methods by which they calculated the median level.
  As has been made clear, they did not consult the trade, and the Government, in fact, said that they could not consult the trade before they got the figures. I suggest that in order that we can make a better job of the last three groups of the Schedule than we did of the first five or six groups, the Government should see whether they cannot make available this information from the Social Survey and place it in the Library of the House. Then, on the last three groups, we can have all the information available to us and perhaps come to better decisions about the D level.
  If the Chancellor cannot agree, then I am bound to say, if he insists on pushing ahead with the Bill, that we must be very suspicious of what we are still forced to regard as a hit-or-miss, capricious, shot-in-the-dark method of fixing the D level which, as has been said, will condition the taxation of cloth and household textiles for the vast majority of our people in the year to come.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Jay: We are disappointed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attitude. He agrees that he has no complaint about the manner in which these debates have been conducted, and that he is gratified by the spirit of what he calls the amity which has prevailed up to now; but I think he could have done more to enhance that spirit if he had acceded to our suggestion. I do not think anything can be gained by dividing the Committee on this issue. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Bernard Braine: I beg to move, in page 76, line 11, column 1, to leave out "or of fur skin."
  It would be proper for me to declare that I have a small interest in this matter, although it is an indirect one. I am connected with a firm engaged in the import and export of raw fur skins. The object
  1282
  of the Amendments which I and my hon. Friends have put down is not to secure any particular favour for the fur trade, but to raise the D level on a variety of fur garments to ensure that the trade is fairly treated, that its contribution to exports is maintained, and that its yield to the revenue is continued. I would imagine that the Financial Secretary will agree that all these are worthy objects.
  I readily confess that it is curiously difficult, even in times when the fur trade is going through difficulties, to conjure up sympathy for it. One can make emotional speeches on textiles, on kilts or corduroy trousers, and rightly so; but to claim any sympathy for furs seems wrong, in the view of some people, because they are a luxury difficult to defend in times of austerity. To get this debate into perspective, I must say at the outset that that is a mistaken view.
  In recent years, nine out of every 10 full-length fur garments sold in this country have been in the Utility range, commanding a modest retail price of £40 or less, including tax. By no stretch of the imagination can prices of that kind be regarded as luxury prices, particularly when one remembers the durability of fur garments. I am sorry that the three hon. Ladies who earlier delighted us so much with their fashion parade are not present now, because I am certain that they would agree that an ordinary fur garment would have outlived the three coats which they were wearing.
  I want to plead for fair treatment for the trade. I have been impressed with the extremely fair and objective way in which the Chancellor has dealt with the representations made to him from all sides of the committee. On Thursday he said that he would consider representations made in detail. He believed that the Ds had been fairly fixed, but if mistakes had been made he was prepared to have a look at them. Yesterday he said,
  "We made up our mind by following the general philosophy and the principle of the Douglas Committee, which was to take a genuine D at the median point."—[OFFICIAL.REPORT, 12th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 984.]
  I am not prepared to argue whether the Ds we have been talking about a little earlier tonight have been fixed precisely or not at the right level. But I do say that for fur garments the D level

  1283
  has not been fixed at the right median point, because for a full length fur coat the median point is £14 and not £6 10s. Yet looking at the Schedule we find that full length fur garments have been lumped in with woollens. Furs are in a class by themselves, and even if the Chancellor is prepared, as a result of representations made to him, to make a concession, fur garments will still be the only articles formerly included in the Utility scheme which the public will be unable to buy without paying tax. In all other cases the D line has been fixed at a level which ensures that a goodly proportion—in most cases half—of the goods covered by the Scheme will be free of tax. That does not apply to fur garments.
  Now I make no complaint of that, because ever since the introduction of Purchase Tax furs have been subjected to tax. Nine-tenths of the fur garments sold in this country were sold as Utility garments up till the Budget and attracted 33ࡩ per cent. tax. The remaining one-tenth were the more expensive kind and were subject to 100 per cent. tax. I wish to make it plain that the D lines in our Amendments have been designed to ensure that furs pay much the same tax as before the Budget. Furthermore, they have been designed—and I hope this will command the sympathetic consideration and support of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary—to yield revenue on much the same basis.
  That requires some explanation. Under the old scheme, the wholesale price of a full length Utility coat at, say, £23 plus 33⅓ per cent. tax would give a figure of £30 13s. With a D line fixed at £14 the same coat would attract tax at £9, so that the wholesale price plus tax would be £32, which involves an increase of 26s. 8d. in tax. I have suggested this figure quite deliberately in order to safeguard the Revenue. The sales of non-Utility garments in 1951 totalled round about 50,000. As I have already explained, they attracted 100 per cent. Purchase Tax. If a D line of £14 is allowed—and it would be less for smaller garments—it would involve the Revenue in a loss, according to my calculations, of some £255,000 in a full year.
  On the other hand sales of Utility garments in 1951 totalled round about
  1284
  200,000, and the additional tax which I have suggested of 26s. 8d. on the full length garment, and less for smaller garments, would yield to the Revenue an additional £285,000 in a full year. Assuming—and I admit that this is a rash assumption—that sales remain at a constant level and do not fall, the Chancellor would not lose anything at all by accepting my proposals.
  Let us consider how these proposals compare with those in the Bill. The wholesale maximum price, plus tax, of a former full length Utility coat will jump from £32 to £41. That is an increase of £9 in tax and an increase in the wholesale price of 30 per cent. I have no hesitation in saying that that increase is savage and unfair because it puts out of reach of the poorer elements of the community the cheaper garments—which are quite durable and attractive and which any woman ought to be able to buy.
  The cheapest rabbit coat—and a rabbit coat is both durable and attractive—which formerly paid £3 18s. tax will now pay £5 10s. tax. That may make all the difference in the world between that garment being sold and being left on the shelf. It is not only unfair but unwise, because towards the end of last year the public were beginning already to show reluctance to buy even Utility garments. I have made very careful inquiries and find that in the last six months of 1951 there was a decline in retail sales of Utility ranging between 25 and 29 per cent. In other words, the trade was depressed well before the Budget.
  I submit—and I hope I carry the Committee with me here—that the proposed tax will kill the trade altogether. That means the Revenue will suffer—a factor the Chancellor cannot ignore. There is another factor that he cannot ignore. In 1951 the total value of exports and re-exports of raw skins and manufactured furs—and I am excluding personal exports—totalled nearly £23 million.
  What precisely does that figure mean? It means that this country is the centre of the world's fur trade. There is, however, no reason why it should be. Furs are brought here from Russia, North America, Australia and South Africa and are sold here at world-famous auctions, some of which have been going on in the last week or two. We owe this position to the fact that the merchant venturers

  1285
  who founded the Hudson's Bay Company in the 17th century started the first fur sales in this country. And for three centuries the trade has developed here. But there is no reason at all why it should stay here. Buyers travel from all over the world because they know that here they will see the world's finest collection of furs and that nowhere else can they obtain the pick of what the world has to offer.
  If the conditions which have enabled this great international trade to flourish here were undermined, then overnight the market could move to New York, Montreal or Frankfurt. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I repeat in this context something which was said a little earlier about high-grade textiles. The most important condition of all is the existence here of a reasonable home market. I said at the outset that furs were in a different category to any other article included in the Schedule.
  12.30 a.m.
  There are special reasons for saying this. First, a home market is necessary for the fur trade because overseas demand is highly seasonal—much more seasonal than that of any other trade. It does not provide continuous employment, which is necessary if skills are to be maintained and if workers are to be retained. But not only is overseas demand highly seasonal; it is highly selective, too. The buyer wants the best. That is why he comes to London, because he knows that here he will get the best.
  The quality of furs varies. There are no two skins in a collection that are the same. The value fluctuates, and fluctuates not only from season to season and from sale to sale, but, literally, from day to day. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the flow of business is highly erratic. What is not sold overseas at the time of the sales must be disposed of on the home market, or else manufacturers will suffer, and suffer severely. But, without a home market dealers cannot stock a large enough range to justify the foreign buyer making the long journey to this country for the sales.
  There is a second reason why the borne market is vital. In recent years, especially since the years just before the war, we have developed here a very highly efficient trade in the export of manufactured furs. The bulk of our exports is of raw skins and of dressed or dyed furs, but
  1286
  we have been developing a very fine trade in manufactured garments. This is an entirely new development since the 'thirties, and already we have been enabled to wrest the Continental market from the Americans. But without a home market it is absolutely impossible to ensure production for export. Indeed, the situation in many manufacturing firms now is that it is becoming increasingly impossible to maintain production at all.
  The third reason why a home market is so essential is that there must be an outlet to try out new ideas, new processes, new colours, so necessary if Britain is to remain the leader of the world's fur trade. All these points were clearly recognised by the Douglas Committee.
  My right hon. Friend did say earlier tonight that he hoped that hon. Members would not exaggerate conditions in particular trades, and I hope that I am going to be fair and objective. I must tell my right hon. Friend, however, that the home market in furs has already collapsed. There is considerable unemployment. There are some 1,500 manufacturers in this country employing about 6,000 or 7,000 workers. In addition to these there are 150 gentlemen called chambermasters who employ an average of about 500. Chambermasters are out of door workers who have little capital, carry no stock and employ an average of four or five workers each. They depend entirely upon the work of the larger manufacturing houses for the maintenance of work and employment.
  The measure of the gravity of the situation is that the majority of the chamber-masters have already had to dispense with their workers. Firms making Utility —the Committee will remember that I said that 90 per cent. of the sales on the home market were of Utility garments—have not sold a single garment since the Budget. There are other firms whose production is divided equally between Utility and non-Utility and whose business has dropped since the Budget to about 20 per cent. of that done during the same period last year.
  I should like to give the Committee some examples relevant to my argument. I have got extracts here from two letters which I will read to the Committee. The first states that:
  "Forty per cent. of my firm's turnover was with Canada. I am endeavouring to keep my

  1287
  key workers for the time being, but my three chambermasters have had to discharge their 20 workpeople. In addition, since the Budget I have sold three coats only and these were for export."
  The second letter says:
  "The majority of our workers have been with us for periods of 20 years and over. It has always been the policy of this firm to keep its employees so far as we have been able to do so. We cannot pursue this policy for much longer. Our total sales since the Budget are 21 per cent. of what they were for the same period in 1951."
  Here is a very fine industry embodying the highest standards of craftmanship and which has won an enviable reputation for this country. It is facing grave difficulties which are largely the result of the impossible burdens imposed upon it by successive Chancellors.
  My last word is this. If the skilled labour is dispersed and the international fur market leaves London and goes to New York, Montreal or Frankfurt, there is no reason in the world why it should ever come back. Therefore, I earnestly ask my hon. Friend to give sympathetic consideration to the proposals which I and my hon. Friends have made, since they will not only have the effect of breathing new life into this important trade, but they will safeguard the revenue which the Treasury are going to lose any-way unless some steps are taken to remedy the situation. It is on those grounds that I make my appeal to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) quite properly began his interesting and eloquent speech by disclosing his interest in the trade, and no doubt because of that interest he has been able to inform the Committee with so much detail and knowledge of the very serious effects on the trade which the Budget proposals will have. I have no interest in the fur trade other than that my attention was directed to the consequences of these Budget proposals by a number of persons in my constituency who have already been thrown out of work, because it so happens that these highly skilled craftsmen of the fur industry are very largely centred in the parts of North London represented in the House by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) and myself.
  1288
  It is perfectly true that the results of the Budget proposals will be quite disastrous for the industry, and I will be supporting the hon. Member's Amendment which I hope he will press to a Division. There is an alternative series of Amendments which we put down and which provide a better result and a better alternative than those proposed by the hon. Member.
  I invite the attention of the Financial Secretary to the difference in the proposals which we have put down. We believe that it would be preferable to fix rather higher D figures than those suggested by the hon. Member, but, in addition to that, we believe that it is desirable to remove any D figures at all from the sales of fur goods of the more expensive category. We have chosen those having a wholesale selling value of £100.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, there are considerations applicable to the fur industry which are quite different in their nature, and certainly in their degree, from those applicable to all the other ranges of Utility goods which we have been considering. Hitherto even Utility fur goods have suffered Purchase Tax at 33ቓ per cent., whereas non-Utility fur goods have suffered Purchase Tax at 100 per cent. Those figures are quite different from the rates of tax applicable to all other goods.
  Hitherto, even Utility fur goods have suffered some Purchase Tax. The manufacturer claiming the concession for Utility goods supplied to the home market had to show that he had sold a quota of fur goods for export. In other words, the scheme has been so devised as to secure three results in the fur trade.
  It has been designed to secure the considerable revenue which is attracted by 100 per cent. Purchase Tax on expensive furs, all of which are non-Utility—mink and ermine and so on; it has also been designed to provide Utility furs attracting 33ࡩ per cent. tax; and the general blend of those two markets has also enabled the trade to develop a very considerable export market. The result has been that out of a total volume of £9 or £10 million a year, considerably more than £2 million has represented the export trade.
  A curious result of the Chancellor's proposals—I do not know whether it was

  1289
  deliberate—is that the tax of 100 per cent. on all the expensive furs is being reduced, for they will get the benefit of the D level because of the Budget proposals, whereas the cost to the public of Utility fur garments is being increased to a degree which is disproportionate to all the other the other increases proposed by the Budget.
  12.45 a.m.
  The hon. Gentleman gave one figure. I can give another. Hitherto Utility fur coats have been sold retail at a controlled price of £44. Under the Budget proposals the figure will rise to £60, and it will not be controlled. The result of these proposals has already had its effect. The whole market in Utility fur coats and garments has completely vanished. It is not an uncommon experience to find a manufacturer say that since Budget day he has not sold a single Utility fur garment. One firm which has been in existence since 1794 told me that they had to reduce the work given to their chambermasters by 75 per cent., and the total sales since the Budget have fallen to 20 per cent. Of what they were last year.
  I do not know whether these results were intended by the Chancellor. I hope the Financial Secretary will tell us. Was this a deliberate plan of the Government? If so, I should have thought it was very difficult to justify. I imagine it is due to muddle and lack of forethought. I shall be interested to hear what the scientific basis of it was, but it has had the result of completely knocking the bottom out of the industry. It will reduce the export sales both of manufactured and partly manufactured fur goods, and a great many foreign buyers have been attracted.
  It has also had the serious effect of causing widespread unemployment among the very specialised number of persons who either dye, dress or cut furs, and curiously enough they are middle-aged or elderly people who have acquired a great deal of skill and expertise over a long period. Is all this to be dispersed because of the Government's decision? Already some of these men have gone in the short space of time since the Budget. One firm tells me that 59 per cent. of their employees have been thrown out of work. This cannot continue.
  1290
  Of course the third result of the Chancellor's proposals will be a considerable shrinkage of revenue. I support the plea of the hon. Gentleman. I can only hope we shall hear that these results were not intended by the Chancellor, that they were not foreseen, and as a result of representations from both sides of the Committee the concessions for which we are asking in the Amendments down in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and other hon. Gentlemen will be accepted by the Government.
  Mr. H. A. Price: I wish to support the case so ably and eloquently presented by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine). Indeed, so ably and eloquently was it presented that the hon. Gentleman has not left much else to say except at the risk of repetition. But there is one rather important point to which he did not refer, which is an additional argument I should like to submit to the Financial Secretary. Like the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), I have no interest in this trade. I neither buy, sell or wear furs. My wife has a fur coat, but within the comparative safety of this Chamber I hereby give her notice that it will be an awfully long time before she gets another.
  Mr. Lewis: Under this Government she will never get another one.
  Mr. Price: I shall welcome the support of the hon. Gentleman when I meet her next. The point to which my hon. Friend did not refer, and which is worthy of consideration, is that the trade are especially concerned about Utility garments, not luxury garments. As evidence of that, I am informed that they would be willing to accept a position under which, for goods of which the wholesale price is £100, the D figure should be abolished altogether. It is a fact that under the D scheme as it exists, the tax on these garments is reduced. A coat costing £100 wholesale will now bear tax of only £93 10s.instead of £100 as was the case before the introduction of the D scheme.
  The trade would be perfectly happy for that anomaly to be removed and to continue to pay tax of 100 per cent. On these goods if only they could get some concession on Utility garments. My hon. Friend said he would not exaggerate, and he did not exaggerate. He mentioned a

  1291
  coat of which previously the wholesale price was £32 and today is £41 10s. That is the most moderate example he could have chosen. It would have been possible for him to have quoted many others which would have illustrated his point much more graphically.
  I want to support his point about employment. I have no interest in furs, but I have an interest in employment in this industry as some of my constituents are employed in it. To quote one example—and if my hon. Friend would like the name of the firm I shall be happy to give it to him—one of my constituents has been employed for 22 years by a well known firm of furriers. Prior to the introduction of the D scheme the firm employed just over 100 people; today they employ 14. No fewer than 86 to 88 employees of that firm have been dismissed as a direct result of its introduction.
  The price range of Utility coats to which we have been referring are no longer saleable. The customers will not pay the extra £9 10s.,£11 10s.or £13 10s.as the case may be. Unless my hon. Friend is able to announce some concession this evening, my constituent who has been regularly employed by that firm for 22 years will be dismissed. That is the position in the trade which my hon. Friend has the power to do something about, and I support the request of my hon. Friend to the Minister that something should be done.
  Mr. Percy Holman: As my constituency is one of the very old centres of the fur trade of London, I want to say that I consider the Government did not give any serious consideration to this trade when they introduced the D scheme. In fact, I understand that it was apparently only by an afterthought of the Customs and Excise that fur coats were included with other coats in the D line at £6 10s.
  Mr. Braine: I know the hon. Member would be the last person in the world to be unfair. Repeatedly my right hon. Friend has made it clear that when we came to this stage of discussing the matter on the Schedules very careful consideration would be given to these matters. Whatever the scheme was that the Government inherited, the Chancellor has
  1292
  made it plain from time to time that this was the stage when he would give consideration.
  Mr. Holman: I agree that the Government are now giving the matter serious consideration. But the present position does not arise out of the position which they inherited; it is of their own making. They inherited the Utility scheme, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out in his own speech, with a duty of 331 per cent. on a vast line of Utility garments. In fact,90 per cent. of home market sales were Utility. The truth is that the Government inherited a scheme in which the trade was allowed to sell on the home market three times the amount they exported in made-up fur garments. The Budget introduced at first, apparently, 100 per cent. on the whole wholesale price. Second thoughts by Customs and Excise brought the fur coats into the overcoat section and gave them a D line of £6 10s.
  I do not say the new scheme is responsible for the trade's depression wholly, because there was a tendency to depression in a very large group of trades, some of which were affected by Purchase Tax and others of which were entirely independent of it. The tendency began in the early months of this year. This scheme was the last straw for the fur trade in my constituency. A woman writing to me the other day said that she had been for 21 years continuously working in the trade and, although she had occasionally had short-time, this is the first time she has been unemployed. That is typical.
  Mr. Braine: The hon. Member said there was a tendency before the Budget, and I nodded agreement. Then he said in the early months of this year there was a tendency towards depression. He should be aware that the tendency was most marked in the latter half of 1951: in fact before this Government took office, as Board of Trade figures show.
  Mr. Holman: The hon. Member has a more detailed knowledge of the fur trade than I, but full employment still existed in the fur trade in my district up to the end of last year.
  I have not yet seen a single shop advertising or even mentioning any fur garments that bear the new rate of Purchase Tax. The whole emphasis is on

  1293
  the cheaper garments under the old scheme. Therefore, I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give us and the fur trade some satisfaction in the proposals modifying the thoughtless, inefficient, and disastrous policy of the Budget in regard to this trade.
  Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone): I support the Amendment. I have a number of constituents engaged in the fur trade, and they have expressed to me very grave anxiety about the position in which they find themselves. What my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said is in no way exaggerated, from what I have been told. I want to impress on the Financial Secretary that something will have to be done if this trade is to be saved.
  It is difficult to over-exaggerate the position, and no one wants to do so, or to exaggerate the difficulties of the trade at the moment, but I am sure, from what my constituents have told me, that the situation is very grave indeed. I hope it will be possible to do something to help this trade, which is so valuable to the country.
  1 a.m.
  Mr. David Weitzman: My interest, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), lies in the tact that I have received many corn-plaints from constituents about unemployment resulting from the present situation. I notice that, astonishingly enough, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) has the support of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who appears at present to be in a somewhat secluded part of the Chamber. That is an astonishing fact, when one takes note of the sort of speeches he has been making. On one occasion he said that, having regard to the financial situation, no concessions of any kind should be made, and I am perfectly certain that in this case the Financial Secretary will at once rise to say that he will meet the case made by this Amendment when it has the support of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South.
  The fur trade has been treated quite differently from the textile trade, because,
  1294
  whereas there has been a concession in the case of textiles, there has been no concession in this case and the 100 per cent. Tax applies. The only allowance given to the fur trade is the £6 10s. D line, but I think it should be emphasised that the £6 10s.in this case is not a median at all; apparently it has been granted only because of the adverse effect on exports which must be expected from the withdrawal of the Utility scheme.
  If it were contended that the fur trade is a luxury trade and does not benefit the country, I suppose no one on this side of the Committee would support this Amendment, or the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). The truth of the matter is that, if the Fourth Schedule stands unaltered, the fur trade will be gravely handicapped and, as I understand it, a great deal of damage will be done to the export market. I have little personal experience of this, but I am told that the British fur trade is a highly complex organisation. It consists of the brokers, who import and dispose of the skins, the skin merchants, the manufacturers, the skin dressers and the skin dyers. I am told that the export and re-export trade has been built up to an amount in the region of £20 million, and that in respect of manufactured furs the export figure is about £1 million.
  Mr. Braine: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would like the figures, because he is underestimating their importance. The total value of the exports of skins is something in the region of £22 million, or nearly £23 million, and that of the exports of manufactured furs about £1,750,000.
  Mr. Weitzman: I am grateful for the figures, which emphasise the point I am making. If my information is correct, the export trade has been established on the basis of the home trade, and the home trade has apparently been built up because the trade has been able to deal in furs manufactured in accordance with the Utility specifications, on which the Purchase Tax was 33.1 per cent. I gather that the ordinary retailer would find it far too expensive to stock the sort of furs which carry the 100 per cent. tax and that, therefore, the moderately successful business existing has resulted from the sale of furs manufactured within the range of the Utility specification.

  1295
  Labour is employed all the year round in the manufacture of furs of that type. It is because the manufacturers and dealers have been able to do business in that way that the export business has been possible. The hon. Member for Billericay mentioned that of the home trade approximately 90 per cent. is in respect of moderately priced coats. I take it that that means in respect of coats which came within the Utility specification. If that is so, it illustrates the importance of the position as it existed under the Labour Government.
  I hope the hon. Member for Billericay will remember that under the Labour Government, from 1945, there was the concession of 331 Purchase Tax in respect of Utility fur garments and that from 1946 there was a quota allowing £3 of home trade to £1 of export. It was on that basis that the export trade was built up. And I would remind the Committee that fur goods were not only exported to the Continent, but also, because of their high grade, to America and Canada.
  If the Fourth Schedule proposals remain unaltered there is a danger that those export markets will go. It has already been pointed out that this country, and London in particular, is the centre of the fur trade. We ought to do everything we can to preserve that position. We have been given employment figures of six or seven thousand. In addition, there are chambermasters. A chambermaster, I gather, is an out-worker who deals with work in the manufacture of furs, and who employs four or five people in that work.
  Today there is considerable unemployment, and I understand that if the proposals set out in the Schedule are not altered there will be a considerable increase of unemployment. The balance of the trade will be upset. The position would be that not only would the Treasury not gain as a result of its proposals but, in all probability, through trade falling, manufacture declining and unemployment increasing, the revenue itself would fall. If that is a true statement of the position, and the trade says that it is, surely something ought to be done.
  A number of us feel that the best thing that could happen would be to
  1296
  leave matters as they were; that is, to leave the trade with the benefit of the 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax upon goods manufactured within the Utility specification. But if that cannot be done, then I suggest that the Amendment put down by my right hon. Friend and others would help considerably; that is, the D line be raised, not to £14 as proposed by the hon. Member for Billericay, but to £16.
  There is another important difference which I would emphasise, because I think it illustrates that the trade desire to play fairly. In our Amendment we suggest that if the wholesale selling price exclusive of tax is £100 no D line should apply. That would mean that there would be no D line for goods which might be described as luxury goods; that is, no concession to the dearer fur garments. The cheaper furs, with the increased allowance, would enable the home trade to continue; that would sustain employment and thus permit a chance of the export market continuing.
  I trust that the Financial Secretary, who has been listening to what has been said, will go into this matter carefully and if satisfied that what has been said is true, will see that something is done. If he does not make any concession, I hope that the hon. Member for Billericay and other hon. Members opposite will not adopt the course that was adopted earlier, but will in this case be bold enough not merely to strike but also to vote.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) put the case for his Amendment most persuasively, even though he did not envelop himself in its subject-matter. He made clear, as did the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), that we are concerned with a rather special category of article, rather apart, in the past, from the main Utility scheme, though with a Utility scheme of its own carrying a rate of 33⅓ per cent. Purchase Tax. We are also dealing with what is, speaking from memory, the only case under the D scheme of an article carrying with it Purchase Tax at the rate of 100 per cent.
  I very much dislike the expression "luxury" in application to articles of one sort or another, since it is very often a matter of personal opinion, or indeed personal prejudice, whether that epithet is

  1297
  attached. All the same, these are articles that have in the past been treated, for the purpose, for example, of the old Utility scheme, as not being in the sort of basic necessity class where it was considered public policy to preserve a fairly large area of completely tax free goods. It was a very special case in many ways.
  This is, of course, a very important industry, and I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East, about the great importance of the fact that we have built up in this country an international centre in the marketing of furs. That is a very important factor, to which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have very rightly, if I may so, drawn attention.
  Another point which I ought to make clear, in fairness to the Committee, is that my right hon. Friend's general concession with respect to the rates of Purchase Tax does not apply in this case. One objection which I think will probably leap at once to the minds of hon. Members to the problems of the fur trade being dealt with in that way is that we are here dealing with articles some of which run up to very large values. A reduction in the specific rates of Purchase Tax applicable would involve making financially large concessions in the case of valuable articles, highly priced fur goods, and in present circumstances there would seem to be some objection to doing that.
  That is the factor, as I understand it, which has caused the tabling of the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), to which the hon. Member for Islington, East spoke, to insert a limit to the relief which he would give of a wholesale value of £100. There is, however, a difficulty even when we are approaching the matter, not from the point of view of Purchase Tax rates but, as indeed we must on these Amendments, from the point of view of a value limit for D. As hon. Members will appreciate immediately, such a limit recreates the blind spot which all hon. Members will agree was one of the weaknesses of the old Utility scheme and will introduce it, most unfortunately, into what is a most important export industry.
  1.15 a.m.
  It works in this way. If one takes a fur coat selling wholesale at £100, it would, under the precise proposals put
  1298
  forward from the benches opposite, result that the tax would be £84. But in the case of a coat of £101 in value the tax would rise by £17. In fact, one would be recreating the blind spot. Whether that is avoidable or not I am not disposed to argue, but it was one of the weaknesses of the old Utility scheme from the point of view of supporting the export trade.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay proposes simply to deal with the matter by variations in the levels of D. On previous Amendments there has been some discussion as to how the D levels were arrived at, and indeed some discussion of the point of principle involved in fixing D at the median point. The Committee will be relieved to know that that issue does not arise on this group of Amendments because, quite frankly, in this case—and I believe this is the only case in all these Schedules—the D level was not arrived at by the process which my right hon. Friends have described. In this case it was arrived at simply by placing it at the figure applicable to cloth garments of the same kind.
  Therefore, if there appears on general grounds to be a case for increasing the D level, one would not be going back on the principle involved in the fixing of D which arise on most other articles. We are to that extent a little freer to tackle the matter as an individual case. My right hon. Friend has considered very carefully the representations made.
  Mr. Joseph T. Price: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how one can describe as a well-established principle something that is only in an experimental state and has been shown to be hopelessly inadequate to the task it is supposed to perform?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member tempts me into controversy, but I will endeavour to resist the temptation because I am trying to deal with this matter on its merits. It is, of course, a matter of opinion what adjectives one attaches to particular principles. I like to attach that one, perhaps the hon. Member does not, but I do not think we should take up the time of the Committee in arguing who is right because I fear neither of us would convince the other.

  1299
  My right hon. Friend has been giving consideration to the possibility of some adjustment to the D level because there are some important factors in connection with this trade, particularly its great importance from the point of view of exports. My right hon. Friend, therefore, has come to the conclusion that some advance in the D figures will be justified. He has decided to preserve the main structure of the application of the tax —that is to say, that the categories to which D is attached shall be the same categories as at present; that is, substantially, overcoat, long coat, as category one, and short coat, jacket—call it what you will, Mr. Colegate—as category two, and the smaller articles, stoles and—if I may dare try to pronounce the word—boleros in the third category.
  Mr. Follick: Quite right.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged. One of the attractions of this Committee is that there is almost always an hon. Member expert in whatever subject happens to arise, however obscure it may be.
  My right hon. Friend, therefore, has come to the conclusion he could go some way—indeed, a substantial way—to meet the proposals which appear in the two Amendments now before the Committee. So far as the category of what we may call the long coats is concerned, my right hon. Friend takes the view that it would be right to raise the D figure from its present level of £6 10s.to £12. In the short, or second, category, where the D figure is at present, as hon. Members will be aware, £4, he feels that a reasonable figure would be £8. In the third category, capes, stoles, and the articles with the pronunciation of whose name the hon. Gentleman the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) assisted me just now, where at present D is £1, my right hon. Friend feels that it should be £4 10s.
  My right hon. Friend feels that those adjustments will go a long way to meeting the difficulties that have given rise to genuine concern in the trade and those interested in its prosperity. It has been decided that those changes shall apply from what is now today by the calendar—Wednesday, 14th May; and it will be possible for them, therefore, to be brought
  1300
  into operation forthwith. I think hon. Members will agree that that cuts out any possible criticism that a delay in the adjustment would cause any temporary hold-up in the trade; because I hope that it will be known by the time that those in the trade, who do not, perhaps, keep the same hours as hon. Members, are going about their duties.
  The hon. Lady wanted to ask me a question just now, but kindly waited. Would she like to ask it now?
  Miss Herbison: That statement does not mean that the assurance given by the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, that the outsizes of coats would be examined, is not to be carried out?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Oh, no. I am obliged. It is not, of course, at all inconsistent with the undertaking my right hon. Friend gave. While the structure of the Schedule is as at present, with these three categories as at present devised, the only way we can operate this variation is by attaching the new figures to the old items; but, of course, my right hon. Friend's undertaking stands, and if there were, as a result of that review, some readjustment of the categories, then obviously the changes which I have announced with respect to articles of that kind made with fur will follow that readjustment.
  I hope that my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite, who respectively spoke to their own Amendments, will see that we have given very careful consideration to what they have said and to the representations that have been made to us, and I hope that the Committee will agree that the Government are trying to meet difficulties that have arisen in this trade, and that the proposals which my right hon. Friend authorises me to put forward will strike the Committee as a fair and proper solution of the difficulties of a trade which, I repeat, has a most valuable part to play in our national economy and in our export drive.
  Mr. D. Jay: I am bound to say I was most relieved to hear the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor were willing to go some way to meet the case put forward in these Amendments. I should not like to say at this minute, since this is a technical, complicated matter, that we are quite sure this goes far enough,

  1301
  but, clearly, we would not for our part wish in the circumstances to press this Amendment to the extent of a Division tonight. We reserve the right to examine between now and the Report stage—sometimes the Opposition as well as the Government have to consider matters between the Committee and the Report stages—the proposals put forward by the Government.
  I was much impressed by the case advanced by the hon. Member for Billericay and others who spoke on this matter. I am not one who is in the habit of buying or selling furs, but it has been my job at the Board of Trade and the Treasury to examine the case put forward by this trade which is so important to the national economy. There is much truth in what the hon. Member for Billericay said, that the fur trade is of great value to us both as an invisible export and in other ways. The policy of the last Government was to encourage the trade by cheaper Utility furs and to strengthen the home market on the basis of which the export trade could be developed.
  There is no doubt that, from the evidence brought forward, the initial effect of the D scheme as included in the Budget was having a very serious effect on the fur trade. One hon. Member said it was disastrous. I do not want to put it too high, but there is no doubt whatever that it has had a very serious effect. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) put forward very persuasive arguments on this point, and I am bound to have sympathy with him about the effects of this Budget. He found the taxi drivers of his constituency were hard hit by it and they had to be rescued. Then there was the unfortunate plight of the cricketers, and now apparently in this instance the fur coat dealers in Marylebone are in trouble. It almost seems as if it is now a depressed area as a result of the Budget.
  We were disappointed that we did not have a speech from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). He lectured us earlier in the evening about the necessity for not reducing any taxes because that would be a threat to national solvency. When it comes to furs, however, we find that he is in favour of reducing the tax on furs but not in the
  1302
  case of gloves. I was surprised to see the hon. Member lurking in the shadows at the end of the Chamber instead of coming forward and putting forward his case to the Committee. We shall examine this matter further during the next two weeks and will not press it further now.
  Mr. Braine: I should indeed be churlish if I did not say how much I appreciate the way in which my right hon. Friend has been so quick to respond to the needs of this industry. Perhaps I might have hoped for concessions a little more generous, but those that have been offered will be of great encouragement to the trade and to those manufacturers and workpeople engaged in it. For that reason, I beg—
  Mr. E. Fletcher: Before we part with the matter, may I say one word? I also appreciate the spirit in which the Financial Secretary has met the points from both sides of the Committee. I am still not clear about one thing. The Financial Secretary conceded that in fixing the level no kind of principle was applied. Fur coats were merely incorporated with other cloth coats as a matter of convenience.
  1.30 a.m.
  It was not clear from the statement which he has just made whether any scientific principle has been applied in fixing the new figure at £12, or whether it is a mere guess at what might be convenient to the trade. I hope that before the Report stage opportunities will be given for the trade to prove, if it can, that £12 is not a scientific figure and that the figure should be either £14 as suggested by the hon. Member for Billericay or £16 as we have suggested.
  Mr. Braine: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: In page 76, line 11, leave out "6 10 0 per article," and insert:

  per article

  (a) exceeding 44" hip measurement

  11

  10

  0

  (b) not less than 42" but not exceeding 44" hip measurement

  10

  15

  0

  (c) less than 42" hip measurement

  10

  0

  0

  —[Mr. Jay.]
  Question put, "That '6 10 0 per article' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee dividied: Ayes, 214; Noes, 190.

  Division No. 128.]

  AYES

  [1.34 a.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

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

  Glyn, Sir Ralph

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Godber, J. B.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Gomma-Duncan, Col. A.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Gough, C. F. H

  Odey, G. W.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Gower, H. R.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

  Grimond, J.

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

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

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

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

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Pete, Brig. C. H. M.

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Hay, John

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Baxter, A. B.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Redmayne, E.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Birch, Nigel

  Holt, A. F.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hope, Lord John

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Black, C. W.

  Hopkinson, Henry

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Russell, R. S.

  Braine, B. R.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

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

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

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

  Hurd, A. R.

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

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Scott, R. Donald

  Brooman-White, R. C.

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

  Shepherd, William

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

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

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

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Bullard, D. G.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Jones. A. (Hall Green)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Speir, R. M.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Kaberry, D.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Butcher, H. W.

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Stevens, G. P.

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

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

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

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Lambton, Viscount

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Summers, G. S.

  Cole, Norman

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

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lindsay, Martin

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

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

  Linstead, H. N.

  Tooling, W.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

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

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Tilney, John

  Deedes, W. F

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Turton, R. H.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I of Wight)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Donner, P. W.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Drewe, C.

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

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Fell, A.

  Marples, A. E.

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Wellwood, W.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Maude, Angus

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

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

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Fort, R.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Gage, C. H.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Mr. Vosper and Mr. Heath

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Glanville, James

  O'Brien, T.

  Adams, Richard

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Orbach, M.

  Albu, A. H.

  Grey, C. F.

  Oswald, T.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Padley, W. E.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Paton, J.

  Baird, J.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Peart, T. F.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Porter, G.

  Benson, G.

  Hannan, W.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Beswick, F.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. A (Rowley Regis)

  Proctor, W. T.

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

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Rankin, John

  Blackburn, F.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Reeves, J.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Holman, P.

  Rhodes, H.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.

  Boardman, H.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Bowden, H. W.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Ross, William

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Royle, C.

  Brookway, A. F.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Brook, Dryden, (Halifax)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Burke, W. A.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Short, E. W.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Janner, B.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

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

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Simmons, C. J (Brierley Hill)

  Carmichael, J.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Slater, J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Snow, J. W.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Steele, T.

  Clunie, J.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Stokes, Rt. Hon R. R.

  Coldrick, W.

  Keenan, W.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Collick, P. H.

  Kenyon, C.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Cook, T. F.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Taylor John (West Lothian)

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Taylor. Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon, H.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Timmons, J

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Tomney, F.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lindgren, G. S

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Deer, G.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Delargy, H. J.

  McGovern, J.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Dodds, N. N.

  McInnes, J.

  Weitzman, D.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

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

  McLeavy, F.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  West, D. G.

  Edelman, M.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

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

  Wigg, George

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Field, W. J.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Fienburgh, W.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Wilson, Rt. Han. Harold (Huyton)

  Finch, H. J.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)

  Monslow, W.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Follick, M.

  Moody, A. S.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Foot, M. M.

  Morley, R.

  Yates, V. F.

  Forman, J. C.

  Moyle, A.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Murray, J. D

  TELLERS FOR THE NEOS:

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.

  Amendment proposed: In page 76, line 51, leave out "2 0 0 per article," and insert:

  per article

  (i) less than 42" hip measurement

  3

  3

  0

  (ii) not less than 42" but not exceeding 44" hip measurement

  3

  7

  9

  (iii) not less than 44" but not exceeding 46" hip measurement

  3

  12

  6

  per article

  (iv) exceeding 46" hip measurement.

  3

  17

  3

  —[Mr. Jay.]
  Question put, "That '2 0 0 per article' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 213: Noes, 190.

  Division No. 129.]

  AYES

  [1.43 a.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Glyn, Sir Ralph

  Nugent, G. R. H

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

  Godber, J. B.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Gomme-Dunoan, Col. A.

  Odey. G. W.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon W D

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Gower, H. R.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Graham, Sir Fergus

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

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Grimond, J.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

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

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

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

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

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

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Pilkington, Capt. R A

  Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Banks, Col. C.

  Hay, John

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Head, Rt. Hon. A H

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Baxter, A. B.

  Higgs, J. M C.

  Profumo, J. D.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Bell. Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Redmayne, M.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Holland-Martin, C. J

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Holt, A. F.

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Birch, Nigel

  Hope, Lord John

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Bishop, F. P

  Hopkinson, Henry

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Black, C. W.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Bossom, A. G.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Russell, R. S.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Braine, B. R.

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

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

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Scott, R. Donald

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

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Shepherd, William

  Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)

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

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

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)

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

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Bullard, D. G.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Speir, R. M.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Stanley, Capt. Hon Richard

  Bullus, Wing Cmdr E. E.

  Kaberry, D.

  Stevens, G. P.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Keeling, Sir Edward

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

  Butcher, H. W.

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Studholme, H. G.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Summers, G. S.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Cole, Norman

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Teeling, W.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Linstead, H. N.

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

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

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Tilney, John

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Turton, R. H.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J K

  Donner, P. W.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Doughty, C. J. A

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Drayson, G. B.

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

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Duncan, Capt J. A. L

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Erroll, F J.

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Fell, A.

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maude, Angus

  Wellwood, W.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S L C

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Molson, A. H E

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Fort, R.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fraser. Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Nabarro, G. D. N

  Wood, Hon R

  Gage, C. H.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Galbraith, T. G. D (Hillhead)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P

  Mr. Drewe and Mr. Heath.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A J

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Adams, Richard

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Blyton, W. R.

  Albu, A. H.

  Benson, G

  Boardman, H.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Beswick, F.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale).

  Bowden, H. W.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Baird, J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Brockway, A F.

  1308

  1309

  Brook., Dryden (Halifax)

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Porter, G.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pryde, D. J

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rankin, John

  Carmichael, J.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Reeves. J

  Champion, A. J.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Rhodes, H.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Janner, B.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Clunie, J.

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

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Ross, William

  Coldrick, W.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Collick, P. H.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Cook, T. F.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Short, E. W.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Keenan, W.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Kenyon, C.

  Slater, J.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Snow, J. W.

  Deer, G.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Steele, T.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lever. Leslie (Ardwick)

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

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

  Lewis, Arthur

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Lindgren, G. S

  Swingler, S. T.

  Edelman, M.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  McGovern, J.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McInnes, J.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Edwards, W.J. (Stepney)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  McLeavy, F.

  Timmons, J.

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Tomney, F.

  Field, W. J.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Fienburgh, W.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Usborne, H. C.

  Finch, H. J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Watkins, T. E

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

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

  Weitzman, D.

  Follick, M.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Foot, M. M.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Forman, J. C.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H A

  West, D. G.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Mellish, R. J

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N E.)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Monslow, W.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Glanville, James

  Moody, A. S.

  Wigg, George

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Morley, R.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Grey, C. F

  Moyle, A.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Murray, J. D.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Hale. Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon Harold (Huyton)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  O'Brien, T.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Orbach, M.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Oswald, T.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Henderson, Rt Hon. A.(Rowley Regis)

  Padley, W. E

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Yates, V. F.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Paton, J.

  Younger, Rt. Hon K.

  Hobson, C. R

  Pearson, A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Holman, P.

  Pearl, T. F.

  Mr. Hannan and Mr. Royle.

  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Colegate): Before calling the next Amendment, I should remind the Committee that group 7, which we shall be taking, provides, as with the other groups, that the discussion should be general and that the Divisions afterwards should be on the selected Amendments.
  Miss Bacon: I beg to move, in page 77, line 4, to leave out "1 9," and to insert "2 6."
  This group deals with the whole range of women's underwear and, just as was the case with outerwear, we seek to raise the D line to the old top-rate Utility level. If one looks at the amounts in the Schedule and compares them with those
  1310
  in our Amendments, it will be seen that the proportionate increase in the case of underwear is greater than in the case of outerwear. If one looks at the individual items, one can see that that is so. For example, take the case of pyjama jackets and pyjama trousers, which were 15s. per article, or 30s. a pair, under the old Utility scheme, tax free beyond that level, and which are tax free now only beyond 10s. per article.
  On the subject of nightdresses and pyjamas, we ought to have had an Amendment on the Order Paper—and I hope the Government will look at this, because we realised it only after the Amendments had been put on the Paper—to see that we had two classes of

  1311
  material. It will be seen, further down the Schedule, that other garments of women's underwear are classified into two types of material—Class A and Class B.
  Class A material is, of course, wool, and class B, any other material. I cannot see why in most of the other garments there is provision for both Class A and Class B material, but no such provision for nightdresses and pyjamas. While we have no Amendment on the Paper on this matter, I should like the hon. Gentleman to look into this to see whether between now and the Report stage he can make this distinction in these garments.
  If one looks at the other amounts in this Schedule, one sees that No. 13—that is, petticoats and cami-knickers at a D level of 8s. 6d. per article—shows a great increase in tax compared with the old Utility level of 11s. ld. A few days ago I walked round one shop which provides rather cheap underwear. It is a multiple shop. I found that the average price of slips there was 18s. 6d., which is not regarded as a high price for a slip or underskirt. Yet we have a D level of only 8s. 6d. I think there is a case for raising the D level of this article.
  In the next group—undervests, etc., of wool—it will be seen that while the D figure is 9s. 0d., the old Utility figure was £1 Is. 8d. That is a greater difference than there has been on anything in outerwear. In the next category, namely, knickers, panties and briefs, in class A material, the new D figure is 6s. per article, whereas the old top Utility figure was as high as 15s. 11d.
  I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman here that the trade feels that it is at a great disadvantage under this section in that there is only a distinction between materials, and not in regard to the amount of material which these articles take. I think that in the trade there is a great grievance about directoire knickers, which it is felt ought to have been put into a category by themselves if the D figures are not going to be considerably raised..
  With regard to corsets, I understand that hon. Members opposite have put down an Amendment to take roll-on elastic belts out of No. 18 and to make them a separate category. I hope that that plea is going to be made from that
  1312
  side. If the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) happens to catch your eye, Sir Charles, I hope that she will have more to say on corsets. I should like to make again a point which I have made on two occasions during discussion of these Amendments in the last few days. I made the point once yesterday on men's outerwear, and again, today, on women's outerwear. Up to now I have heard nothing from the Front Bench opposite about it. It is with regard to the difference between the D level for cloth, and the D level for clothes made from that cloth.
  That point applies equally to underwear. A manufacturer tells me that if he makes a slip of tax-free material at 4s. a square yard, that slip comes above the D figure and a tax of 6d. is charged. I should like to hear something about this from the Front Bench opposite, because it seems to be general throughout the range of women's and men's wear that there is this discrepancy between the D level for cloth and the D level for clothes made from that cloth.
  2.0 a.m.
  I have not gone into too many figures, but if they are worked out it will be seen that on quite ordinary and fairly cheap garments of women's underwear there will be a very great increase in tax on garments which before were tax free. Having regard to the very great increases and differences in some respects between the new D level and the old Utility level, I hope that we shall have some concession on this. There have been a few adjustments as between categories, but up to now we have had hardly any concession on the D level. I would emphasise that it is very important to women not to have to pay such a high tax as they will have to pay in future on these very necessary articles.
  Mrs. Alice Cullen: I wish to say a few words on the question of corsets and the raising of the D level from £1 to £1 5s. We think that the alteration for which we ask is very important and necessary; it probably ought to be more, and we therefore feel it is a very modest request. The Utility level was always too low, and even under the Utility scheme women had to pay a heavy tax on corsets. Also, there are likely to be abuses, because doctors can give certificates for the supplying of tax-free

  1313
  corsets on a variety of ailments, and if a doctor is at all lenient he will say, "You can have a certificate and get your corsets tax free." We feel that our request to raise the D level from £1 to £1 5s. is a very modest one, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will do something about it.
  Mr. F. J. Erroll: I do not feel it necessary to add to the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen). When her Amendment was originally tabled it had the support of the names of a large number of hon. Ladies opposite, and it was unfortunate that the exigencies of printing compelled many of those supporting names to be swept off the Order Paper, leaving only six. It was very striking to see so many hon. Ladies opposite getting together on this Amendment.
  I rise to speak, if I may, to the Amendment standing in my name dealing with dress collars—in page 77, line 4, column 1, after "shirt" to insert "and dress." Item B.10 gives a D level of 1 s. 9d. per article on shirt collars and shirt neckbands, which I understand to be a collar of a type which goes on a shirt that looks like a man's shirt but which is, in fact, worn by women when wearing a uniform, such as that of the women's police service, or any of the women's services attached to the Armed Services. If it is right for that type of collar to have a D level, I submit it is only right that what is called a dress collar, which is a similar type of detachable collar, only worn with ordinary feminine attire, should also have a similar D level. It is a small point and a small omission, but it is something which I hope can be put right by the Financial Secretary.
  Turning to other Amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) and myself, we have had representations made to us that roll-on elastic belts are in fact of a substantial nature and therefore of higher price than would appear to justify their inclusion under item B.18, where they would attract only a D level of 5s. 6d. per article. On the other hand, they are not as elaborate as full corsets described in item B.17, attracting a D level of 20s. Therefore, we have suggested a compromise whereby the roll-on
  1314
  elastic belts may have a D level of their own of 15s. per article.
  I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to accede to this request, because the situation is not satisfactory at present. I understand from the trade that if a roll-on elastic belt is fitted with quite a cheap zip fastener it is by definition turned into a corset and therefore attracts a higher D level. Therefore, by adding a quite redundant fastener costing 2s. one qualifies for a level of 14s. 6d. Obviously it would be better to reclassify and so pass the benefit on to the customer, rather than give an inducement to the manufacturer to try and qualify for a D level appertaining solely to items listed under item B.18. I hope, therefore, that the Financial Secretary will see his way to accede to these two small requests made from this side of the Committee.
  Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I want to plead the case of out-sizes and extra out-sizes again. There are on the Order Paper a number of Amendments relating to various items of women's underclothing in which we have suggested that the D level is far too low in the ordinary sizes and which, of course, is very much too low in the out-sizes and extra out-sizes. I do not want to press the case too much, because I think the principle has been established in previous discussions that out-sizes have been forgotten in the D scheme and in the Douglas Report. In view of the fact that a concession has been considered in relation to outer garments of out-size and extra out-size, I think we are entitled to ask for the same promise of an investigation with the manufacturers and the trade in the case of out-sizes and extra out-sizes in women's underclothing.
  Mr. Richard Fort: I should like to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to the effect on manufacturing operations of having too low a D level for nightdresses, slips and ladies' knickers. As the D level now stands it would be possible to make these articles at prices below D level only if they were made of the cheapest locknit material. It will not be possible to make these goods tax free if they are made out of the pleasanter, nicer to handle, woven material or by the more recently developed tricot-knitting process.

  1315
  There is no doubt that if some concession cannot be made on this D level the result will be to discriminate against woven material and the tricot-knitting process in favour of the much cheaper locknit material. I am sure the Financial Secretary will agree that the discouragement of higher quality goods is exactly what we want to avoid. The Douglas Committee in their recommendations set out to avoid that. Therefore, I ask the Financial Secretary to reconsider the D levels so as not to discriminate against higher quality fabrics in this field.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should be misleading the Committee if I sought to suggest that I was in any sense an expert on a large number of the articles which we are considering in connection with these Amendments, but I should like to reply to a number of the points that have been raised.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) raised again in this debate the general question as to the relationship between the level of D and the old top Utility levels. As the hon. Lady is aware, that aspect of the matter has been fairly frequently discussed during these last few days. I know it is the view held on the other side of the Committee, and expressed with great vigour and pertinacity in the course of these debates, that D should in general be fixed at or above the top Utility level. It is equally the view of hon. Members on this side of the Committee that it is of the essence of the D scheme that D should be placed at the median point.
  That is the issue of principle that is to some extent in controversy between us, and I doubt very much whether at this stage, and in answer to this particular debate, I can usefully add to the arguments that have been adduced on a good many occasions during the last few days on this general principle. I doubt very much whether, if I did, I should be able to convince the hon. Lady; any more, I am bound to tell her, than she has been able to convince me, in her agreeably expressed speech, that, on the general principle, she is right and I am wrong.
  I should like to pass to another comment of hers which does affect, perhaps, more directly these Amendments. She
  1316
  said that hardly any concession had been made on the D levels during the course of the previous Amendments. That is perfectly true; but, of course, the reason for it relates straight back to the issue of policy, and, indeed, of principle, on which she and I differ. It relates straight back to the view we take that D should be calculated at the median point, and at which, we believe, it has been in fact so calculated. Naturally, therefore, unless it can be shown that the matter has been wrongly calculated—I find myself subject to peculiar competition tonight.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman must be careful not to speak too loudly lest he disturb the slumbers of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie).
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I always try to have a sedative effect on the Committee, and it appears that tonight I am having more than usual success.
  But that, of course, is the reason why we did not accept on principle the whole basis of the hon. Lady's argument, that the D should be fixed in accordance with the variety of considerations which she brought forward. We believe that it should be fixed on the basis which, on a number of occasions from this Box, has been explained as the median point, and it has not been any obduracy, or unwillingness on our part to be helpful, that in the majority of cases it has not been possible to accept the argument for altering D; but because it would be wholly inconsistent with the general policy which we are recommending to the Committee. I am sure the hon. Lady will understand that.
  The hon. Lady the Member for the Gorbals Division (Mrs. Cullen) put a specific point, and she put forward an interesting suggestion. I am afraid the difficulty again is that she is there up against the general principles of the D scheme. I am very sympathetic to the particular case she had in mind, and were it possible to deal with it without wholly violating the general principles of the scheme one would be anxious to do it, but there are real difficulties, and for that reason I am unable to meet her point of view.
  2.15 a.m.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) raised what was to me a new point in connec-

  1317
  tion with the collars which were of the type normally worn by men, but, in fact, were worn by women. I think I understood his point aright. I do not claim that I can answer him on that point, but it will be on record in HANSARD.
  I want in this connection to make one general comment. This enormously elaborate scheme covers, as the Committee is almost painfully aware at this hour of the morning, a very wide variety of articles. It is not the intention of the Government merely to put this scheme through in the Finance Bill and then cease to pay any attention to it. It will be necessary to pay the closest attention to the details so that it shall operate fairly and reasonably consistent with the general principles.
  My hon. Friend's point will be on record in HANSARD and will be considered in the general consideration of the scheme. I do not want to mislead the Committee into believing that it will be possible to meet that specific point between now and the Report stage. It may well be that it will not be, but on the other hand it is useful to have on record in the speeches of hon. Members from both sides of the Committee the detailed points of criticism relating to the scheme, and none of the things that have been mentioned will be ignored. We do not propose to go to sleep over this matter, and my hon. Friend's point will be attended to.
  Equally the same observations apply to my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). I fully appreciate the force of the contention he made about the difficulty in the use of certain materials in the manufacture of the articles concerned, but I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that to make a separate provision would at the very best entail a greatly increased alteration in the scheme.
  We are all anxious not to overload the scheme, particularly at the beginning, with too much detail and too much elaboration, and thereby to impose too heavy a burden upon the wholesalers and manufacturers in the trade who have to operate it. That is one of the reasons why we have not been able to break down the various categories into greater detail and into more separate items and units. It is desirable to keep this as simple as possible in order to make sure
  1318
  the scheme will work. My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a very real difficulty in the early stages of a scheme like this. As I said in connection with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe will help us in the detailed supervision of the scheme which will be necessary.
  I think I have expressed our attitude towards this group of Amendments. We sympathise with the point of view put forward in a good many of them. We are helped certainly by the points of detail which have arisen in this discussion, and those points of detail will be given the attention which they deserve. They will be available in the OFFICIAL REPORT for us to consult, and they will undoubtedly be of help in the administration of the scheme, but it would be equally wrong at this stage of the Schedule, when a very large part of it has been approved by the Committee, to violate the general principles of the scheme, and thereby introduce complete inconsistency between the sort of provisions that we now have for men's outer wear and underclothes by bringing different considerations and principles into this part of the Schedule.
  Mr. J. Edwards: The Financial Secretary began by assuring us that he was not an expert in this field. I suppose that anybody who has been at the Board of Trade must admit to being more familiar with the garments in this field than are ordinary persons.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not all of them.
  Mr. Edwards: With most of them. Most of these items seemed to arise very many times during my experience of the Board of Trade. However, as I listened to the hon. Gentleman I did not feel that he was coming to grips with the detailed points that had been put to him. I felt that he was not taking the points seriatim and really dealing with them. On only one of them was he really precise in an undertaking.
  All the arguments go back to the two points, the level of D and the classifications that we are to use. I cannot understand how the D figures can be fixed in this group. If the hon. Gentleman understood, then he has not taken us

  1319
  completely into his confidence. If he insists that the figures are median, that is not only contrary to the experience of ordinary people like ourselves—in this field I speak as one who has two daughters as well as a wife—but I have also to find anybody in the trade who would agree that they are median figures.
  I challenge the Government. If what I am saying is incorrect, they had better produce their evidence. In a debate on textiles when we sat all night I referred to an acquaintance of mine, a manufacturer of women's rayon underwear, who had told me that under the new arrangements he would not be able to make a set of women's underwear of the kind that he would regard as really suitable to put on the market, unless it bore tax. Previously he had been able to make sets of underwear of good quality which were free of tax. That is the opinion of an expert.
  If that is so, there is something wrong about the notion of the median price having been fixed. If we took all the items in the group we should find that the median would not be the figures given here. In any event, whether we take the median or not, the truth is that fixing the level of D in this way means that a number of articles which were previously free of tax now bear tax.
  If I may digress one moment to refer back to what was said a little while ago about furs, the Financial Secretary was then quick to appreciate the significance of the D scheme when it applied to articles that were expensive. Taking it in its extreme case, the argument we had presented he himself put back to us. So I beg him to think again about this.
  The Government have had plenty of time in which to take the advice of the trade fully into account. They either have not consulted the trade or not taken their views into account. There has been plenty of time since the Schedule was printed six or seven weeks ago for the Government to have worked out with the trade both the classifications and the D level, and I charge the Government with not having done what they could have done quite readily.
  The Amendments hon. Members have put down were not just thought up by them in isolation. They all followed con-
  1320
  sultations and talks with people in the trade, and if what the private enterprise of private Members could do results in this list of Amendments, the Government with all their resources could have made a proper job of this had they wanted. It is all very well to say, as the Chancellor did, that they must take into account all what is said in the Committee. That is so, but I am sure they did not deliberately leave a lot of things here they could consider at various stages. The truth is that they have done a slipshod job of work, and the sooner they get down to the job with the trade on the level of D and the actual classifications in use the better. I am sure both sides of the Committee feel in this particular group that the reply of the Financial Secretary is wholly inadequate.
  Mrs. Braddock: Could I once again make a request to the Financial Secretary with regard to outsizes? He made no reply whatever to it. I kept my comments very short, and I could have spoken at greater length on the Amendments, and the reasons why a higher figure is required for outsizes and extra outsizes. Will my comments be looked at carefully by the hon. Gentleman to see what arrangements can be made?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry the hon. Lady feels that I ought to have replied specifically to what she said on these Amendments about outsizes, but she will recall that we had a discussion on that a short time ago, and that during the course of that discussion I gave a specific assurance, which I am perfectly willing to repeat, that this matter is being looked into with the intention of making special provision, if it is reasonably practical so to do. I am very happy to repeat that assurance.
  Miss Bacon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: In page 77, line 7, leave out "8 6 per article," and insert:

  per article

  (i) women's

  15

  1

  (ii) outsize

  16

  0

  (iii) extra outsize

  17

  4

  —[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  Question put, "That 8 6 per article' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 188.

  Division No.130.]

  AYES

  2.31 a.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Gage, C. H.

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

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

  Galbraith, T. O. D. (Hillhead)

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Garner-Evans, E. H

  Nugent, G. R. H

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Godber, J. B.

  Odey, G. W.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.D

  Arbuthnot, John

  Gough, C.F.H.

  Orr, Capt. L.P.S

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Gower, H.R.

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

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

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Perkins, W.R.D.

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

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Peto, Brig. C.H.M

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

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Weslbury)

  Peyton, J.W.W

  Baker, P.A.D.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Pilkington, Capt. R A

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J M

  Harrison, Col. J.H. (Eye)

  Pitman, I. J

  Baldwin, A E.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Banks, Col. C.

  Hay, John

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Heath, Edward

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.L

  Baxter, A.B.

  Higgs, J.M.C.

  Profumo, J.D

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Raikes, H.V.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythonshawe)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Redmayne, M

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Holland-Martin, C. J

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Hope, Lord John

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Birch, Nigel

  Hopkinson, Henry

  Rodgers, John (Seveneaks)

  Bishop, F.P.

  Horobin, I.M.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Black, C.W.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Bossom, A.C.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Russell R.S.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J.A

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

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

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Braine, B. R.

  Hurd, A. R.

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

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Hutchison Sir Geoffrey (IIford, N.)

  Scott, R. Donald

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

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (Ebrgh, W.)

  Shepherd, William

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

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

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Jenkins, R.C.D. (Dulwich)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

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

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Spearman, A.C.M

  Bullard, D.G.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Speir, R.M.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L.W

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

  Kaberry, D.

  Stevens, G.P.

  Burden, F.F.A.

  Keeling, Sir Edward

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

  Butcher, H.W.

  Kerr, H.W. (Cambridge)

  Stauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

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

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Summers, G.S.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Cary, Robert (Mitcham)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R.K

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Leather, E.H.C.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

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

  Teeling, W.

  Cole, Norman

  Legh, P.R. (Petersfield)

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

  Conant, Maj. R.J.E.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C.N.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Linstead, H.N.

  Tilney, John

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

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E)

  Turner, H.F.L.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O.E.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Turton, R.H.

  Cuthbert, W.N.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lucas, P.B. (Brentford)

  Vane, W.M.F.

  Deedes, W.F.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Vaughan-Morgan, J.K

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Vosper, D.F.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C.E. McA.

  Mackeson, Brig. H.R.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Donner, P.W.

  McKibbin, A.J.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Doughty, C.J.A

  McKie, J.H. (Galloway)

  Walker-Smith, D.C.

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Ward. Hon George (Worcester)

  Drayson, G.B.

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

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Drewe, C.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Duncan, Capt. J.A.L

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Wellwood, W.

  Erroll, F.J.

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Fell, A.

  Maude, Angus

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S.L.C

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R.F.

  Molson, A.H.E.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Fort, R.

  Mott-Radclyffe, C.E.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Nabarro, G.D.N.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Mr. Studholme and Mr. Oaksbott.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Blyton, W.R.

  Adams, Richard

  Benson, G.

  Boardman, H.

  Albu, A.H.

  Beswick, F.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A.G.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

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

  Bewden, H.W.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Bing, G.H.C.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Bacon, Miss Alics

  Blackburn, F.

  Brockway, A.F.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A.J.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  1322

  1323

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Porter, G.

  Burke, W.A

  Hoy, J.H.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Huges, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rankin, John

  Carmichael, J.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Reeves, J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Rhodes, H.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Janner, B.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Clunie, J.

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

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Ross, William

  Coldrick, W.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Royle, C.

  Collick, P. H.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Cook, T. F.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Short, E. W.

  Cullen, Mrs. A

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Keenan, W.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Kenyon, C.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Slater, J.

  Deer, G.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Snow, J. W.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Sorensen, R W

  Dodds, N. N.

  Lever, Harold (Cheatham)

  Steele, T.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

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

  Lewis, Arthur

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R.R.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Edelman, M.

  MacColl, J E.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  McGovern, J.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McInnes, J.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  McLeavy, F.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Timmons, J.

  Field, W. J.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Tomney, F.

  Fienburgh, W.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Finch, H. J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

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

  Weitzman, D.

  Follick, M.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Welts, Percy (Faversham)

  Foot, M. M.

  Manuel, A. C.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Forman, J. C.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  West, D. G.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Mellish, R. J.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Monslow, W.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Glanville, James

  Moody, A. S.

  Wigg, George

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Morley, R.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Grey, C. F.

  Moyle, A.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Grimond, J.

  Murray, J. D.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Calne Valley)

  O'Brien, T.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Orbach, M.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

  Hamilton, W. W

  Oswald, T.

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Hannan, W.

  Padley, W. E.

  Yates, V. F.

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

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Herbison, Miss M

  Paton, J.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Pearson, A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hobson, C. R.

  Peart, T. F.

  Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Holmes

  Holman, P.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Amendment proposed: In page 77, line 14, leave out "4 0 per article," and insert:

  per article

  (i) women's

  6

  11

  (ii) outsize

  8

  3

  (iii) extra outsize

  9

  7

  —[Mr. Anthony Greenwood.]

  Question put, "That '4 0 per article' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 188.

  Division No.131.]

  AYES

  [2.40 a.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Allan, R.A. (Paddington, S)

  Baxter, A.B.

  Braine, B.R.

  Aiport, C.J.M.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

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

  Anstruther-Gray, Maj W.J

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Brooman-White, R.C.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

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

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

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Bullard, D.G.

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

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

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

  Birch, Nigel

  Bullus, Wing-Commander E.E.

  Baker, P.A.D

  Bishop, F.P.

  Burden, F.F.A

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J.M

  Black, C.W.

  Butcher, H.W.

  Baldwin, A.E.

  Bossom, A.C.

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

  Banks, Col. C.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J.A.

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hurd, A. R.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (IIford, N.)

  Redmayne, M.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

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

  Remnant, Hon. P

  Cole, Norman

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

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

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Kaberry, D.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Russell, R. S.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Lambton, Viscount

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

  Donner, P. W.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R K.

  Scott, R. Donald

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Shepherd, William

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

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

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

  Drayson, G. B.

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col, Sir Walter

  Drewe, C.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Duncan, Capt. J. A L.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Span, R. M.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon, Richard

  Fell, A.

  Longden, Gilbert (Harts, S.W.)

  Stevens, G. P.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

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

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Fort, R.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  Studholme, H. G

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Summers, G. S.

  Gage, C. H

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

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

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Garner-Evans, E. H

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Godber, J. B.

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Tenting, W.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

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

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Maude, Angus

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

  Gower, H. R.

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

  Tilney John

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Turton, R. H.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Mott-Radelyffe, C. E.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Harrison, Col. J.H. (Eye)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Hay, John

  Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Heath, Edward

  Nugent, G. R. H

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Odey, G. W.

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Perkins, W R. D.

  Wellwood, W.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Hollis, M. C.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Hope, Lord John

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Hopkinson, Henry

  Pitman, I. J.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Horobin, I. M.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Brigadier Mackeson and Mr. Oakshott

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

  Raikes, H. V.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Carmichael, J.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Adams, Richard

  Champion, A.J.

  Field, W.J.

  Albu, A.H.

  Champman, W.D.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Chetwynd, G.R.

  Finch, H.J.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Clunie J.

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Cocks, F.S.

  Follick, M.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A.J

  Coldrick W.

  Foot, M. M.

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Collick, P.H.

  Forman, J.C.

  Benson, G.

  Cook, T.F.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Beswick, F

  Cook, T.F.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

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

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Bing, G.H.C.

  Crosland, C.A.R.

  Glanville, James

  Blackburn, F.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Grey, C.F.

  Blyton, W.R.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Boardman, H.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Grimond, J.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A.G.

  Deer, G.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Bowden, H.W.

  Driberg, T.E.N.

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon John (W. Bromwich)

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Brockway, A.F.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J.C.

  Hamilton, W.W.

  Brook Dryden (Halifax)

  Edelman, M.

  Hannan, W.

  Brown, Rt Hon. George (Belper)

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

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

  Burke, W.A.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Burton, Miss F.E.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Hobson, C.R.

  Callaghan, L.J.

  Holman, P.

  1326

  1327

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Slater, J.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Snow, J. W

  Hoy, J. H.

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Steele, T.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Monslow, W.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Moody, A. S.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Morley, R.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Hynd, J. B. (Altercliffe)

  Moyle, A.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Janner, B.

  Murray, J. D.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  O'Brien, T.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Orbach, M.

  Timmons, J.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Oswald, T.

  Tomney, F.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Padley, W. E.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Paton, J.

  Weitzman, D.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pearson, A.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Keenan, W.

  Pearl, T. F.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Kenyon, C.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  West, D. G.

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Porter, G.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Les, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Rankin, John

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Reeves, J.

  Willey, Octaviva (Cleveland)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Rhodes, H.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  McGovern, J.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  McInness, J.

  Roberts, Goranwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Winterbottorn, Richard (Brightside)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Ross, William

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A

  McLeavy, F.

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Wyatt, W. L.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Shackleton, E. A A.

  Yates, V. F.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Short, E. W.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Mr. Royle and Mr. Wigg.

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Simmons, C. J (Brierley Hill)

  Amendment proposed: In page 77, line 38, leave out "3 0 0," and insert "4 10 0."—[Mr. Anthony Greenwood.]
  Question put, "That '3 0 0' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 207; Noes, 187.

  Division No.132.]

  AYES

  2.49 a.m.

  Aitken, W.T.

  Burden, F.F.A

  Gower, H.R.

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

  Butcher, H.W.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Alport, C.J.M.

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

  Grimond, J.

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W.J.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)

  Harrison, Col. J.H. (Eye)

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

  Cole, Norman

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

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

  Conant, Maj. R.J.E.

  Hay, John

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

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Heath, Edward

  Baker, P.A.D.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Higgs, J.M.C.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J.M.

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

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Baldwin, A.E.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O.E.

  Hill Mr. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Banks, Col. C.

  Cuthbert, W.N.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Barlow, Sir John

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Baxter, A.B.

  Deedes, W.F.

  Holland-Martin, C.J.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Hollis, M.C.

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C.E. McA.

  Hope, Lord John

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Denner, P.W.

  Hopkinson, Henry

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Doughty, C.J.A.

  Horobin, I.M.

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Drayson, G.B.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Drewe, C.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Birch, Nigel

  Duncan, Capt. J.A.L

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

  Bishop, F.P.

  Erroll, F.J.

  Hurd, A.R.

  Black, C.W.

  Fell, A.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (IIford, N.)

  Bossom, A.C.

  Finlay, Graeme

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

  Boyd-Carpenter, J.A.

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R.F

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H.M.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Jenkins, R.C.D. (Dulwich)

  Braine, B.R.

  Fort, R.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

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

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambs & Lonsdale)

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L.W.

  Brooman-White, R.C.

  Gage, C.H.

  Kaberry, D.

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Galbraith, T.G.D.(Hillhead)

  Keeling, Sir Edward

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

  Garner-Evans, E.H.

  Kerr, H.W. (Cambridge)

  Bullard, D.G.

  Godher, J.B.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Bullus, Wing-Commander E.E.

  Gough, C.F.H.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R K

  Leather, E.H.C.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.D

  Stevens, G. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E.A.H

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Steward, W.A. (Woolwich, W)

  Legh, P.R. (Petersfield)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)

  Steward, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Lindsay, Martin

  Perkins, W.R.D.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Linstead, H.N.

  Peto, Brig. C.H.M.

  Summers, G.S

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Peyton, J W.W.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Pilkington, Capt R A

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Pitman, I.J.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Teeling, W.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sri Hugh

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)

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

  McAdden, S.J.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O L

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col C N

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I of Wight)

  Profumo, J.D.

  Tilney, John

  Mackeson, Brig. H R

  Raikes, H. V.

  Turner, H.F.L

  McKibbin, A.J.

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Turton, R.H.

  McKie, J.H. (Galloway)

  Remnant, Hon. P

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Renton, D.L.M.

  Vane, W.M.F.

  Macleod Iain (Enfield W.)

  Roberts, Peter (Heely)

  Vaughan-Morgan. J K

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Vosper, D.F.

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Maude, Angus

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Walker-Smith, D.C.

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

  Russell, R.S.

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Molson, A.H.E.

  Ryder, Capt. R.E.D.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C.E.

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

  Wellwood, W.

  Nabarro, G.D.N.

  Scott, R. Donald

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Shepherd, William

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

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

  Williams, R Dudley (Exeter)

  Noble, Cmdr. A.H.P.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Nugent, G.R.H

  Spearman, A.C.M.

  Wood, Hon. R

  Oakshott, H. D

  Speir, R M

  Odey, G W

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayne.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Adams, Richard

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Albu, A.H

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lindgren, G.S.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Field, W.J.

  MacColl, J.E.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Fienburgh, W.

  McGovern, J.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Finch, H. J.

  Mclnness, J.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A.J

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  MckKay, John (Wallsend)

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Follick, M

  McLeavy, F.

  Benson, G.

  Foot, M. M.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Beswick, F.

  Forman, J.C.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Mainwairing, W. H.

  Blackburn, F.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

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

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Glanvile, James

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Blyton, W. R.

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Boardman, H.

  Grey, C. F.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon A G

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Hall. Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Monslow, W.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  Moody, A. S

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Morley, R.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hannon, W.

  Moyle, A.

  Burke, W. A.

  Handerson, Rt. Hon A (Rowley Regis)

  Mulley, F.W.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Murray, J.D.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Hewiston, Capt, M.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Hobson, C. R.

  O'Brien, T.

  Carmichael, J.

  Holman, P.

  Orbach, M.

  Champion, A. J.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Oswald, T.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Padley, W. E.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Clunie, J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Paton, J.

  Cocks, F.S.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N)

  Peart, T.F.

  Coldrick, W.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Collick, P. H.

  Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)

  Porter, G.

  Cook, T. F.

  Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Janner, B.

  Proctor, W.T.

  Crosland, C A. R

  Jay. Rt. Hon D P. T.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Cullen, Mrs. A

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Rankin, John

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Jenkins, R. H (Stechford)

  Reeves, J.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Johnson, James (Rughby)

  Rhodes, H.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Deer. G.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Ross, William

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Keenan, W.

  Royle, C.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon John (W. Bromwich)

  Kenyon, c.

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Ede, Rt. Hon J C.

  King, Dr. H M.

  Shackleton, E.A.A.

  Edelman, M.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Short, E.W.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Shurmer, P.L.E.

  1330

  1331

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Timmons, J.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Slater, J.

  Tomney, F.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Snow, J. W

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Steele, T.

  Weitzman, D.

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Wells, Perey (Faversham)

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  West, D. G.

  Wyatt. W. L.

  Swingler, S. T.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Yates, V. F.

  Sylvester, G. O

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E)

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon, Robert (Morpeth)

  Wigg, George

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Holmes.

  Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to move, in page 78, line 36, to leave out "14 6," and to insert "20 0."
  I think it would be appropriate in introducing the debate on the last group of Amendments on this Schedule to say, what I am sure will be the view of the whole Committee, that the debates we have had in the last few days on the groups so far taken have been extremely harmonious and constructive. I should like to pay tribute to the extremely courteous way in which the Chancellor, the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, and particularly the Financial Secretary, who has had to carry so much of the debate, have dealt with the points raised fro this side of the Committee.
  Naturally, we are not very satisfied with the response to our proposals and Amendments. Some of the arguments put forward just now by the Financial Secretary —which I must raise in their relationship to the group of Amendments now before us—left me rather worried. Despite the Chancellor's assurances at an earlier stage of the Bill that he was prepared to consider sympathetically any suggestions made from this side of the Committee the Financial Secretary, not merely on the last group but on all the groups, sounded as though he was rather bound by the rigid and inflexible principle of the median arrangement and that no matter how strong a case was made from this side of the Committee it would not be possible to alter the D level of the Bill.
  I thought I detected in his last remarks a note of the kind against which the Committee have been warned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who said that at certain points the Chancellor was liable to say, "It is too late to raise this now. It ought to have been raised earlier." The Financial Secretary said it would be a pity to depart from this rigid median line, and that we must not spoil the record set up by the Committee of sticking, on the whole,
  1332
  firmly to that line. I agree that there have been one or two concessions, but they have been very few indeed, and I hope that the Chancellor, who, I think, has given a great deal of his time to this stage of the Billߞand we are deeply indebted to him for thatߞwill make on this last group more concessions proportionately than he has done on the other groups.
  3.0 a.m.
  He will agree, I think, that the group we are now discussing is by far the biggest and most important group in the whole Schedule. It is the one that raises most of the problems associated with the textile industries, and, of course, it is a very wide group. It is, of course, several groups, and it might have been more logical and convenient to the Committee to have split the whole of Part 11 of the Schedule into a number of groups.
  When I was considering this, in connection with the proposals, we suggested to the Chair that this group should be divided, but I found it very difficult to split. We cannot really debate wool independently of cotton and the other materials. Once we start to talk about cotton piece goods there are consequential items to be mentioned, such as pillows, pillow slips, and so on, and when we get on to pillows we get on to bolsters, mattresses, and so onߞand I can see that hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to get on to them now.
  Mr. F. Harris: And into pyjamas.
  Mr. Wilson: Because we are having to have such a wide and heterogeneous group there will be a number of matters to be raised by my right hon. and hon. Friendsߞand by hon. Gentlemen opposite, too; and so I do not propose in these introductory remarks on the Amendment to cover all the points in this last groupߞwhich seems to surprise the Chancellor. He may be even more surprised to hear that I do not intend to repeat all the

  1333
  arguments that have been advanced during consideration of the other groups, although, obviously, those arguments do apply—or many of them—to a large number of the goods in this group which previously were tax free and now will carry tax, with effects upon the textile industries and with effects upon the consumers.
  I want to make four main points, and I shall make them as briefly as I can. The first is that the D level for wool in this Schedule is far too low, and that is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have proposed Amendments to raise the level from 14s. 6d. to 20s. 0d. throughout this Part of the Schedule. I think that the reason for the difficulty about wool is the fact that the Schedule makes no distinction between woollen and worsted cloths; therefore, there is no separate D price for woollen and worsted cloths.
  Perhaps, I should tell the Chancellor that when my right hon. and hon. Friends and I considered the Amendments we should put down we came to the conclusion that we really ought to distinguish between woollen and worsted goods because the effect of the median figure, whether it is an accurate median figure or not, is to leave a great part of the woollen free of tax but to impose tax on a great part of the worsted cloths which come above that figure. When my hon. Friends got down to the drafting Amendments, however—and we have on this side of the Committee two or three of the greatest experts on wool not only in this Committee but in the country—they found it impossible to get a really watertight definition between wool and worsted: and I am sure that the Chancellor will agree about that difficulty.
  So it means that we have to accept the grouping of wool and worsted together, but, as I have said, to fix the median on those two together means unfair discrimination, particularly against worsted. That does mean unfair discrimination against particular materials of quality—a subject hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have often talked about—and it also means discrimination against materials of great value to the export trade.
  It is as if the Chancellor had set out in a different part of the Bill—we are glad he has not—a D scheme for motor
  1334
  vehicles and then took on motor cycles and cars, and, taking the median figure, set it at the minimum level. It would have meant that most motor cycles would have been free of tax and most cars would carry a disproportionate amount of tax. That is what he has done in conection with worsted cloth and for that reason we propose that he should set the D figure amount much higher, somewhere near the top worsted price rather than the top wool price or the price that is intermediate between the wool and worsted products of the country.
  The second point to which I should like to draw the Chancellor's attention, though. I believe he has a note of it, is that the figure for cotton piece goods which is, therefore, consequential in the other products, is far too low. It is felt by the trade in Lancashire that in fixing this figure the Treasury have gone mad. Lancashire believes that the figure chosen will be ruinous for large and important sections of the textile trade, because here again it is a cliche, as we have often said in debates on textiles, that there is no such thing as the cotton industry, but a whole range of industries coming under the general heading of the cotton industry.
  Equally, the various products covered in cotton cloth in Part 11 of the Schedule represents a very wide range of the products of Lancashire, and that means that once again the median figure or the D figure penalises a wide range of household textiles and better quality furnishing fabrics and curtain materials. I would remind the Chancellor, in case it did not sink into his soul earlier, of the comments of the "Manchester Guardian" on furnishing fabrics which appeared in an article under the heading—and I think it is right in spite of what the Chancellor has said and done since—"A Bad Tax" on 4th April. The article said this:
  "It has made most curtain and furnishing fabrics of decent quality prohibitive for the ordinary purse. … The tax free level has been put at 4s. a yard for all cotton and rayon fabrics, which means that all the better fabrics bear a heavy tax."
  The strongest case in the whole of this Schedule relates to the furnishing fabrics. That point has been argued not only in the trade Press, but in successive debates in this Committee and in the House. It was argued very forcibly last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn,

  1335
  East (Mrs. Castle), and we are all sorry that she cannot be here with us tonight to put the case with her usual cogency. She is ill and has had to go home, and I am sure that the whole Committee will hope that she will be back with us again shortly.
  We know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) also takes a very strong view on the problem of furnishing fabrics and curtain materials, and we all feel that Lancashire requires a concession from the Chancellor. When we were discussing the Motion that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again and he referred to Part 11, I thought the Chancellor was going to make a concession on furnishing fabrics, or at any rate he was aware of the fact that the tax problem he would have to deal with in Part 11 was the problem of furnishing fabrics.
  We should reasonably expect a substantial concession on furnishing fabrics and curtain materials, but once again we are faced—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West, will agree —with the almost complete impossibility of defining those materials as a separate entity. Most people know that there is a great deal of common ground between certain dress and curtain materials. What I consider to be the prettiest summer dress of my wife's was bought as curtain material, but was transformed by a competent and skilled craftswoman into a dress. I should have found it difficult to say whether it was curtain or dress material, and so would the Chancellor.
  Unless the Chancellor can explain it to us, I do not see how he can give a concession relating to furnishing fabrics and curtain materials alone. We hope that he will accept the Amendment which puts up the D level for all cotton piece goods to a figure which will make it possible to do justice for the furnishing fabrics and the curtain materials.
  I wish to remind the Committee of some figures which I gave it a week ago relating to a representative Co-operative society. Although the D price was 5s. 4d., the cost of the cheapest line of casements and brocades 48 inches wide in stock was 6s. The Chancellor's announcement last night makes no difference to the problem. I agree that the reduction from 66 and
  1336
  two-thirds to 50 per cent. will reduce the tax by a quarter, but that will not solve the problems in regard to furnishing fabrics. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West, will agree. These materials need to be dealt with by a higher D line.
  My next point refers to linen. In the view of my hon. Friends and myself, many of the linen items should be in a separate category and not grouped as they are at present. Other hon. Members will, no doubt, make the points which should be made about the linen industry. Of all the industries in the country affected by the D scheme, the linen industry has been the least forthcoming in aiding hon. Members who wish to draw the attention of the Chancellor to these matters.
  It almost suggests that there is something of a closed corporation between the linen industry and some of the Northern Ireland Tory hon. Members, because it seems to be felt that the problems of the linen industry should be discussed only by Northern Ireland hon. Members. That may he an unfair thing to say, but whereas every other trade in the country has flooded us with information, I cannot say the same of the Northern Ireland linen industry, and that is not in the best interests of that industry.
  I am sure that the Chancellor will agree that in all our discussions in the last two days we have been putting forward Amendments on non-party lines on the merits of the case. Most of the industries concerned have given their arguments and discussed their problems equally impartially with hon. Members on both sides, feeling that it was a national problem and not just one which should be regarded as the preserve of one party or group in the House. Therefore, I find myself a little inhibited about putting the arguments for the linen industry, but some hon. Members will be putting the arguments. If my suspicions are correct, Tory hon. Members for Northern Ireland constituencies will be well briefed on the subject and will put the problems before the Chancellor.
  3.15 a.m.
  My fourth point on this Schedule relates to quilts, mattresses and other household requisites. I have given figures to the Committee showing how against a D level of £2 10s. for down quilts a

  1337
  typical Co-operative society branch had no stocks priced less than £5 I Is. 6d. Again, for down quilts, whereas the retail price before the Budget was £7 8s. 8d. and the new price after the Budget was £9 9s. 8d. Now, after last night, the Chancellor has brought it down, according to my calculations, to £8 19s. 5d.
  It is important to recognise that unless the D line is raised, quilts will become too dear, except those filled with inferior material, and I am sure that is not the idea of the Chancellor or his colleagues on the Treasury Bench. I have in mind the Minister of Health, whose Department has a statutory interest in the filling in quilts and other things. I think there is a strong case for splitting this group into different categories, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) has views on that.
  These are some of the main points, and I have no doubt that they will be developed by hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the Committee. I should like to give one example only, as I have done in other groups. My illustration relates to towelling and towels. The Committee will observe that the D line for towelling stands at 4s. a yard while for towels it is 5s. 3d., when one makes appropriate adjustments for width. The Chancellor has been generous in fixing the levels for towels. That generosity is rare and we all welcome it, but it creates certain difficulties.
  As the Committee will appreciate, many mothers like to buy in the form of towelling and, by dint of craftsmanship, make it up into nappies for future use. That is an economical and thrifty approach to the problems they are likely to be facing, but this sort of custom is, in fact, stopped by the Chancellor's D scheme. To take one example, Terry towelling pays tax, owing to the very low D figure fixed at 4s. a yard, and it simply does not pay to buy it if one has to pay the tax above the D level for the purpose of making it up into nappies and other personal requirements of the infants because, of course, the nappies themselves of similar material are tax free. I am sure that that was one of the consequences the Chancellor did not have in mind, and I hope that it is one of the anomalies he will be prepared to consider. It illustrates once again the difficulties of any scheme of this sort.
  1338
  In discussing this particular group of Amendments I said that I would not raise the question of the fixation of the median, although I consider the replies from the Treasury Bench completely unsatisfactory, but I want to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) put to the Government a few minutes ago. I am referring to the need for and the lack of consultation with the trades and industries concerned before these figures were fixed.
  It is now two months since these figures were made available to the House, and apparently there has been very little consultation with the trades concerned. We have hardly had a single case on the Schedule of the responsible Minister coming before the Committee and saying that, as a result of consultation with the industries concerned, it had been decided to revise the figures. There has been virtually no Government Amendment down on the Schedule, and I feel that the Chancellor would be well advised in working this scheme to have closer consultations with the trade.
  It cannot be a secret from the Chancellor that many businessmen in different parts of the country are saying that Ministers in this Government are highly inaccessible. I am putting this as a serious point and in no way as a party one. I have heard this many times from businessmen who, I imagine, must be of the party of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Many of them are saying that when the previous Government were in power they could generally get their problems considered sympathetically by the Ministers concerned and had a fair right of access to them, but they are not getting it now. Sometimes they add, bitterly, "It is not as if they were so good that they can decide on these things for themselves without consultation."
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite behind the Chancellor can confirm that these things are being said widely in trade and industry today. I feel that this D scheme with which we are apparently landed, despite our best efforts to stop it, will be even more of a disaster than we fear it will be if there is not the fullest possible consultation between the Government and trade and industry, and a fair readiness on the part of the Treasury to make changes in D levels whenever they

  1339
  are convinced that a change should be made.
  We recognise the difficulties of the Chancellor—he drew attention to them tonight—as between the accusations of obduracy on the one hand and uncertainty on the other. I agree that, after this series of debates and the Report stage are over, there should be some certainty and settlement of the D levels, bad as we consider them to be. At the same time, the Chancellor should be free to make changes from time to time. We recognise the conflict between the two principles he has to observe, but I recommend to him that if he will consult trade and industry as much as possible, they will understand his difficulties and will help to make this scheme as good as it possibly can be.
  Mr. Ralph Assheton: I should like first, to join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) in thanking the Chancellor and the other Treasury Ministers for the patient way in which they have listened to these debates throughout the night. I have frequently before in this Committee, on the occasion of the Finance Bill, said how regrettable it was that such important matters had to be discussed in the middle of the night, and I still feel that that is unfortunate. It is particularly unfortunate that at such a late hour we should be coming to what is the most important debate of the day.
  The right hon. Gentleman has reminded the Committee of the great difficulty in which the Committee is placed by the D level as applied to cloth. I do not wish to cover the whole field, but to deal particularly with furnishing fabrics—a question that affects my own constituency in Blackburn very considerably, and many other constituencies in this country and Northern Ireland. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I would tell the right hon. Gentleman opposite that I have had some representations from that source, so that the matter has not altogether been overlooked.
  The Douglas Committee in their final Report, in paragraph 131, recommended:
  "That deductions be fixed in such a way that a given proportion of current purchases of goods covered by the scheme would be
  1340
  free from tax. This proportion should, as far as possible, be the same for all the classes of goods concerned and be not less than one half in each class."
  The inclusion of the products of this furnishing fabrics industry as class B material, with a D figure of 4s. per yard, completely fails to implement the intentions of the Douglas scheme and the Government on this matter. Out of 121 specifications of Utility furnishing cloth only three remain tax free. That conclusively proves the case, and I beg the Chancellor to take this matter into serious consideration. The avowed object of the Douglas Committee was to provide a range of tax-free goods and it simply does not do so in this case.
  Lancs is extremely distressed on account of this, and already there have been very serious repercussions in our trade. A very large number of orders placed before this came in have now been cancelled, and it is unlikely that the orders which he and the Government have placed in the textile areas will benefit this trade, because it employs specialised plant and special skills that will not be of use to the Chancellor in placing his £25 million worth of orders. Quality is being degraded to an alarming extent: owing to the fact that the D level for wool is 14s. 6d. against a level for cotton of 4s., manufacturers are weaving into their cloth 15 per cent. of wool to try to avoid this tax. This is not a good thing.
  It is a great pity the industry should be forced to concentrate on how to avoid tax rather than on the best type of goods that can be sold abroad. Cotton goods with 15 per cent. wool woven into them are not likely to be suitable for the export trade, for several reasons. One reason is that there are in certain cases special import duties that make it difficult for us to sell these goods overseas.
  There is a large number of other points I could bring forward. I do not want to add to the length of this argument, but I want to impress on the Chancellor how very serious indeed this is. There is nothing in the whole Bill to which I attach more importance than to get this particular blemish corrected. The weight of opinion behind what I am saying comes from all parts of the Committee and certainly from every trade organisation that has anything to do with the matter. If the Chancellor is not able to find an immediate answer, I beg that he will

  1341
  consult the Furnishing Fabrics Federation and see whether something can be worked out to meet the difficulty.
  There are different possible ways of meeting the difficulty, into which I will not go in detail now; there is, for instance, the question of definition—whether by weight or by some other means. I am not sure that there is any completely satisfactory way, and it may be that we shall have to adopt a solution which is not perfect. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be a perfectionist on this occasion, because if he seeks to be a perfectionist he will probably not be able to deal with the problem. We must deal with the problem somehow, even if we cannot deal with it perfectly.
  I shall say no more at this stage, but will leave the matter, with great confidence, in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  3.30 a.m.
  Mr. Rhodes: I want to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) a little way in what he said, but I would point out to him that he has overstated the case about the mixture of wool with cotton fabrics. I do not think that that will go very far with wool at its present price, and I do not think that much attention need be paid to the matter.
  Mention has been made of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attended the debates. He ought to be grateful to us for attending, and for trying to amend this Schedule for him, because, after all, it is a mess. The Chancellor knows the textile industry from an angle which is different from that of most of us. I have been engaged in the manufacture of woollen cloth for many years. Before the right hon. Gentleman took on his present job he was associated with a well-known firm—and I very much want to say something about them which I have not had the opportunity of saying before. This country and the consumers owe a great deal to the firm with which the right hon. Gentleman was connected for the work they did during the past two years in keeping down the cost of textiles in this country. They did a great job and the country should thank them for having done it.
  1342
  The first point I want to make perhaps breaks new ground—and some of us think it is about time we did break new ground. It concerns the tax itself. The difficulty which the cloth section faces is that the incidence of the tax bears very heavily upon it. I shall try to explain this as clearly as I can—it is a complicated subject—because I should like a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about it.
  As I understand, the original idea in fixing the rates of tax was that labour and conversion costs double the price of the cloth when it is made into a garment. That meant that cloth which was sold without the labour and conversion costs should bear twice the tax—and that was accepted by the trade many years ago. It was even accepted by the trade in 1947, when the revision in the level of Purchase Tax was made, and it became known as the two-to-one formula. It was generally accepted by the trade as fair.
  It was only fair so long as the prices remained constant and the conversion factor continued to have a reasonable relation to the finished product. Before the war the conversion factor, including labour, the variable costs, fixed charges and overheads connected with manufacture, used to be in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent. It became less as time went on. The higher the price of the material, the smaller the conversion factor. It was accelerated in the years 1949, 1950, and 1951, until in my industry we were fortunate if the conversion factor was as much as 22 per cent. Before the war it ranged between 44 and 50 per cent.
  The point I am making is that where in many cases the incidence of tax is not very heavy on made-up garments, on the cloth it is heavy. I will quote three instances. The tax on the cloth of a 3230 shirt—to quote a well-known Utility number—was approximately three times the tax on the garment. On the 3310 boiler suit there was no tax, but the cloth would be taxed at about 7½d. a yard if bought over the counter for making aprons or children's playsuits. The retailer would, naturally, require his normal margin on the tax, so that on a couple of yards of 31-inch cloth, the effect of the tax would be an extra charge of about 1s. 10½d. Those are assessed on the new figure. A 3172 woman's gabardine garment bore tax of 1s. 10½d., while

  1343
  the cloth bought for home dressmaking paid tax at 16s. 9d. Again, the retailer's margin would be heavy.
  What is the Chancellor trying to do? He is penalising the thrifty housewife, the mother of young children who buys a few yards of cloth to make into children's garments. Nearly all curtain material is sold over the counter by the yard to be made into curtains. Why should thrifty people who are willing to take that trouble be penalised? It is the same with the home sewer. Why should she be penalised? Does he not want people to sew at home? He is doing his best to discourage them. Why should a person who wishes to make up cloth into a frock or other garment have to go and buy poorer quality cloth to make up for the difference in tax? That is the incidence of the present tax. There is a lower incidence on made-up garments as distinct from cloth which is sold over the counter.
  Much play has been made in the last two days about the difficulties experienced by the making up trade. Well, their difficulties are nothing compared with the difficulties of those who sell piece goods. The making up industry has always had a margin. That was demonstrated beyond all doubt when the makers up started the iniquitous system of double invoicing while the Utility scheme was in operation. Anybody who knows the trade knows full well that on many of these clothes the makers up had a nice little margin up their sleeve so that they were able to pay a higher price for cloth as and when they wanted it.
  Next I come to the median. It appears that the Furnishing Fabrics Association has briefed us very well. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West, was quoting some of the same figures that I have, and they are very illustrative. I should like to make a comparison which has not yet been made. Not only does this ridiculous D level apply to furnishings, but also to many other things. If the Chancellor were to take the trouble to look up the old Utility schedules he would find many examples of piece goods which will prove the point I am trying to make. All he needs to do is to look up, say. coloured woven striped two-fold poplins. Those are made in Nelson, a town which has been very
  1344
  badly hit, not only on account of the general depression but also on account of the change in fashion.
  I draw the Chancellor's attention to the many clothes which are far above the median line besides curtain cloths. I should like to know how the Chancellor views the question of the differential in tax between the made up garment and the cloth. Does he still stick to the two-to-one formula? Or is it as vague as his way of arriving at the median for D? The Government have not inspired in us today much confidence in the way in which they arrive at the D levels. I should like the Chancellor to tell us quite definitely what is the formula for arriving at the tax on 25 per cent. on made-up garments and 50 per cent. on piece goods.
  3.45 a.m.
  We must look also at this matter from the export angle. We do not export a tremendous amount of made-up garments, so when we are considering the incidence of tax on piece-goods within this Schedule we are thinking directly in terms of exports. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) referred to the Purchase Tax not having much effect on our exports. I will cross swords with him and illustrate my point. Recently, my firm concluded the preliminaries for an order in North America. We had to take into consideration several things apart from the price. One can cover the risk through the Export Credits Guarantee Department if one likes but there is the over-riding risk nowadays that for some reason or other —it may be a fall in the price of raw materials—the customer is upset and he cancels the order.
  If the cloth involved is far below the D line one has a reasonable chance of selling the stock at round about two-thirds of its value and no more. If operators know one has such stock one has no chance whatever of liquidating it on the home market at more than two-thirds of its value. In my case it was below the D median because for woollens, at any rate, the median is generous.
  But in the case of the manufacturer who is making velvets for the North American market, his cloth can be priced at as much as 26s. a yard, 48 inches wide. He thinks in terms of the risk when it

  1345
  comes to selling on the home market. He is very chary indeed of taking a risky order at the present time which may not only involve him in loss of a third of his capital but also in the possibility of having to face the opposition of possible customers owing to the effect of Purchase Tax.
  I suggest that the Chancellor should try to hammer out a formula for frustrated exports. I know it is difficult for him to do anything about the definition of furnishing fabrics as distinct from dresses, but it is his job to do it. If we on this side of the Committee were very astute politically, after making our first demonstration on Purchase Tax we should have left the subject severely alone and left the Chancellor to get on with it, because the arguments we adduce from this side of the Committee are nothing compared with what he will have to face from the trade during the next 12 months as this scheme works itself out.
  I just want to mention the question of quilts. The Chancellor will agree that it is absolutely impossible to take any quilts on a yardage basis with all the groupings in this part of the Schedule. It is simply ridiculous. This proposition must just have been thrown in by somebody who said, "Somebody will sort this out in the Committee stage of the Bill." The right hon. Gentleman can easily have a look at this, and ought to. Down quilts, which are the most expensive, are made in a different way from wadded and cotton-wool quilts. Wadded and cottonwool quilts have the padding sewn in, and kapoks have it blown in.
  I would suggest to the Chancellor he cannot stick to the exact provisions in the Schedule. He can get over the difficulty by splitting them into five groups. He could put downs and kapoks together because they are made with the same sort of machinery; he could put downs and cotton wools together because they are more competitive with each other; or he could put kapoks and waddeds together because each is in a lower quality against downs and cotton wools respectively. I am willing to give him these particulars. They are rather involved, but I can assure him that they are well worked out. He will realise it is impossible to put this type of article in with the rest of the gigantic group.
  1346
  I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that group 4 should include cushion covers, chair back covers and mattress covers. There is no real reason why they should be left out at all. I suggest that he should add to group 4 mattress ticks and bolster ticks. It would please many housewives in the North because they use them—I do not know whether this is a peculiarity of the North —more than they do in the South.
  The right hon. Gentleman has a hopeless task with this scheme. He knows now he will never see the revenue he hoped for. Personally, I hope he gets it, because it will mean good activity in the textile trades. One will not say in a few months' time, "We told you so," believe me. It is too serious. We are in difficulties. I have never seen anything like it since I started at 12 years of age as an operative. It behoves everybody to give this matter their attention, as we have done in this Committee on both sides. We seem to have shed our East Croydons and Sutton Coldfields, because if we had had that sort of element in this Parliament as we had it in the last it would have been working against improving the position.
  Although I have never seen anything like it I am certain of this: we shall pull through, but it will have to be done not on the basis of the rigid mind by Departments such as the Treasury but by being more flexible in dealing with these problems. I still believe that the Chancellor would have served the industry better if he had scrapped the whole scheme.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), when opening this interesting discussion, referred to our deliberations as having been harmonious, and I hope that we shall not depart from that too far. Last night, however, the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) was a little naughty. He sought to make party capital out of the present difficulties in Northern Ireland, and referred to the unemployment position in Ulster and pointed out how very bad it was. It is very bad and he was perfectly right to point that out. It is serious and we are all greatly perturbed about it.
  But the hon. Member suggested that, because my hon. Friends and I from

  1347
  Ulster did not put down a whole string of Amendments to the first part of this Schedule, in some way or another we were guilty of some dereliction of duty or neglect of our responsibilities. I can only think that this was the result of the change of heart which has recently taken place in the Labour Party in Northern Ireland, because for 30 years they were closely allied with the Anti-Partitionists, Nationalists and Republicans, who wanted to put Northern Ireland—
  Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order. what has any alliance with Anti-Partitionists or any other body in Ireland to do with this particular Amendment?
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I did not actually hear the words the hon. and gallant Member was using, but the subject of Anti-Partitionists is not in order on this Amendment.
  Captain Orr: If I might develop the point I was making and still remain within order, I was merely trying to seek out the motive behind what the hon. Member for Rossendale said in introducing the subject into our debates tonight. He suggested that in some way we who represent seats in Northern Ireland were guilty of dereliction of duty. I suggest that his allegation was because of a change of heart in the Northern Ireland Labour Party. The hon. Member referred to the subject, and, therefore, I imagine I would be in order in replying to him.
  However, I will leave that subject if I am getting a bit near the line. I would only say that the Ulster textile industry would have been very much the sufferer, and might have been completely ruined, had we followed the policy advocated by the Northern Ireland Labour Party in the last 30 years. Their sudden change of heart and their sudden tenderness for Ulster textiles—
  4.0 a.m.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon and gallant Gentleman is now very far from the Amendment.
  Captain Orr: I will now return to the subject of the Schedule.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles), deployed the argument in the textile debate some while ago, before the
  1348
  Finance Bill, and drew attention to the state of the linen industry in Northern Ireland and the recession that it was suffering. On the Committee stage of the Finance Bill my hon. and gallant Friend referred to the incidence of Purchase Tax and its effect on the Ulster textile industry, and he also drew attention to the fact that in order to encourage exports—linen goods largely depend upon an export trade—a sufficiently large cushion in the way of a home trade is needed.
  We discussed how best we could put our main grievance, whether we should put down a string of Amendments to the first part of the Schedule—that would probably have kept the Committee here all last night—or whether we should seek a point where we could most effectively draw attention to it. We decided that our case could best be put with reference to the piece goods at the beginning of Part II of the Schedule, which principally affects the Ulster textile industry.
  There we find piece goods divided into classes A and B. From a first glance at the definition it would appear that Class C goods are not subject to tax, but, when we look at the definition, at the beginning of the Schedule, we find that Class B automatically includes Class C. We seek by our Amendment to expose the Chancellor's trick. However, we hope that he will not take the exposure in bad part, and that he will try to help us.
  There is no linen piece goods category in this section of the Schedule as it is drafted, and that omission is difficult to understand. The Utility scheme admitted the principle that linen is different from other textiles; linen is very expensive to make, and a remission in tax adversely affects linen and benefits its competitors. The principle is, in fact, admitted in section four of the Schedule where bed sheets, tablecloths and table covers are divided into two classes of materials. It is admitted in the case of pillow cases, table napkins, tray cloths, and pillows, and I completely fail to understand why it should not be admitted in the case of cloth.
  The Ulster textile industry feels very strongly about this. Linen is more expensive to produce, and if one takes two articles of the same size, one of linen and the other of cotton, with the linen article costing 20s. to produce, and with the

  1349
  D exemption in each case of 4s., the amount chargeable to tax is 16s. for the linen article and 9s. for the cotton article. Therefore, the incidence of tax increases the already existing disparity of price between the two things.
  Mr. Wilson: To be fair to the Chancellor, will the hon. Gentleman indicate what difference the Chancellor's concession of last night makes to the differentiation between cotton and linen on the calculations he has just given?
  Captain Orr: I do not propose to make any such estimate. The concession the Chancellor made last night of reducing the rate of tax by 25 per cent. does, in fact, benefit linen because it helps the higher quality linen goods, but we asked the Ulster linen industry what their attitude was to the Chancellor's statement last night, and we got back the following telegram:
  "Failure to include category for linen piece goods in Part II item one page 78 of Finance Bill is very serious matter for linen trade."
  They have completely ignored, so far, what the Chancellor announced last night, although it will benefit them, and they are still harping on this serious omission, and rightly so.
  As the hon. Member for Rossendale pointed out, there is serious unemployment in Ulster which is worrying us all a great deal. The economy of Northern Ireland, upon which the prosperity of our people and employment depends, is somewhat unstable. It is based on the two major industries of shipbuilding and textiles. A recession in either causes a dislocation of the labour force, and an enormous number of people are thrown out of work, as is the case at present. It has been suggested that the Chancellor has a soul, and I hope that it will become apparent on this occasion. Any action he can take will be welcome. He has an opportunity here to help us, and I appeal to him to use it. I hope he will consider making a special category for linen, because it is in a separate position, and so help to reduce the distress in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. J. Griniond: It seems to me that we too readly assume that linen is only made in Northern Ireland. In fact, Scotland taught the Irish to make linen and, of course, by far the
  1350
  best linen is still made in Scotland. Nevertheless, I want to support what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), about the strange treatment which the linen trade seems to have received when this Schedule was drawn up.
  If the Chancellor can find such linen goods as sheets and pillow cases at the prices on which the figures in the D scheme are founded, he is a lucky man. It is well known that linen is much superior to rayon, and if it were readily obtainable at such prices there would be an even more severe recession in the rayon trade than there is at the moment because linen would be taken up in large quantities compared with other textiles. I hope that the Chancellor will be able to say how these figures were arrived at,. and will also tell the Committee that he is prepared to give further help to the' linen industry which was extremely hardly dealt with when this Schedule was drawn up.
  The only other textile about which I must say a word is wool and cloth. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) pointed out that the higher grades of cloth, worsteds, and so on, would all be subject to tax if the figure remains at 14s. 6d. per square yard. The Scottish woollen industry provides a fairly high proportion of high quality cloth. Unfortunately, it is an industry which, in the nature of things, cannot benefit greatly from the rearmament orders which the Chancellor has placed in other textile areas as an alternative to assistance by way of reducing the tax or altering the D scheme. In any case, that has not been done to any great extent in Scotland and I much doubt whether, as far as the high grade cloth is concerned, it can be done in quantity.
  Mr. David J. Prude: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the Committee where he gets his information that the Scottish woollen industry cannot benefit from the contracts which are about to be placed?
  Mr. Grimond: If I gave the impression that it would not benefit at all that was wrong, as I did not mean to give that impression. I only said that the higher grades could not benefit to the extent which other textiles may benefit from the

  1351
  orders which the Government is placing. My impression was based on information from the trade itself. I did not want to suggest that certain grades would not benefit considerably. But, of course, the orders must first be placed.
  This is an industry which can play a considerable part in the export drive, and I am glad to know that it is now generally agreed in this Committee that it is quite unreal to separate the home trade from the export trade. I want to draw the attention of the Chancellor to the fact that, if the rate of tax is kept high on this industry, it will not only decrease the home trade, but will also affect the export trade. I entirely agree with what has been said often, that even the total abolition of the Purchase Tax would not by itself pull the textile industry out of its recession. The fact is that there is a big build-up of stocks, and buyers are holding off until they see how world prices move.
  But there is no doubt also that some reduction in the tax and particularly on certain categories of clothes would help to stimulate demand and would prevent a distortion of the industry. It is one of the worst features of any Purchase Tax scheme that it encourages distortion. There are attempts to keep within the Utility range or under the D line. The Chancellor must be well aware of that and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) has given examples of it in cotton—with the consequent damage to exports. This has been happening in different degrees in other textiles as well. At best, I should like to get rid of Purchase Tax altogether, but if, in the meantime, the Chancellor can give us some further concession on worsted and high-grade woollen goods, then the industry will benefit and the Chancellor's plans for the economy as a whole and for exports will benefit at the same time.
  4.15 a.m.
  Mr. C. H. Gage: I am happy to hear that linen is made in Scotland. I readily accept the word of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that it is the best linen, but commiserate with him on the fact that that appears to be very little known.
  I wish to refer to linen made in Northern Ireland, which, without dero-
  1352
  gating from the textile trade elsewhere, has peculiar difficulties and problems. I was a little surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson)—who has, unfortunately, left his place—make a complaint that he had not received literature from the linen trade. It is the first time I have heard that complaint; normally, the complaint is that one receives a great deal too much literature of that nature. Perhaps his hon. Friends will pass it on when I say that I can arrange to remedy it at once. In view of his newly found interest in trade in Northern Ireland I am pleased to say I have ropeworks, shipyards, and a whiskey distillery in my constituency and I shall see in future that he is well supplied—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—hon. Members should let me finish the sentence —with information on their difficulties. I am sure he will take their case up regardless of any party political advantage it may bring him.
  The position about linen—I take up something said in the admirable and sincere speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes)—is that the Northern Ireland trade goes almost entirely, particularly in the more expensive grades, for export. On the home market, linen is only about 2 per cent. of the whole cotton, linen, and wool trade; it is unfortunate that in this country very little linen is bought. But in the exports of these three textile commodities to dollar countries, particularly U.S.A., linen easily tops them all. The real importance of linen is in the export market.
  Of course, every linen manufacturer and worker—of whom a great majority are my constituents—knows that the real cause of unemployment in Ireland and the trade's difficulties is a recession in buying in the U.S.A. That, unfortunately, no Chancellor can remedy. It is true, as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, that that does not end the problem. It is possible, by means of Purchase Tax, to assist the linen trade. I do not altogether agree with all the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said, but the linen trade take the view that help can be given in this way.
  Normally, it is an expensive process to set up a loom, for it may cost up to £500 to turn out a particular line, and, therefore, if a manufacturer has three

  1353
  lines which he wants to sell in the United States, what he does is to turn out the three lines and put them on the home market, not for the purpose of selling a quantity or making money but to obtain a quick reaction and to get a guide on how the lines will go in America. It can only be a guide, of course.
  Here I would emphasise a point which has already been made, that the difficalty is that, throughout, linen gas been confused with cotton and the same standard under the D scheme has been applied to both. That is quite wrong, and I agree to some extent with the Amendment put down by right hon. Gentlemen opposite about what is called the C class. On reading through the definition of Classes A, B and C, I feel bound to say that the drafting of Finance Bills becomes more cumbersome as each year passes. I know that that is not the fault of the draftsmen, but is due to the difficulty of translating these matters into English which anyone can understand. I agree with right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the C Class, which refers to linen, should be inserted in paragraph I of Part II, which should consist of Class A, Class B and Class C materials.
  The reason is that it gives more chance on the home market to the higher class of linen goods. There is no great loss of revenue involved, because there is never a great quantity sold on the home market. Ususally, it is only enough to provide a guide to what may sell abroad, because unfortunately this quality is out of the reach of most people's purses.
  If the difference were made and the D line moved higher in respect of linen, as the Amendment in the name of myself and my hon. Friends seeks, there is no doubt that that would be a great advantage to the linen trade as a whole. That is the whole point of the Purchase Tax as it affects linen and it is the explanation of why hon. Members for Northern Ireland have desired to make this point, and this point only. It is the only point of the Purchase Tax which affects linen.
  Mrs. White: I have no doubt that the Financial Secretary would be happier under one of the down quilts which are so dear to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), but I am sure that he recognises that this part of the Schedule is of extreme importance to many hon. Members
  1354
  and their constituents. I speak as an hon. Member who, at the moment, has between 4,000 and 5,000 unemployed men and women in my constituency. It would not be necessary to take up so much time on these questions of taxation had the Government any other positive proposals which would assist these workers.
  I speak in particular of the rayon industry, in which case the only positive proposal made to assist to deal with the state of unemployment in the industry has been the advancing of certain Service contracts. I was shocked by the reply which I received on this matter from the President of the Board of Trade. In passing, may I say that, in view of the subject which we have been discussing, the lack of attention given to the debates by the Minister responsible for the Board of Trade has been extraordinary. I put down a Question today to ask him what proportion of the £10 million worth of textile contracts, which had already either been made or put out to tender, was devoted to rayon, and the answer was, "None."
  Therefore, as no aid is being given to the rayon industry in that respect we are constrained to press strongly the Amendments which are on the paper in the names of myself and my hon. Friends. It is essential that on this point the Chancellor should make some positive concessions. He announced yesterday that he proposed to reduce the rate of taxation, and that he was thereby conceding some £17,000,000 in a full year. My impression is that probably the Chancellor is making the worst of all possible worlds by this decision, because it is not great enough to attract a large number of purchasers. It is not sufficiently dramatic for that. Nor, I would contend, is it sufficient to meet the other problem which the Chancellor may have had in mind, which was to help the better quality goods which are particularly concerned in the export trade.
  References were made earlier to furnishing fabrics. I want to spend a little time on that subject, because it is a section of the textile industry in which rayon is particularly concerned. I support the arguments put forward on this occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Assheton), who pointed out that there is a difficult situation in the furnishing textile trade.

  1355
  I have studied the figures which he and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) quoted. I also got into touch with one of the best-known manufacturers, who was good enough to send the samples of curtain materials which I have here.
  There are 10 samples, the wholesale prices of which range from 5s. to 29s. 6d. a yard for material 48 inches wide. Of these 10 samples, five were previously in the Utility ranges, and were, therefore, free of tax. At present, only one of these samples is free of tax. It is a very cheap fabric, and even that, apparently, to be free of tax, can be made only in one shade. The others, previously tax-free, now pay tax. The lowest rate, with the revision announced last night, is 9 per cent., and the others pay 25 per cent., 30 per cent., and 35 per cent.
  I would ask the Financial Secretary whether he supposes that that is going to increase purchases of furnishing fabrics. Will it be of the slightest assistance to the rayon industry, and the other industries concerned? As regards helping the export trades, the manufacturer of the slightly better qualities has to carry a heavy burden. In spite of the Chancellor's concession he has to pay tax ranging from 32 to 44 per cent. A strong case was made out by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who suggested that the whole conception of a 50 per cent. tax for piece goods should be reexamined. If a tariff of 44 per cent. is put up by a foreign country we regard it as very high. Yet we expect our manufacturers to face that kind of burden. It seems to me that the suggestions so far made by the Chancellor are quite inadequate to meet the situation in the textile industry with reference to furnishing fabrics and rayon.
  4.30 a.m.
  There are various anomalies connected with the distinction between cloth which has a certain percentage of wool and cloth which has les than 15 per cent. of wool. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne seemed to think that was not very important. Well, I bow to his superior knowledge, but such information as I have been able to obtain is that it is in fact becoming the practice of manufacturers of furnishing fabric to incorporate a small amount of wool simply
  1356
  with the idea of evading tax. Again, I have here two samples of tapestry, one of cotton tapestry and one of what would normally be cotton tapestry but into which a few threads of wool have been incorporated simply with the idea of bringing it into a different tax range.
  The peculiar thing is that fabric which would without this manoeuvre be more expensive by some Is. 9d. has turned out to be less expensive by 3s. 8d. by having a few threads of wool added. The manufacturer himself informs me that this addition of wool makes it no better as a tapestry than if it were all of cotton, and will probably render the fabric unsaleable abroad for the reason given by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West, because of the higher rates of duty on wool in many countries.
  Therefore, we have anomalies and a tax level which is entirely unsatisfactory, and I hope that in dealing with this extremely important part of the Schedule we shall have some positive assurances from the Chancellor that he is proposing to do something definite about it.
  I now wish to say one or two words about some of the other items in the Schedule which have not been touched on to any great extent this evening. I might here just point out to those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies that on Class C material we on this side of the Committee anticipated their Amendment by a fortnight or so. They followed the line we had suggested with a difference of 3d. in most cases, and in one case only 1d. is between us. The only case in which there is any major discrepancy is in group 4, bed sheets, table cloths and table covers, where our suggestion is 12s. 6d. and their proposal is only 10s.
  That is merely another example of the principle with which we dealt at some length yesterday. Where a number of articles of differing values are put together there is a higher D level to cover them all. The Amendment proposed by the Northern Ireland Members, suggesting a figure of 10s., is rather too high for sheets and not high enough for table cloths.
  Now just a word or two about other goods not textile goods, namely, domestic requirements such as mattresses, bolsters, pillows, and so on. For many of these

  1357
  we have put down Amendments. We have been as reasonable as possible; we have not put down Amendments for every item, as we might have done. For example, in group 5, pillows, the Schedule suggests 10s. per article. We have agreed that, as that covers most pillows of small size, we would not put down an Amendment, although we might very well have done for other larger sizes, for which the previous top Utility price was 20s.
  But on other items, particularly mattresses, we have put a somewhat higher D level for the reason that with articles of this kind, which for many households are a major capital outlay, it is extremely important to ensure that quality standards are observed. We feel, as we did in the case of other articles in this Schedule, that where items of capital equipment and major expenditure are concerned we have a duty to safeguard the housewife who is making the purchase. That is the justification for a number of Amendments on the Order Paper, the figures in none of which are higher than, and in most cases do not reach the previous top Utility figure for the articles concerned. Where, in other instances, we felt the D level suggested was not unreasonable on the whole, such as in the case of linen towelling, we have not attempted to put down any Amendment merely for the sake of argument.
  I hope that on this extremely important part of the Schedule we shall have a much more adequate and satisfactory reply than we have had hitherto on many of the suggestions we have put forward. Many of us feel, and many of our constituents feel, that, after all, these matters could have been looked into with rather more thoroughness before we reached this stage of the Bill. We feel that by now, on many of these points, the Chancellor should be ready with some more definite answers.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: Perhaps the hon. Lady would refer to the definite answers given, such as that given only a few hours ago on furs and the one given on gloves. Her generalisations are not quite fair, because we have made very definite concessions in this debate.
  Mrs. White: The Chancellor has given definite answers, but perhaps in his absence we have had some less definite answers from the Financial Secretary. I
  1358
  do not think it is unfair to say that, because on many points in which I am interested I have not had certainty or satisfaction. I hope to have more certainty and satisfaction before we end this debate.
  Mr. William Shepherd: We have discussed Part II of the Schedule quite extensively though, in my view, not extensively enough. It is unfortunate that we have to discuss it at so late an hour, because it contains an immense number of complications. The section with which we are now dealing is perhaps the most difficult part of this Schedule and it demands more attention than we can give it at this hour. This section is a condemnation of Purchase Tax and shows how impossible it is as an instrument. My right hon. Friend, even with his social security crystal, has been unable to see through the maze of Part II.
  The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and myself are directors of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and, naturally, we have received a good many representations about all kinds of textiles affected by the D scheme. But there has been no more convincing case than that made on behalf of furnishing fabrics. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne did not emphasise sufficiently the case he put over about the difference between conversion value today and that four or five years ago. It is true that conversion value is very different today from what it was four or five years ago in that the value of the cloth constitutes a much higher proportion of the finished value than before.
  What the hon. Member did not say—and this is important in respect of furnishing fabrics—is that dress fabrics are sold in the main as finished goods and, therefore, attract 33⅓ per cent. tax, whereas furnishing fabrics are in the main sold as piece goods and attract 66 per cent. Therefore, I think that there is a very sound case for my right hon. Friend to get over the administrative difficulties that we all know are involved and to do something to assist the furniture fabric manufacturers.
  I should like my right hon. Friend to be specific, if he is able to be, about quilts. The lumping of the types of quilts together under one D level, really, is not satisfactory, and, unless it is attended to,

  1359
  it will lead to very material deterioration in the standards, particularly of down quilts. I hope that he will be able to do something for the industry there.
  There are five omissions from the Schedule to which I would call his attention. I cannot see why mattress covers are not included, or quilt cases. or bolster ticks, or chair back covers, or cushion covers. If there is justification for many of the items which have been put into the Schedule, there is justification for those. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us specific answers on those points. Between now and the Report stage we may have an opportunity of considering in more detail some of the important points raised in this Part of the Schedule.
  Mr. Dryden Brook: Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) I shall confine myself to a very limited area of these Amendments. I want to speak about the trade I know well; that is, the woollen and worsted cloths trade. At the outset I declare two interests. One is, that I have worked in the wool industry for many years, although I have no financial interest at the moment in any particular firm; the second is that since the war I have worn nothing but Utility clothing. Therefore, I know what the cost will be of these proposals so far as my family and I are concerned. My reaction is, I think, the reaction of the average man towards these taxes.
  During our debates on this matter we have had, I think, two questions in our minds: first, how will the D scheme affect employment in particular industries; and, second, will it affect the cost of living? The D scheme, in my judgment, must affect adversely employment in the wool industry, and particularly in the finer sections of the industry. We have to look at the position of the trade today. The sellers' holiday which has existed for the last 10 years or so has now completely gone. Buyers are now more "choosy," and price is now a very considerable factor in every sale and purchase that takes place. In the consumers' pockets every shilling now counts.
  Therefore, there is all along the line buyers' resistance, and that buyers' resistance is accentuated as the price of
  1360
  particular articles rises. It is accentuated particularly if it is know that in the price there is an element of tax. If I am right in these assumptions all those factors taken together must affect demand, and, consequently, affect employment in the industry.
  I have been speaking of the home market, but there is a relationship between the home trade and the export trade which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) emphasised, and which I want to emphasise, too. The Chancellor has spoken, as other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have spoken, of the blind spot that existed in the Utility scheme between the best Utility and the better class worsted suitings. It was always considered a blind spot in respect of tax, but the real trouble was the relationship between the Utility scheme and the export trade. The blind spot there was the weight of the cloth.
  4.45 a.m.
  The Utility cloth was not of sufficient weight to make a really good suiting. The Utility cloths finished off at about 15 or 16 ounces whereas the export market for fine worsteds began at about 19 ounces. It was that gap between the weights that made all the difference between the Utility scheme and the home trade helping the export trade. It is said that an export trade is helped by a healthy home trade, but that means quantity not so much quality. There must be a fairly big output to compete in the export market.
  Let me illustrate what I mean by taking two particular cloths which have been given to me by a manufacturer in my own constituency. A utility cloth fine worsted coating of 15 or 16 ounces can be made today on the present price of wool at 25s. 6d. to 27s. 6d. per yard, and the D scheme level is 23s. 4d. for a cloth of that particular width. So that cloth will pay tax. That particular manufacturer will be making that cloth for his home trade, but if he wants to export cloth of that particular quality he will have to begin at 19 ounces and it cannot be made under 30s. a yard. But he has nothing in his own home trade in that particular weight of pattern to help him. That is where the difficulty will come in, and it is something which has existed under the Utility scheme. It

  1361
  is a question of the relationship between the home trade and the export trade.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that for ladies' material the D level was generous, but I must disagree with him. At present, ladies wear fine worsted cloth, and we must see how that comes within the scope of the D scheme. Take one example, which concerns a 14 or 15 ounce cloth. The factory price of that cloth is £1 3s. 4d., but when an uplift of one-sixth is added at 3s. 11d. it gives £1 7s. 3d. The D level for that is £1 2s. 7d. Here again we have a D level undermining not merely the demand in the home trade but also the demand in the export trade. I claim that the 14s. 6d. per square yard, which is the D level, is far too low for the fine wool and worsted trades.
  If the Chancellor wants to help the export or home trade of fine worsted materials he must raise the level to such a point that he will bring out not merely all the demands for the home trade, but also some of the demands for the export trade, particularly to help the manufacturers. I hope that the Chancellor will respond to the appeals made to him tonight, because I believe that this is the most important section of the Schedules which we have been discussing. If he takes some action in this matter it will greatly help the industry and will be very much welcomed.
  Mr. John Baldock: I want to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer an anomaly in one section of furnishing fabrics. Ready-made loose covers for cushions, chairs and seats pay tax not only on the D value of the fabric from which they are made, but also on the cost of making them up. If the same fabric is sold to a retailer and made up by him it pays tax only on the value of the fabric. One would expect the ready-made article to carry less tax than the purpose-made one.
  The position is still more anomalous in that retailers are permitted to advertise loose covers made to a certain size and style which pay Purchase Tax only on the fabric and not on the cost of making up the article. A further anomaly is that loose covers for motor car seats come under the same arrangement, tax only being paid on the fabric, although
  1362
  loose covers for motor car seats are less essential than cheaply made loose covers for other purposes for which there is a demand. This class should be transferred to section 3 of Part II and be treated in the same way as blankets and pram covers, paying tax on the value of the material and not on the cost of manufacture.
  Mr. Lee: No matter what the views of hon. Members may have been on the application of the D scheme prior to the discussions on the Finance Bill, all must now view its continued application with some apprehension. One can imagine the complexities of dealing with it each year on the Finance Bill. Even in this initial year it is obvious that neither right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench nor their hon. Friends behind them can adequately explain how D is fixed in relation to the value of an article before the introduction of the scheme.
  We are rapidly coming up against a most important constitutional issue. I understood that the general theory was that the Opposition put down Amendments to Government Bills in the hope of getting scientific explanations from Ministers about the meaning of their Bills. I should be the last to charge any of the Treasury Ministers with incompetence, for that would be untrue and unfair, and I do not believe that anyone could go to the Dispatch Box and give a scientific explanation why any of the Ds that we are discussing have been placed in the categories in which we find them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), was right in her criticism. I do not believe that the Chancellor understood precisely what she meant when she said that we had not had satisfactory answers. It is impossible to get a satisfactory answer from any Minister why D is placed where it is instead of in the positions suggested by our Amendments. On previous Amendments, for instance, I felt very sorry indeed for the Financial Secretary when some of my lion. Friends were asking him to define why panties, slips, corsets, brassieres, and the like were placed in certain classes. How was it possible for him to give a scientific explanation on matters of that sort? I would have hated to have to do his job, and I was glad he had to answer rind not me.

  1363
  We are coming up against a quite serious constitutional point in that we cannot hope to get satisfactory answers from Ministers on questions of this type. The Chancellor himself pointed out that he was unable to have consultations with the trade on many of these things because they might lead to a Budget leak. He has had to have a hit-or-miss policy because he did not dare consult the only people who could advise him on these matters. I have protested on two occasions about the fact that Treasury Ministers alone are now having to deal with complicated issues concerning the textile industries of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the other industries covered by the Finance Bill.
  The hon. Member for Flint, East, again mentioned the fact that the President of the Board of Trade and his Parliamentary Secretary have been conspicuous by their absence during the whole of the Committee stage. I want to repeat my protest that at a time when many of our industries are not in a healthy state we are discussing their products solely from the point of view of their ability to produce revenue, and not from the point of view of the social necessity of developing some types of products against others.
  Mr. William Ross: On a point of order. I wonder if your attention has been drawn to the noise and chatter from the end of the Chamber, Sir Charles. We can hardly hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) snoring.
  Mr. Lee: The Minister of State for Economic Affairs had flatly to contradict the Chancellor's statement that there had been a scientific process worked out in the Treasury to find the correct level of D. When the Minister admitted that there was no such process, and that there could not be one, he did quite a lot to discredit the basis upon which the scheme was founded. One of the reasons why the Chancellor has sought other methods of decreasing the level of taxation than raising D is because he could not possibly defend an alteration in the level of D in public because he has not the slightest knowledge of any scientific process on which the level was founded.
  5.0 a.m.
  I am extremely apprehensive—more than I was even when this Committee stage began—about the future of the
  1364
  textile industries. The only consolation we could get from the Minister of State for Economic Affairs was that he would try to find out why so many anomalies could be revealed and, if possible, to rectify them between now and the Report stage. He was not by any means optimistic that this could be done, and went on to say that, if that were not possible, the Government would try to do something in the next six or 12 months.
  The chaos now obtaining in the textile industries is such that it is the height of folly to believe that those industries can survive another six or 12 months with the iniquitous system of taxation now being levelled on their products. It is hard to conceive how we can restore health back to those industries if we have to wait such a long period before these obvious anomalies can be redressed.
  I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will now say to the Government that the D scheme has been shown to be unworkable. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) showed that to be so in a most illuminating way, from his expert knowledge of textiles. The scheme has been exposed as being futile and completely unworkable, and the Government should not insist on continuing with it merely because they would lose face if they agreed that it was no good. I suggest that it is no use, on the one hand, adhering to that and, on the other hand, saying that they do not wish to encourage the spread of unemployment throughout the whole textile industry.
  I can think of no better way in which any Government could set out to kill an industry and to force mass unemployment in many of the great counties where we produce our textiles than now to adhere to a scheme which hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have proved beyond peradventure to be unworkable. I appeal to the Government now to take away the whole basis of the D scheme. We are agreed that there were many anomalies in the Utility scheme. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have set up the Douglas Committee had there not been anomalies. But it is one thing to set up a committee to examine and eradicate anomalies and quite another

  1365
  thing to use a Report such as theirs as a pretext to wreck the entire Utility scheme.
  I appeal to the Government, while there is yet time, to reconsider the basis of what they are doing. If they do not do so a great calamity will fall upon many of our great manufacturing industries, and it will then be no good for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that they did not appreciate what would happen because they will stand damned as a Government which deliberately caused mass unemployment throughout regions which have been responsible for the prosperity of this country for centuries.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I have not intervened in the Purchase Tax debate on textiles so far although it is a matter which concerns my constituents very closely. I have, however, listened throughout all the many debates on this subject and it has emerged quite clearly that there is an irreconcilable dilemma in the imposition of this tax.
  I was much struck by a statement made by the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). She said that the D tax would now be spread more equally among all members of the community. Such words are usually ones of approval, but I think she meant to disapprove. On the other hand, there was one hon. Member opposite, who spoke with great knowledge of the boot trade, who said that there was a case for putting a tax not on quality goods but on shoddy goods.
  Those two statements illustrate two arguments—one for taxing inferior goods, one for taxing superior goods. I have noticed that sometimes the better goods are called quality goods, when words of praise are used, and sometimes luxury goods, when words of disapproval are used. But they are the same goods when exports are to be encouraged. It may be a wicked world, but it is the luxury goods we export that are most in demand abroad, and although we can control our home market we cannot control our foreign market.
  That is the dilemma of this tax. There is a case—with furnishing fabrics a strong case—for raising the D level to encourage quality. I lend my voice in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), because it has been proved, in the words of the
  1366
  last speaker, beyond a peradventure in this case, that unless the D level is raised, or some similar relief is given to the industry, not only the export but the home market will be radically and seriously crippled, perhaps permanently, because it is twisting the structure of its trade in order to take advantage of tax relief from another source. I therefore earnestly pray that the Chancellor will, so far as he can, give some concession to this important trade.
  Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I address myself to the arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage). If I do not address the Committee at such length as the hon. Member for Belfast, South, it is not that I do not feel the matter is serious, but only that the argument has been so thoroughly canvassed that it is not for me to go into it again.
  The argument of the hon. Member for Belfast, South was absolutely impeccable. We are all sorry that we are to lose him from this House, and we hope that his successor will be able to put these questions as clearly as he does. But these matters are not solved by speeches but by actions, by works. It is because the hon. Gentlemen opposite represent not the Unionist Party but an independent party that I ask them whether they are prepared to solve this matter by a vote. The Government had in the last Division a majority of 18; the party of the hon. Member for Belfast, South is nine. They have only to say that if the Chancellor does not give way to their Amendment they will vote with us.
  Is it just all talk? This is a very serious matter so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot afford just to have all talk about the most important industry of Northern Ireland. There was a slight quarrel about how linen was produced in Scotland, but 80 per cent. of the linen production of Great Britain comes from Northern Ireland and the balance comes from Scotland.
  Mr. Gage: On the point of the vote. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman recall the time when he was in charge of the Labour Party's Northern Ireland policy and he inveigled 200 of his hon. Friends into putting down one of the most

  1367
  insulting Amendments that could be put down on Northern Ireland? Would he suggest we are really serving our constituents best by supporting the party that did that, or by supporting the party that has consistently supported us throughout the years?
  Mr. Bing: You would rule me out of order, Sir Charles, if I were to start a general Irish debate. All I was suggesting was that the hon. Gentleman should have the courage to vote for his own Amendment. Is there anything very wrong in suggesting that when hon. Members have put an Amendment on the Order Paper they should either vote for it or withdraw it? It closely follows the Amendment put down by my hon. Friends. I cannot speak for my party in this matter, but I hope we should follow the hon. Member for Belfast, South into the Lobby if he voted for his Amendment. The difference between the Amendments is only a penny or so. I think our Amendments are possibly better, but it is only a question of degree. I am certain that if the hon. Member were to move any one of his Amendments he would have this party behind him. Will he move any of them? This is a very serious matter for Northern Ireland.
  Scotland had a linen industry, and it has a great monument in the British Linen Bank, but the Scottish side of the linen industry has gone rather to finance. On the other hand, in Northern Ireland one-fifth of all the people who are employed in any form of employment are engaged in the linen trade. If there is one word of truth in what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South—and he can get up and admit that he was mistaken if there is not—then the tax will ruin the economy of Northern Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman belongs to an independent party—a party which has come forward all the time to say, "Elect us; we are pledged to nobody; we are pledged only to look after the interests of Northern Ireland."
  Here the interests of Northern Ireland are at stake, and is the only hon. Member who is to go through the Lobby on behalf of Northern Ireland the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. O'Neill)? Is he the only Member for Northern Ireland who will vote in favour of a series of Amendments put on the Paper and
  1368
  discussed in a long speech by the hon. and gallant Member saying that hon. Members determined on this course in order to force the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take action?
  But hon. Members do not need to go through the Lobbies. The Chancellor knows the figures of his voting strength as well as we do, because the Patronage Secretary has been whispering to him, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman has, therefore, only to threaten to do it—and the Chancellor will give way. Will not one hon. Member opposite from Northern Ireland get up and say that, for the sake of Northern Ireland, he is prepared to support his own Amendment—or it is all nonsensical talk? Is it talk with the idea of deceiving the unfortunate workers, the people who are now out of work in Northern Ireland, into thinking that hon. Members opposite will do something for them? Are they not to vote for their Amendments because in some other Parliament someone put down an Amendment which they thought insulting?
  Are we to hear from any other hon. Members for Northern Ireland whether they intend to vote for their Amendment, or are they to remain silent? If the latter, it should go out clearly from the Committee that this is a most cynical betrayal of the interests both of the working class, whose votes sent them here, and of the manufacturers, whose money put them here.
  Mr. Gage: The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember that it was his lion. Friends who first put forward the argument that they would not vote for their own Amendments on the ground that they did not desire to put the Tory Party in power. We work in the reverse direction.
  Mr. Bing: So far as I can recall, on the last two occasions there have been no Labour Amendments to the Finance Bill, so satisfied were my hon. Friends with what was presented. That is a remarkable difference from the present position.
  Mr. Braine: Will the hon. and learned Member say that the party opposite, including himself, were consistently satisfied with the incidence of Purchase Tax during the last six years?
  Mr. Bing: The question was why we did not vote for our Amendments to the Finance Bill, and the answer was quite simple: there were none on the Order Paper, so it was impossible to vote for them. If we put an Amendment on the Paper we do so for one of three reasons. The first is to secure a discussion, and then to withdraw the Amendment. Is the Amendment to be withdrawn? The second is because we are determined to support the Amendment. Are hon. Members opposite going to support this Amendment? Thirdly, an Amendment may be put down to deceive people and to pretend that we intend to take a strong line; to induce people to vote for us, and yet to support the party vote while still endeavouring to satisfy those who voted for us.
  5.15 a.m.
  Are hon. Gentlemen opposite going to say how many Amendments they had on the paper; how they copied the Labour Amendments, every single one of which referred to Northern Ireland, but how they did not, of course, vote for them? I need not delay the Committee longer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well for hon. Members to say "Hear, hear"; but by their actions nine hon. Members from Northern Ireland are probably condemning about 20 per cent. of the insured population to unemployment, and they could stop it, according to their own argument. They have only to vote for their own Amendment. Are they prepared to do that?
  Mr. Pryde: I support this Amendment. We have listened to frank arguments by hon. Members representing Northern England constituencies on this side of the Committee who have demonstrated that they are masters of their craft. It only remains for me to dot the i's and cross the t's of what has been said. I gave the Chancellor notice a fortnight ago that we would do our best to assist him in amending the Bill. I think he will agree that we have given him every opportunity to make some improvement.
  I associate myself with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), who objected to so many things being grouped together. Travelling rugs and blankets are in the same category, while in the same class
  1370
  are woven curtains; yet we find that curtains and tapestries are woven in different factories in different parts of my constituency. I do not want to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) into party squabbles, but as a member of another subject race, I must cross the Border to Scotland for my data.
  I want to clear up a point which may have caused a certain amount of misapprehension. An hon. Member has said that we in the woollen industry in South-East Scotland are not equipped to tender for contracts which would be placed by Government Departments. Let me make clear that in past years we have participated in these contracts for serge, great coatings and shirtings. This year, because of the economic situation in the North of England, I presume, we find that we are not participating in the Service contracts.
  I want to tell the Chancellor that our contracts are fast running out, and to warn him that we face a serious situation. The people in the Tweed Valley are a proud people; they will not easily take to unemployment. One only needs to stand in the High Street in Peebles on a certain Saturday morning in June to witness the ceremony at which telegrams are read from Peeblians all over the world for the Peeblian is not afraid to go abroad. There is great apprehension in Scotland today, because only a week ago we saw the Government play "Old Harry" with our great Health Service, and I do not want to see the same happen to our tweed industry.
  Tweed occupies a very important place in our economy, because in Yorkshire they cannot weave the quality of cloth that we weave on the Tweed. Hundreds of years of experience, generation after generation, have imparted skill and knowledge into the weaving of tweed in the Tweed Valley, and with the allied industry of tartan we have something which can be very useful to our national economy. Tartan is not a cloth that is dyed, printed, coated or yet subjected to any other process. It is woven.
  Here I draw the Chancellor's attention to the fact that, while it is exported in large quantities, still we do not get the benefit of freedom from Purchase Tax. Our manufacturers supply the kilt makers in all the big towns of Scotland.

  1371
  Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Perth, Inverness and Aberdeen all have their kilt makers. Anyone who sees a Scottish regiment marching along Whitehall or Princes Street can bet that the tartan has been woven in Peebleshire. Now, we do not get the benefit of freedom from Purchase Tax because of the system of getting rid of our cloth.
  In regard to the Utility wear in Peebles mills, I draw the Chancellor's attention to the fact that while he has been absent we have listened with very great respect to the Financial Secretary, who stressed the blind spot between the Utility garment and what is called the lower luxury garment. For many years the tweed industry in Scotland was regarded as a luxury industry and I resented that; I denied it, because I believed that the miners in my constituency did sufficient at their work to earn a good suit of clothes. Today, I want to make sure that the Chancellor will follow the advice of both employers and employees in the Tweed Valley and accede to our request to lift the D level in order that our industry can get going, and so that we shall again be making our full contribution towards the British national economy.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: This, I think, has been the longest debate of the whole night, and indeed of the whole two days. That is due to the fact that it concerns the most important subject of cloth and all these other articles to which reference has been made. I hope, however, that we may now bring our discussion on these many matters to a close, and I will do my best to answer some of the points that have been raised.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who opened the debate, referred, I think rightly, to the practical impossibility of differentiating between woollens and worsteds. That has been our experience, and it accounts for our inability to differentiate between them in the Schedule. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was not in agreement with his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) on the subject of the D for wool, because the latter thought that the D was at a reasonable level whereas I do not think the right hon. Gentleman did.
  Mr. H. Wilson: I am sorry to interrupt at this time, but there was no contradiction. I made it plain, I think, that the D level was reasonable for the wool part of the woollen and worsted industry. But above the D level—between the D level and the one we propose—one has the main range of worsted products and the D level is not suitable for worsted. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) and I have discussed this matter on many occasions and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are in complete agreement.
  Mr. Butler: I am glad that I have effected one reconciliation today. The matter was referred to by at least one other hon. Member. But the right hon. Gentleman's argument leads him into that difficult territory, which I mentioned earlier, of differentiating between woollen and worsted. That is one of the reasons why we have found it difficult to change the wool D to which the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment refers.
  The case of linen has been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage) and others. I realise their anxieties. If I may say so in the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), if the Government needed means to bring hon. Members from Northern Ireland closer to them their best course would be to ask the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch to take part in the debate. We are very much obliged to him for acting as a soothing balm upon the feelings of Northern Ireland Members and for tying them more closely to our majority.
  Mr. Bing: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that Northern Ireland Members would be prepared to agree to something which was not in the interest of Northern Ireland out of personal pique because they happened to dislike the speaker on this side of the Committee? If so, it is a very unworthy suggestion.
  Mr. Butler: I am suggesting that Northern Ireland Members, unlike some hon. Members opposite, would be ready to listen to what I have to say.
  As to linen, following upon the advice of the Douglas Committee, we have deliberately made a different D for what

  1373
  are called white goods, in particular pillow cases, bolster slips, towels and handkerchiefs. We did so because, as the Douglas Committee said, these articles are used in the export trade. It is true that the cloth to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South referred is not included in Part 11 at the beginning under A or B actually by name. Reference was made by another hon. Member to that fact. But Class B material does include linen, as will be found at the beginning of the Schedule on page 73 of the Bill.
  That is not meant to be an insult to Northern Ireland, but to represent an absolute conclusion to which we have come that linen must be considered on the same sort of level as other threads or articles we have considered earlier, particularly nylon and silk. But, much more than that, in our close investigation of this subject we have found that very little linen is sold as piece goods and that it is mostly made up into those articles which now come under the higher D level.
  I believe that one of the reasons why my hon. Friends have wished to include a special sub-head at the beginning of Part 11 for linen and a special D level for linen is because they are taking an interest in furnishing fabrics. If that is the case I ask them to wait until later in my speech when I shall say something on that subject. I am sure that hon. Members will see that we are taking considerable interest in the severe unemployment in Northern Ireland, which is one of the problems of United Kingdom economy at the present time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne raised the question of quilts, bolster tick—which are not so bad as they sound—and other articles which, in the various levels of their Ds, have raised a certain amount of difficulty. I give no undertaking about quilts, except to say it is one of the subjects on which I have listened to the experts with the greatest interest and if I can find anything in the points raised in the next few days or weeks I shall certainly do so.
  5.30 a.m.
  I notice that the Opposition have been very critical of the way we have drafted our provisions. I think in the case of
  1374
  linen they have made provision for the increase of D for double bed pillow cases but not for single bed ones. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who has been very able in the drafting of these Amendments, whether this was intentional or not.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Yes.
  Mr. Butler: Then there are other items, pillow cases, towels, towelling, and other similar matters. I am afraid that we have to adhere to the general levels we have decided on in these various matters.
  I want to come to the major issue raised in this debate. It was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) and the right hon. Member for Huyton. Let me say in passing, while referring to Blackburn, that I am sure we all wish that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) will soon recover. The position about general cloth at 4s. D which I now come to is covered by the general observations I made yesterday to the effect that I have thought that the revenue I can spare is best devoted to lowering the general rates rather than to increasing the Ds in general. We have already given substantial relief by reducing those rates, and I believe that it would be wrong to pursue the course quite recently suggested by the Opposition.
  It would also, if we were to follow the advice given by hon. Members opposite, not only be necessary to go back over all the Schedules we have painfully discussed and readapt several matters we have considered, but I calculate that it would cost an extra 10 million or more likely £15 million above that already conceded, and it would upset the balance which must be maintained.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne asked me, in this connection about the two-to-one ratio and the conversion rate, and the general relation of the ratios to D. The Government intend to adhere to the general advice we have been given and the general formula on this matter. I have made inquiries since the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke, because he speaks with considerable authority in these debates. It is probably working all right in the woollen and

  1375
  worsted trades, but I have some doubt whether the rates are working in the cotton and rayon sector, and, therefore, I shall pay particular attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which are of an expert character, and follow this up in due course. At the same time, hon. Members will understand that if we were now to make alterations in the normal cloth D it would affect considerably the general ratio of all Ds that we have been through, and heaven forbid that we should go through it all again, at any rate for a long time.
  The general impression I get is that the 4s. figure is not too bad for ordinary cloth. At any rate, it has been worked out, and I am prepared to stick by it. I am aware of the severe incidence of this on the furnishing fabrics—curtains, and so forth. I have examined the figures of the incidence of the tax upon one of our finest firms in this sphere, and the owner of the business works out that the average tax on these beautiful cloths produced is about 16½ per cent. as a result of the Budget. This will now fall as a result of the concession I gave yesterday to some 12½ per cent., and 10 per cent. on the retail price.
  I want the Committee to realise, when we talk about the 66⅔ per cent. that this, especially when dropped by a quarter to 50 per cent., is not a very high tax, for the tax is subject to what is known as the D relief, and the amount of D has to be subtracted from the total sum of the tax levied on the remainder. That results in the incidence of the tax not being so severe as hon. Members imagine.
  Before the right hon. Gentleman for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) left us he said that the cost on the lower income groups of this new scheme would be a sum of £30 million to £40 million because I said that was the amount the D scheme would raise. The mathematics of the right hon. Gentleman are totally wrong, because the £30 million to £40 million is not the extra cost to the consumers below the D level or ex-Utility purchasers. It is the extra cost of subtracting D and taking into account the extra margin between D and the top price. That means that it is affected not only by Utility garments with a vast range, but the people who purchase above the D.
  These are very complicated mathematics to follow at this early hour of
  1376
  the morning. I see that the Financial Secretary is nodding his head. It should be possible for him to contain such sums in his head whatever the hour of the day. The main object of this is to show that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, before leaving us, deluded the Committee and the country—I am sure not intentionally—and as we have had so much propaganda I should like the people to know the truth about this important matter.
  Mr. Jay: I am no longer Financial Secretary, but it is still clear to me, even at this hour, that the greater part of the £30 million to £40 million must largely fall on the lower-priced goods which will be bought by the lower income groups.
  Mr. Butler: I am not so informed, because the higher prices will account for a greater percentage of that amount owing to the higher rates at the top levels. I am assured that that is the case.
  No one who has listened to this debate and has heard the representations that I have heard—and I have been here most of the time—can be satisfied with the position of furnishing fabrics or curtaining material. These were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle—and I wish that he had taken more part in our debates, particularly in that concerned with boots and shoes, on which he is an expert. With great reticence he withdrew at the last minute. He talked a great deal of sense on this matter before us now.
  Hon. Members generally, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West will want to know what we can do about it. I have been able in my position to get the most expert advice in the country on this matter, and I notice that almost all of those hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, including the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West and the right hon. Member for Huyton, agreed that it was almost impossible to find a definition of furnishing fabrics or curtaining which cannot, like the curtain material of the wife of the right hon. Member for Huyton, be placed on the person and worn as a frock or dress. It is even possible to wear very heavy curtaining with some advantage in our wintry weather.

  1377
  I have done my best to find a definition, but so far I have not succeeded. What I shall do is this. I am going to appeal particularly to the three hon. Members concerned to consider this matter and send me a definition which they think will work. I have studied, for instance, the question of weight. I will weigh what hon. Gentlemen send me in the light of the expert opinion I have in my possession. I have listened to the suggestions in the debate, and the undertaking I can give is this: I wish to find a solution of this matter. I do not wish to alter the ordinary D scheme, but I wish to find a definition which will satisfy the position, and which, with the aid of the expert opinion we have already got, can be weighed by me as quickly as possible.
  In the interests of certainty I do not wish to leave the position as it is for very long. In fact, I should like to have the definition before the Report stage if I can get it. I want to acknowledge to all hon. Members that a point has been made on this matter, and that it would be wrong for any responsible Minister not to pay attention to the point of view put forward.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: At this stage of the debate, when most of us have been here for over 15 hours, I am not sure whether the public will admire our fortitude or question our sanity. However, I associate myself with the protest that was made against the fact that an important subject like this had to be discussed after 5 a.m. It is a matter for great regret that the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), made just before midnight, was not accepted. We have been dealing with the most complicated and technical parts of the Schedule, and it is not possible to do them justice at this hour.
  It is a pity that the Chancellor did not give way, because, on the whole, throughout the debate he has been most helpful and co-operative and willing to make suggestions which would meet the points advanced from all parts of the Committee. He has provided a useful example to the Government of how much more effectively the business of the House can be carried on by Ministers who know their job and treat the House with respect.
  1378
  I am glad that the Chancellor has acquitted us of any suspicion of filibustering, because during these discussions we have considered about 150 Amendments. Hon. Members on both sides have done a great deal of work in considering the technical aspects of those Amendments.
  It has been a little disappointing to hon. Members on both sides that the Board of Trade has been so generally unrepresented during our discussions. We caught a fleeting glimpse of the Parliamentary Secretary; he did not stay very long. I have not seen the President of the Board of Trade on the Government Front Bench during our discussion of the Schedule. It cannot be discourtesy on their part, because the President and the Parliamentary Secretary are always most courteous, but it seems a little odd that when we are discussing a matter which the textile industry regards as of such supreme importance the President and the Parliamentary Secretary are insufficiently interested to spend even an hour listening to the discussion in the hope that they might pick up something of advantage to them.
  After all, they are in charge of the Department which is responsible for placing the defence contracts, on which the Government sets so much store for the diversification of industry—one of the things that the textile areas are demanding—for finding markets overseas, and for disposing of the frustrated exports, one of the problems of the textile industry.
  I do not want to seem ungrateful to the Chancellor. In the speech which he has just made he has genuinely tried to meet the points which have been put to him from both sides of the Committee. As to the D level of woollen cloth and worsted, I did not think his explanation very convincing. We admitted that we had found it almost impossible to devise a definition which would make it possible to distinguish between worsted and woollen cloth.
  The Chancellor has obviously had the same difficulty, but he has come to a different conclusion to ours. Whereas we proposed to raise the D level so that all woollen cloth and worsted would come to a higher D level, he is prepared to penalise the worsted side of the industry by making it subject to the same low D level to which all other woollen cloth

  1379
  is subject. I do not think that the speech he has made really deals with the points put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde).
  5.45 a.m.
  Turning to linen, I am glad we had an explanation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) of the curious behaviour of his colleagues on this part of the Bill. But, as one who admires the Chancellor, I felt it was going a little far to say that he was exposing the trick that the Chancellor had played. That is strong language to use even in a united party and I think we should all join in repudiating the charge that the hon. and gallant Gentleman made. However, I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has made much effort to meet us on this point. There, again, he tells us that Class B includes linen, which we knew before, and we feel that even if the linen trade of this country is very small indeed it is placing it under an unfair disadvantage if it is classed in the category which comes under the low D level of 4s.
  The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that in Statutory Instrument No. 128 of 1952 a list of linen sheets is given which were previously tax free under the Utility scheme. All those sheets, which sell in considerable quantities in this country, will be subject to tax under the scheme as it now stands. We cannot accept the absence of proposals by the right hon. Gentleman in respect of linen as being satisfactory. If hon. Gentlemen opposite care to press their Amendment to a Division, we shall be happy to join them in the Division Lobby.
  We appreciate the offer of the Chancellor in respect of furnishing fabrics. We have been faced with the same difficulty he has had, and we have not bad all the technical advice he has had in
  1380
  finding a definition which would enable us easily to distinguish between furnishing fabrics and other forms of cloth. However, we accept his suggestion. We will get down to work on this problem again during the next few days and will discuss with him whether we have been able to arrive at a definition which we can put forward to him as a basis of discussion. But we would not like to be regarded as necessarily approving of this low D level of 4s. for all cloths if events show that it is not possible to work out a satisfactory definition to enable furnishing fabrics to be put in a special category.
  I do not want to detain the Committee by going through other aspects of the Schedule, about which we still have misgivings in spite of the reply of the Chancellor. However, I should like to say that we appreciate his suggestion in respect of furnishing fabrics, but that we feel it will be necessary to divide the Committee in respect of wool and also of linen.
  Mr. Assheton: I want to say how profoundly relieved all Lancashire Members, and also all Members representing textile constituencies, must be to hear what the Chancellor has just said about furnishing fabrics. He has recognised that the case has been made out and he has asked us to help him in trying to solve the problem by providing the proper definition. It is a difficult problem but I can assure him that now we have been given that challenge we shall meet it, that a definition will be found, and that the trade of Lancashire will therefore benefit greatly.
  Mr. Rhodes: The Chancellor has not said what he will do if we find a definition. Craftsmen are worthy of their hire, and if he will only state the wages perhaps we shall be better satisfied.
  Question put, "That '14 6' stand part of the Schedule."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 186.

  Division No. 13.]

  AYES

  [5.51 a.m.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)

  Noble, Comdr. A H P

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

  Gage, C.H.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Alport, G. J. M.

  Galbraith, T G. D. (Hillhead)

  Oakshott, H. D

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Odey, G. W

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J

  Godber, J. B.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon W D

  Arbuthnot, John

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Gough, C F. H.

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

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

  Gower, H. R.

  Perkins, W. R. D.

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

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Peto, Brig, C. H. M

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

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Pilkington, Capt. R A

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Banks, Col. C.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Hay, John

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O. L

  Baxter, A. B.

  Heath, Edward

  Profumo, J. D.

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Rayner, Brig. R

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Hill Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Redmayne, E.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Remnant, Hon P

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Renton, D. L. M

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Holland-Martin, C. J

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Hope, Lord John

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Birch, Nigel

  Horobin, I. M.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Black, C. W.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Russell, R S.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J A

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

  Ryder, Capt. R E. D

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hurd, A. H.

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Brine, B. R.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W (Rochdale)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

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

  Scott, R. Donald

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

  Hyde, Lt -Col. H M

  Shepherd, William

  Brooman-White, R. C

  Jenkins, R. C D (Dulwich)

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

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P G T

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Bullard, D. G.

  Johnson-Hicks, Hon L. W.

  Speir, R. M

  Bullock, Capt M.

  Kaberry, D.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E.

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Stevens, G. P.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Kerr, H W. (Cambridge)

  Steward, W. A (Woolwich, W.)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

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

  Lambton, Viscount

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K

  Summers, G. S.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Cole, Norman

  Lindsay, Martin

  Teeling, W.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Linstead, H. N.

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew E.)

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N.

  Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon. H F. C

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)

  Tilney, John

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S)

  Turner, H. F. L

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Lucas, P. B (Brentford)

  Turton, R. H.

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Deedes, W. F.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I of Wight)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Mackeson, Brig H. R

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

  Donaldson, Cmdr C E. McA.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Donner, P. W.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

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

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Drayson, G. B.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Drewe, C.

  Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C

  Duncan, Capt. J A. L

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Erroll, F J

  Maude, Angus

  Wellwood, W.

  Fell, A.

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L C

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. P

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fort, R.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth. E)

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

  NOES

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Bing, G. H. C

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Adams, Richard

  Blackburn, F

  Burke, W. A.

  Albu, A. H.

  Blenkinsop, A

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Blyton, W. R

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Boardman, H.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon A G.

  Carmichael, J

  Benn, Wedgwood

  Bowden, H. W.

  Champion, A. J.

  Benson, G.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Chapman, W. D.

  Beswick, F.

  Brockway, A F.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Clunie, J.

  1382

  1383

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)

  Pryde, D. J

  Coldrick, W.

  Irving, W J. (Wood Green)

  Rankin, John

  Collick, P. H

  Janner, B

  Reeves, J.

  Cook, T. F.

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

  Rhodes, H

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Rabens, Rt. Hon A

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Ross, William

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Royle, C.

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Deer, G.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon Sir Hartley

  Delargy, H. J.

  Keenan, W

  Short, E. W.

  Dodds, N, N.

  Kenyon, C

  Shurmer, P. L. E

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  King, Dr. H. M

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

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

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Simmons, C.J. (Brierley Hill)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Slater, J.

  Edelman, M.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Snow, J. W

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Sorensen, R. W

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Lewis, Arthur

  Steele, T.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Fernyhough, E.

  McGovern, J

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Field, W. J.

  McInnes, J.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Fienburgh, W.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Finch, H. J.

  McLeavy, F.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Taylor, Rt Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Follick, M.

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Foot, M. M.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Timmons, J.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Tomney, F.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A

  Weitzman, D.

  Glanville, James

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

  Grey, C. F.

  Milkrado, Ian

  West, D. G.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Monslow, W.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Grimond, J

  Moody, A. S.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Morley, R.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Moyle, A.

  Wigg, George

  Hall, John (Gateshead. W.)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Hamilton, W. W

  Murray, J. D.

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Henderson, Rt. Hon A (Rowley Regis)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Herbison, Miss M

  Orbach, M.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Oswald, T

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Padley, W. E.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Holman, P.

  Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Paton, J.

  wyatt W. L.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Pearson, A

  Yates, V. F.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Peart, T. F

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K

  Hughes, Gledwyn (Anglesey)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Hughes, Emyrs (S. Ayrshire)

  Porter, G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire. W)

  Mr. Hannon and Mr. Wilkins.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Proctor, W. T

  Amendment proposed: In page 78, line 37, at end, insert:
  (c) Class material … 9s. 0d. per sq. yd.—[Mr. Jay.]
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes. 204.

  Division No. 134.]

  AYES

  [5.58 a.m.

  Acland, Sir Richard

  Burke, W. A.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Adams, Richard

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Albu, A. H.

  Butler, Herbert (Haokney, S.)

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

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)

  Carmichael, J

  Edelman, M.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Champion, A. J.

  Edwards, John (Brighouse)

  Benn, wedgwood

  Chapman, W. D.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Benson, G.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Beswick, F.

  Clunie, J.

  Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon A (Ebbw Vale)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Fennyhough, E.

  Bing, G. H. C

  Coldrick, W.

  Field, W. J.

  Blackburn, F

  Collick, P. H.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Blenkinsop, A

  Cook, T. F.

  Finch, H. J.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)

  Boardman, H.

  Crosland, C. A. R.

  Follick, M.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon A G

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Foot, M. M.

  Bowden, H. W.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Forman, J. C.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Freeman, John (Watford)

  Brook, Dryden (Halifax)

  Deer, G.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Glanville, James

  Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)

  McGovern, J

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  Grey, C. F

  McInnes, J.

  Short, E. W.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Grimond, J.

  McLeavy, F.

  Silverman, Julius (Erdington)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne valley)

  McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

  Slater, J.

  Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Snow, J. W

  Hamilton, W. W

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Sorensen, R W

  Hannan, W.

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

  Steele, T.

  Henderson, Rt. Hon A (Rowley Regis)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R R.

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Hobson, C R

  Mellish, R. J.

  Swingler, S. T.

  Holman, P.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)

  Monslow, W

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Moody, A. S.

  Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)

  Hey, J. H.

  Morley, R.

  Thomas, David (Aberdare)

  Hughes, Gledwyn (Anglesey)

  Moyle, A.

  Timmons, J.

  Hughes, Emyrs (S. Ayrshire)

  Mulley, F. W.

  Tomney, F.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Murray, J. D.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Watkins, T E.

  Hynd, J B. (Attercliffe)

  Orbach, M

  Weitzman, D.

  Irving, W J. (Wood Green)

  Oswald, T.

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Janner, B

  Padley, W E.

  Wells, William (Walsall)

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

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  West, D. G.

  Jegar, George (Goole)

  Paton, J.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Jerkins, R. H. (Stechford)

  Pearson, A

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Pearl, T. F

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Jones, David (Hartlepool)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham. S.)

  Porter, G.

  Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)

  Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Procter, W. T

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Keenan, W

  Pryde, D. J.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Kenyon, C

  Rankin, John

  Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)

  King, Dr. H. M

  Reeves, J.

  Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Rhodes, H

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A

  Wyatt, W. L.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Yates, V F

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Younger, Rt. Hon K.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Ross. William

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Schofield, S. (Barnsley)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  MacColl, J. E.

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Mr. Royle and Mr. Wigg.

  NOES

  Aitken, W. T.

  Carr. Robert (Mitcham)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Allan R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hay, John

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Clarks, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)

  Heath, Edward

  Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Clarks, Brig. Taranee (Portsmouth. W.)

  Higgs, J. M. C.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J

  Cole, Norman

  Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythanshawe)

  Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Hirst, Geoffrey

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

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

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

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

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hope, Lord John

  Baker, P. A. D.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Horobin, I. M.

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M

  Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Howard, Greville (St. Ives)

  Banks, Col. C.

  Digby, S. Wingfield

  Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA

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

  Baxter, A. B.

  Donner, P. W.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Beach, Maj. Hicks

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

  Beamish, Maj. Tufton

  Doughlas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm

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

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hyde, Lt.-Col. H.M.

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Duncan, Capt. J. A L

  Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)

  Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)

  Erroll, F. J

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fell, A.

  Jones, A. (Hall Green)

  Bennett, William (Woodside)

  Finlay, Graema

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

  Birch, Nigel

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R P

  Kaberry, D.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Keeling, Sir Edward

  Black, C. W.

  Fort, R.

  Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Lambert, Hon. G

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Fraser, Sir Ian (Marecambe & Lonsdale)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gage, C. H.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R K

  Braine, B. R.

  Calbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W. H

  Godber, J. B.

  Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Lindsay, Martin

  Browne, Jack (Govan)

  Gough, C F. H.

  Linstead, H. N.

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

  Gower, H. R.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Bullard, D. G.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Bullus, Wing Commander E. E

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

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

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)

  1386

  1387

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Summers, G. S.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)

  Maclean, Fitzroy

  Raikes, H. V.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

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

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Teeling, W.

  MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)

  Redmayne, M

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

  MacPherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N

  Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)

  Renton, D. L. M

  Tilney, John

  Maude, Augus

  Roberts, Peter (Heeley)

  Turner, H. F. L

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

  Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S)

  Turner, R. H.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Vane, W. M F

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Russell, R. S.

  Vosper, D. F.

  Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)

  Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Nield, Basil (Chester)

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)

  Nield, Cmdr. A. H. P.

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

  Walker-Smith, D. C

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Scott, R. Donald

  Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Shepherd, William

  Watterhouse, Capt, Rt. Hon. C.

  Odey, G. W.

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

  Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon, W.D.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Wellwood, W.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Spearman, A. C M.

  White, Baker (Canterbury)

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

  Speir, R. M.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Perkins, W. R. D.

  Stanley, Capt, Hon. Richard

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M

  Stevens, G. P.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

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

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Pilkington, Capt, R. A

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Studholme. H.G.

  Mr. Butcher and Mr. Drewe.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be the Fourth Schedule to the Bill."
  Mr. Jay:I have no desire to keep right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite from their quilts, bolsters, mattresses, sheets, and other things, but there are one or two conclusions which have emerged from our detailed discussion of this Schedule which one can only properly outline on this Motion. First, I think it is now clear that the whole conception of the median on which these D levels were based was a hit-and-miss affair. We have learned that the social survey on which it was based was concerned with a small sample, and that there is little firm foundation for these figures.
  It is also clear that in spite of what the Chancellor insinuates from time to time, the Douglas Committee never recommended this selection of the median point for the Ds, but merely referred to it as a possibility; and that the decision to select the median as the basis for the Schedule was the Government's. Now and again the Chancellor has tried to shuffle off his responsibility for the D scheme, first on to the Douglas Committee, and then on to the previous Government because it set up that Committee. The responsibility is his, and not that of the Douglas Committee or of the previous Government. Nor can it be said that the Douglas Committee recommended this median principle.
  1388
  The Chancellor, in making such precise concessions in the terms of the D level as he has, in the course of the night, has, in effect, abandoned his median principle. The median has gone by the boardߞif I may put it that wayߞalready in the case of quite a number of types of garments and cloths which vie have been discussing, so there is no longer a principle running throughout the Schedule, and the median principle has become even more threadbear than it was at the beginning.
  Thirdly, it is surely quite clear that the concessions the Chancellor has made ߞand for what they are worth we are duly gratefulߞhave really been very minor in their effect. They have sounded numerous in the course of the many hours we have been in Committee, but though they have been numerous they have been small. Where they have been precise, with very few exceptions, they have been very small indeed; and in the majority of cases they have not been precise but have consisted in rather vague andߞI hope I take it on trustߞwellmeaning undertakings by the Chancellor to think about the matter and perhaps to do something later on. I think we on this side ought to bear in mind between now and the Report stage that for the most part that is as far as we have gone at present.
  What I wish to emphasise is that in terms of unemployment in the textile areas, in Lancashire and Northern

  1389
  Ireland in particular, the concessions so far made amount to very little indeed. The Chancellor has told us himself that he thinks not much can be done in terms of Purchase Tax, even if it were swept away altogether, to meet that problem. Nevertheless, the background is that even in the last month, between March and April, there was an increase of between 35.000 and 40,000 unemployed in the textile industry. Against that sort of figure I do not think anybody will dispute that the sort of concessions we have had tonight are extremely minor in character.
  Fourthly, I think it has emerged that hon. Members opposite, though they have been willing to speak bravely sometimes in the interests of their constituents and these industries, and those people now without work, have not been able to implement those speeches with action. I have seen it stated in one paper or another supporting the Chancellor that the motto of the Treasury Ministers in conducting this Bill has been sauviter in modo, fortiter in re.
  Sir Ian Fraser: What does that mean?
  Mr. Jay: I am coming to that. I think that is no more than the path of wisdom for any Treasury Minister conducting a Finance Bill. But it seems to me in the course of the night that the motto of hon. Members purporting to support the Chancellor—
  Sir I. Fraser: What does it mean?
  Mr. Jay: I am coming to it. The motto of hon. Members purporting to support the Chancellor has been, on the other hand, fortiter in modo, sauviter in re, which I might perhaps translate to mean, "Brave in speech but soft in the Division Lobbies." If the right hon. Gentleman has a better translation no doubt he will give it to the Committee.
  It will be clear to those outside this Committee that on this issue we on this side have been prepared to exert pressure on the Chancellor, which has at least obtained such small concessions as we have had, and it is in that spirit—brave both in our speeches and in the Division Lobbies⁁that at a later stage of the Bill we shall continue this struggle against the growing unemployment in these areas.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Like my right hon. Friend, I do not want to detain the Committee for long.[HON. MEMBERS:" Oh ! "] Really, we have been extremely co-operative on this Schedule, because as the Chancellor well knows, even if he has not informed the Committee, it was initiative from this side of the Committee that led to this grouping scheme in the discussion, which has enabled us to get through this Schedule in far quicker time than would have been possible if it had been on the basis of the Amendments on the Order Paper. And as we have said on a number of occasions, this is a fundamentally new system of taxation that is being imposed on the country and it is appropriate for some of us to say a few words about it before it passes from the Committee.
  6.15 a.m.
  I have only one or two points to make. The first relates to the Chancellor's remarks on the last group of Amendments we discussed. All of us on this side of the Committee feel that the Chancellor has made remarkably few concessions in the debate on this Schedule. There have been one or two promises to consider certain points. The Government have felt a case has been made out on out-sizes and on furnishing fabrics. They are not sure that there is a way round the difficulty. But if they felt there was a case made they should have attempted to find a way round before they came to the debate. On other points they are prepared to look entirely without prejudice at some points made by my hon. Friends and myself.
  On furnishing fabrics, the Chancellor was impressed by arguments put forward from both sides of the Committee, and we all thought he was going to offer some proposal to relieve the desperate situation of the industry. He did not; but he produced what was to me, at any rate, an almost unheard of constitutional doctrine. Having admitted there was a case and, by implication at least, admitted that his own proposal was disastrous to the industry, and that he could not find an answer to the problem, he said he was leaving the solution to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) and myself. We were to get together to find whether we could solve the problem or

  1391
  at least make proposals to be examined by the Chancellor's experts.
  Like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West, I have been extremely doubtful whether a solution is possible and I said so in my earlier remarks. On the other hand, in view of the offer made by the Chancellor it obviously would be wrong for us to fail to meet the challenge he has thrown out. I am going to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that we meet this afternoon at 4 p.m. or 4.30 to see whether we can begin our examination of this very difficult problem.
  The second point I want to make relates to exports. Very many hon. Members have emphasised the importance of exports at various points in the debate. They have talked about the silk industry, the wool industry, the cotton industry, the linen industry, and so on, and at all points they have emphasised the importance of exports in those industries and the importance of those industries in our export trade. They have pressed for certain concessions on Purchase Tax in our home market to strengthen the export drive.
  There is one aspect of exports which I feel ought to be mentioned at this stage—and I felt it was only possible to do so on this Motion because these new D levels will have a very close bearing upon it. I suggest to the Chancellor that he operates the personal export schemes and the voucher schemes relating to exports from this country on a personal basis with a greater elasticity because of the new D levels. This applies to a wide range of our clothing trade, both men's and women's. For example the haute couture industry is capable of earning something like 500,000 to one million dollars by its direct sales and a very considerable amount of extra dollars by the prestige effect of its own exports on the export of fabric materials they use in their products. This is obviously an important dollar earner and the late Government went to a lot of trouble and made many efforts to get the industry's export drive well established. I am sure the Chancellor will wish to give similar encouragement to this industry in the months that lie ahead.
  1392
  I do want to suggest to him that if he is to get the fullest return from our exports of what one may call personal clothing it is important to ease up on the personal exports scheme, particularly as regards those parts of the rules that require conveyance to the ship or to the aeroplane before the goods are supplied tax free. Very many people come to this country as tourists, for a special social function, or the Edinburgh Festival, and so on, and if, when they come, they buy their clothes in London only to be told they may not wear those clothes until they have gone back to their own country, obviously our sales will be gravely inhibited in consequence. If they know that is the position in advance they will fit themselves out before they come to this country.
  We have now the new D levels and the new Purchase Tax scheme for all these goods, and I suggest to the Chancellor—though I do not press him for an answer now—to look into this point, because if he will look into it, I think he will find it possible very greatly to extend our dollar earnings both directly from the sale of this clothing and also through the effect on the export of our fabrics.
  I know that the personal exports scheme is regarded by Chancellors as something to be watched carefully because of the danger of abuse, but I think there is no danger of abuse here, because I am quite certain that women will not be measured for clothes only to supply them to English friends whose measurements will probably be not quite the same.
  Mr. John MacLeod: Surely that scheme existed before, under the old Purchase Tax—before the D scheme?
  Mr. Wilson: Certainly.
  Mr. MacLeod: Why did not the late Government put it right, then?
  Mr. Wilson: I have already made that clear. The late Government introduced the personal exports and voucher schemes and went a long way towards removing some of the empediments of Purchase Tax on those kinds of exports. We tried to modify the scheme and extend it, and I think the time has come,

  1393
  particularly with the new Schedule before us, for the Chancellor to go still further, as I have indicated.
  Mr. Austen Albu: I want to add my protest to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) at the absence of anyone from the Board of Trade during these debates we have been having. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade here now, to hear what I am going to say.
  All these debates today have been almost entirely concerned with industrial matters, because the corollary of the introduction of the D scheme is the abolition of the Utility scheme and the standards of quality that went with it. The way is taken in the Bill to add further to the articles which are to be removed from the standard quality of the Utility scheme and to be brought into the operation of the D scheme. These are matters in which the Board of Trade is interested—quite apart from those my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has referred to in connection with our foreign trade, and the structure of our textile industries.
  These will be greatly affected, as every single speech that has been made has testified, by these decisions we have taken in the Committee and which the House will take on Report when we have got the Chancellor's final proposals. Standards of quality, for instance, have already seriously deteriorated in bedding, mattresses, and so on, that we have been discussing. There is very great anxiety in some of these industries that their views and those of the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary might not carry as much weight as those of the Treasury, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might introduce some alteration in the existing Utility scheme before any actual discussion has taken place.
  I should have thought under those circumstances, and taking into consideration the wide field of industry that has been covered in our debates, that the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary would have been present during a considerable part of those discussions. My recollection which is not a very long one, only stretching back four years, and the recollection of some of my
  1394
  hon. Friends who have been here longer is that on the relevant parts of the Finance Bills of other years representatives of the Board of Trade were present on the Front Bench to answer questions which might arise out of the discussions which we had.
  There has been extraordinary unanimity in the tone of the criticisms of this Clause, and I hope that what we have said during this debate will be taken seriously, and that there is no danger of the Board of Trade and industry being by-passed by the Treasury in matters of particular interest to industry.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not think I need detain the Committee more than two minutes, but out of courtesy to right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken I want to take up their points as follows. The Committee can be quite certain that the Board of Trade has been closely in touch with us both on the formation of the plan from the start and in the consultations which have taken place. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, whenever he has been able, has been available for consultations and he has been here most of the time. There is no question of one Government Department trying to lord it over another.
  The second point is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has talked a great deal about hit-and-miss, but it is mostly miss on his part. This scheme has a perfectly clear origin. It descends from the Douglas Committee appointed by the Government which preceded us and which is represented on the benches opposite. In paragraph 101 it definitely makes reference to the median scheme, and in summing up it states that at least half of the commodities or articles should be below the D median. That is the general principle on which it is worked, but the responsibility is entirely that of the present Government, though the general scheme was one that we inherited.
  I should like to say further, having seen the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) once or twice this evening pass through the Chamber, that at Geneva last September he gave a definite undertaking that we would alter our internal system of Customs and Excise in order to fulfil our international obliga-

  1395
  tions, and we have done it as a point of honour. It would have been dishonourable not to adopt some such scheme when it was our international obligation to do so.
  We are all in the same boat. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have greatly enjoyed themselves in putting points to us and in going into the Division Lobby. What is meant by being soft in the Division Lobby I cannot imagine. It must have been derived through the distinguished education of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), which we know he had earlier in his youth, and it is better than being soft on the Front Bench. But the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that many constructive points have been put forward by Members on all sides of the Committee. At the end of this long debate he said that the median scheme had gone by the board simply because I have made some legitimate answers and concessions, but the right hon. Gentleman is trying, as usual, to get the best of both worlds.
  6.30 a.m.
  It is right to listen to a good argument. Some of the best arguments have come from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). But we have also had very enjoyable speeches from the other side, including that of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes).
  It is a remarkable experience to go through a debate like this and to see the spokesmen of all the different parts of England—for example, the hon. Member who represents the hat industry, who has helped us a great deal with reference to hats, and who was so bitterly disappointed. It has been a great education to all of us to hear the sincere views of the various districts of England. It reminded me of my early days in geography when I learned what came from Macclesfield, Kidderminster, Manchester, and all the great cities and towns. Now, of course, I can see hon. Members for those constituencies themselves and hear their sweet voices. This has been a most delightful experience.
  Schedule agreed to.
  To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Butler.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  WESTERN ISLES (UNEMPLOYMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]
  6.32 a.m.
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I apologise for detaining the House at this very late hour, but I hope that a few hon. Members will take the advice of the Chancellor when he said that a good argument is always worth listening to. The argument, in brief, is simply this—that unemployment in my constituency at this time is about six times what it is in Lancashire, and, therefore, as deserving of urgent aid. I am sorry all the Lancashire Members had to go so hastily after trying to enlist the sympathy of hon. Members for the Western Isles and other areas in solving their own particular problems.
  Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton): Not all Lancashire members.
  Mr. MacMillan: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.
  On 21st April at Stornoway exchange alone there were 1,409 unemployed, the percentage of the insured persons on the register being 27 per cent. For Great Britain at that date it stood at 2.2 per cent.; for Scotland, 3.3 per cent. The area suffering from the worst unemployment in England, namely the North-Western textile area, stood at 4.8 per cent., although I believe it is a little higher than that figure now. In the other Ministry of Labour exchange, which serves the southern islands of the Outer Hebrides, at Oban, unemployment stood on 21st April at 8 per cent. In the Oban figure of 454 on 21st April must be included a number of men and women from the Isles of Barra, North and South Uist.
  I maintain that the Stornoway figure of 27 per cent. is something completely out of the ordinary, demanding ex-

  1397
  ceptional action—something not on a grand scale like Lancashire but certainly urgent and exceptional—by the Government. Western Isles unemployment certainly must now be in the order of at least 1,600 or 1,700. We must add to that a very considerable under—employment on a basis closely related to the unemployment figure, but mainly in the textile industry in the Western Isles. I do not want to go at 6.30 this morning into the question of the D scheme or Purchase Tax. But Purchase Tax at the rate of 66ⅅ per cent. was one of the main factors in creating local textile unemployment, and in making it difficult to sell Harris tweed. The main Western Isles weaving industry finally turned to Utility and found an escape from this excessive burden. I cannot yet measure the effect the D scheme is going to have on the industry, but any new tax is certainly not going to help production or employment.
  Already that industry suffers from the difficulty of heavy freight charges on all its imported materials and on its outgoing manufactured goods. The tax has always been calculated upon the total cost of products, including freight charges. The higher those freights were, the higher the tax on the goods was. Since the freight charges made higher the price of the goods and so the amount of the tax, the more the freights were the more the Treasury were going to get out of it. It has been rather an unfortunate situation that the Treasury might be tempted to hope that freight charges might not come down, in order that they may collect more tax. It is also the case that 80 to 90 per cent. of the wool used in the main manufacturing industry, Harris tweed, is imported from the mainland under the disabilities of higher freights, transport delays and risky private bulk-buying through infrequent wool sales.
  One of the worst features of unemployment in the area is denial of unemployment benefit among the weavers in the Harris tweed industry. There are among them about 1,400 to 1,500 members of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Their work is like that of factory weavers. Those who become unemployed in the industry, however, do not qualify for unemployment benefit at all because they have to weave the tweed in their own homes. It is a condition that they do
  1398
  weave it at home if they are going to use on the cloth the Board of Trade's legally protected "Orb Mark," which is the basis of their advertising and virtual monopoly in marketing of the main supply of genuine Harris tweed, as against the many imitation products manufactured in all parts of the world.
  These workers, in order to conform to the definition of Harris tweed, must work at home. They cannot work under a factory roof and they cannot satisfy technically the ordinary conditions for unemployment insurance. They are regarded as self-employed and therefore are outside unemployment insurance and industrial injury benefit. They are absolutely dependent upon the spinners, the mill-owners, for their raw materials, their yarn. They have to manufacture to a design laid down and insisted upon strongly by the employers. They must complete their job for delivery in a certain time in terms of days.
  Mr. John MacLeod: The hon. Gentleman would agree that it is most necessary to the whole economy of the island that that should be done.
  Mr. MacMillan: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was going to say that this form of home weaving does fit naturally into the economy of the island since it can be done along with a certain amount of fishing, and crofting seasonal employment, local odd jobs, public works and so on. But my main concern is with the weaver as a weaver. The fact remains that because of the conditions attached to the use of the Orb Mark," they are debarred from enjoying unemployment insurance benefit when they are out of work. A large number at this moment are under-employed and unemployed, and the real Isles total is by no means restricted to a figure of 27 per cent., even though that is by far the highest figure for a long time in any part of Great Britain.
  Why should the home weaver be penalised? Why is it that a commercial traveller, who may be away from his employer and home and from any sort of supervision of his work by his employer for months at a time, is in class I insurance and even qualifies for industrial injuries? It is right that he should do so. This is

  1399
  worth examining because the Harris tweed weaver is an example of another type of worker who is not under a factory roof or supervision, like the commercial traveller, but who for merely technical reasons meet certain requirements of the Ministry of National Insurance.
  It is shameful that these men, who are on the same economic level and doing the same work as factory weavers, should be debarred from unemployment insurance. I am even more anxious about them now owing to the fact that they well may share increasingly in the heavy national unemployment in textiles and all that that carries with it in the lowering of the standard of life. I hope these matters will have the attention of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend at the Ministry of National Insurance urgently.
  My second point concerns the herring fishing industry. The fishermen of the Western Isles have always been willing to fish, given reasonable incentives. They can fish the area from the Butt of Lewis to Barra Head most of the year. It has the longest herring fishing season in the world. The Herring Board and Board of Trade have been trying to secure bigger contracts for cured herring from Russia for years. I know that for the past year or so the work of the Board in this respect has shown better hope of coming to real fruition. Given bigger Russian orders, a good deal more can be done with the encouragement of the Government in the Western Isles with regard to reviving the large scale curing of herring. On that, and the processing of herring for oil and meal, together with a certain amount of kippering, will depend the future of the herring industry. I am glad that the price of oil meal has increased, but I wish it would go up to the 55s., which I have long claimed and the Highland Panel has asked for.
  I hope the hon. Gentleman will ask the Scottish Office to look again at the present unwise restrictions even upon ponding berried lobsters in the ponds in the Western Isles. There is a special recognition of the Western Isles lobster fishing needs in the fact that the previous Government had put loans—one might
  1400
  call them grants—at the service of the Crofters' Supply Agency for the maintenance of lobster ponds, and a system of detention of lobsters for their marketing during the winter months and the avoidance of transport during summer, when many perish because of heat and transport delays. The Treasury have put quite a lot of money into this.
  If they are willing to recognise special conditions of that kind, surely they can also do something to make it easier for the lobster fishermen in the Western Isles by allowing them to land and sell berried lobsters, not direct to the market but to the Crofters' Supply Agency to be ponded until they have shed their berries? No responsible person outside the Civil Service sees any sense in this aspect of the restrictions upon lobster catching Neither the local fishermen, nor independent scientists, nor anybody else have made out a sound case why these restrictions could be removed.
  In the meantime the French and other foreign trawlers are catching 6-inch. 8–inch, 9–inch and all sizes of lobsters and landing them all over Europe, while the local fishermen cannot put their berried lobsters under the responsible management of the ponds agency until they have shed their berries. Months of wild Hebridean weather impose their own close season. But in the short lobster season, supplies are abundant in the Western Isles. Only this unfair prohibition stops an expanding industry.
  In present conditions, lacking all essential basic services such as good water supplies, transport services, electrification and the skill and other basic services essential to all industries, we cannot get private enterprise to come into the area. I ask the Government—particularly the Treasury, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and the Scottish Office—to consider now the urgent desirability of Government-sponsored industry in that area. If private enterprise cannot be tempted to come there, and in view of the difficulties of the indigenous industries and if unemployment there is to run at 27 per cent.—the highest in Great Britain—surely it is time the Government adopted a more responsible attitude towards the problems of the people of the Western Isles.
  6.45 a.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan). I assure him that the people of the Western Isles have the support of every hon. Member on this side of the House, and I hope that we shall be joined in that by Scottish hon. Members on the other side of the House.
  My hon. Friend's figures of unemployment in his Parliamentary division are startling. Because of their effect, it is important that there should be some display of unity in the House with regard to the problems facing the Western Isles. We have recently had an example of the importance of a stand taken by other hon. Members in dealing with a similar problem.
  We have seen unemployment descending on Lancashire. We appreciate what that meant to the people there. I am sure that what was done by the Government to alleviate that problem had the support of every Scottish hon. Member. Unemployment in the Western Isles falls just as sorely on the people there, and I hope that the Government will look upon the Western Isles in as helpful a manner as they did in regard to Lancashire. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us that guarantee.
  6.47 a.m.
  Sir William Darling: I should like to support the pleas made by the hon. Members for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) and Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) in this early morning sitting in which Scottish hon. Members are participating. This is a test of our capacity to govern in respect of a small area. It will be a test of our ability to cope with a profound human problem.
  Stornoway is not the easiest place in which to conduct an experiment of this kind. The efforts made by the great organiser of industry, the late Lord Leverhulme, to persuade the people of Stornoway to make a good living for themselves were unsuccessful. He devoted a good deal of capital, energy and leadership to Stornoway, but it produced little practical fruit comparable with the great success of the Unilever enterprises in the United States, Holland and the United Kingdom.
  1402
  The hon. Member for the Western isles rightly speaks for his people, but they are gey thrawn people. They present a personal and human problem which is just as much one for the Ministry of Labour—
  Mr. M. MacMillan: The late Lord Leverhulme was also a very thrawn old autocrat. He insisted in uprooting the crofters from the crofts for which they had fought for generations to get security of tenure.
  Sir W. Darling: I will not enter into a controversy as to whether Lord Leverhulme was more or less thrawn than the people of Stornoway. I should say that if there were an hon. Member representative in that respect, it is the hon. Member for the Western Isles who is a typical representative. This problem is one which calls for a width of approach which the hon. Member can help to give. The present percentage of unemployment is appalling, all the more because of the difficult situation in which the unemployed men and women are placed.
  I support the examination of this relationship, which has not been made easier by the Transport and General Workers' Union, who cannot expect these men to be trade unionists on the one hand and independent workers on the other. I have never been able to enjoy the advantages of being both an employee and an employer and I do not see why they should, and if the hon. Member for the Western Isles would persuade them to give up these strenuous attacks in connection with the Transport and General Workers' Union and to become individualists, it might be more in keeping with their traditions and their way of life. I venture to suggest that if there are people who are individualists and who are opposed to the Socialist conception, then they are the people of Stornoway.
  These few words have been uttered in order to encourage the hon. Member for the Western Isles. He lives in a remote part of the land, and these problems which he raises are discouraging things. I think they form a challenge to the Ministry of Labour to try to make some arrangements to deal with them, and also to the Secretary of State for Scotland to do something notable in this small, experimental area so as very much to

  1403
  lower the percentage of unemployment, which already bears very heavily upon the area.
  6.52 a.m.
  Mr. John MacLeod: I will not delay the House for more than two or three minutes, but there are two points which I should like to make in support of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), who, I thought, made two important points about, first, weaving, and secondly, lobster fishing. I hope we shall find that the D scheme will work to the advantage of the tweed industry in the outer islands. They were forced to go into the Utility market, which I think was a great mistake, and they should find that the D scheme is greatly to their advantage.
  The second question I want to raise concerns berried lobsters. I want to ask the Minister whether the lobsters in these ponds respond to the treatment which they may receive and whether they grew to maturity so as to be suitable for the market.
  6.54 a.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Sir Peter Bennett): I have allowed the Scottish hon. Members to have their full say because, after all, they know so much more about this matter than I do. I live as far from the sea as it is possible to live, I am a mere Sassenach and I would not eat a lobster if anyone paid me to—it is one of the things which is poison to me—so that I am just about as suitable as possible to reply to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan). The hon. Member has given a good many years of his life to work for the islands as Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Advisory Committee, and we all honour him for the work which he has done.
  The hon. Member has told a very pathetic story tonight. We have every sympathy with him in having to deal with these people who are most anxious to remain on their own land, where their fathers have been before them, and who find increased difficulty in earning the livelihood which they earned in the past. The figures which the hon. Gentleman gave were not exaggerated at all because, in addition to the figures which he gave, there is, as he said, a hidden unemployment figure. It is a grave problem.
  1404
  What has been done? Development has proved negligible. A small woollen factory has been built, and there has been the extension of others, but they have found only a small additional amount of employment. The Highlands and Islands Advisory Committee held a conference in Stornaway in the spring of last year, and it concluded that if the island was to maintain its present population in reasonably stable employment, its dependence on casual and intermittent occupations must be lessened. Extension of the native industries of fishing and textiles seemed the obvious step to take. These are the opinions of people who know. As an industrialist from another part of the country, I would not dare to quarrel with them, because I would have the utmost difficulty in persuading manufacturers from other parts of the country to move out there.
  What can be done to help the position? I do not think that reference has been made to what has been done by the Herring Board. That Board is endeavouring to popularise herrings. There is, I am told, a brand known as the Stornaway herring. A 50 per cent. grant, up to a total of £87,000, has been given by the Government to help the work of popularising the herring. The effort has shown results, and there was an increase from 440,000 to 485,000 crans in 1951. The Board is endeavouring to improve Stornaway kippering on the United Kingdom market, and a new freezing plant and a store have been installed. Associated Stornaway Kippers, Ltd., a co-operative organisation, is being encouraged to develop the market in Stornaway kippers.
  The Herring Board is endeavouring to expand the export of cured herrings. I am advised that the Minch herring is very suitable for this purpose. I know something about kippers, as I am very fond of them. I do not know whether those that I get come from that part of the country with which we are dealing, or from Loch Fyne; but wherever they come from, I hope that the efforts I have mentioned will be continued, because I believe that the herring is not only a splendid food, but its consumption provides a business for our people.
  With regard to lobsters, an organisation has been formed by the Scottish agricultural organisation, with the assistance of the Development Fund, to

  1405
  enable lobsters to be kept for marketing in conditions which will enable them to be sold in the winter when the prices are higher. Lobsters have to be delivered to London alive. A great many die on the way, but that problem is being tackled. There is a transit tank on the way, storage ponds are provided, and the fishermen have been shown the use of improved packagings. Endeavours have also been made to sell lobsters on the Continent, as people overseas are very fond of them.
  The decision with regard to berried lobsters was taken in order to conserve the fish. It was decided that if the present practice went on, future trade would be ruined. The matter has been explained and we hope that the results will prove satisfactory. I will put before my right hon. Friend the point with regard to foreigners.
  I rather gathered that the hon. Member for the Western Isles regarded the Harris tweed industry as depressed. The fact is that since the fall in wool prices and the introduction of the new scheme, Harris tweed has been one of the bright spots in the textile industry.
  Mr. M. MacMillan: Since Utility.
  Sir P. Bennett: Since Utility, and with the D scheme which has been introduced. Our report is that there is a better prospect for Harris tweed than for any other textile; it is one of the bright spots. Sales are going up, and the markings, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, show that 1.22 million square yards were stamped
  1406
  in the first four months of 1951, against 1.32 in the corresponding period this year. At the end of last year they were making for stock. Now they have used up their stocks and are quoting some time for delivery, so it looks very much as though Harris tweed is on the up-grade.
  We appreciate that none of these things by itself will settle the problem. I have heard the hon. Gentleman arguing this case when he was sitting on this side of the House, and I have no doubt he will continue to press it. We shall do all we can, because it is one of the most difficult problems, when we realise that there are unemployed over 1,000 men in this small community—it is largely men who are out of work; it is not women—and the interests of those men are being very carefully considered by my hon. and right hon. Friends at the Scottish Office. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State has sat here throughout the night in order to be able to hear what the hon. Member for the Western Isles had to say, and no doubt he will pass those remarks on to his right hon. Friend. I can assure all those who are interested in this problem that there is no complacency. We appreciate the human nature of the problem, and we shall do everything we can to assist these people to earn their living in the place in which they live.
  Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes past Seven o'Clock a.m., Wednesday, 14th May.

HOUSING, SCOTLAND
  Prefabricated Houses, Aberdeen
  Prefabricated Houses, Aberdeen
  Bearsden and Kirkintilloch
  Bearsden and Kirkintilloch
  Clydebank
  Clydebank
SCOTLAND
  Harbour Project, Maidens, Ayrshire
  Harbour Project, Maidens, Ayrshire
  Tractors, Angus
  Tractors, Angus
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act (Proceedings)
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act (Proceedings)
  Salaries and Pensions (Teachers)
  Salaries and Pensions (Teachers)
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
  Invalid Carriages
  Invalid Carriages
  War Pensioners
  War Pensioners
  Claims (Onus of Proof)
  Claims (Onus of Proof)
BRITISH ARMY
  House, Woodlesford (Occupation)
  House, Woodlesford (Occupation)
  Non-Commissioned Officers (Orders)
  Non-Commissioned Officers (Orders)
  Ammunition Clearance (Sherwood Forest)
  Ammunition Clearance (Sherwood Forest)
  Buildings, Devonport (Condition)
  Buildings, Devonport (Condition)
  Personal Cases
  Personal Cases
  Home Guard
  Home Guard
  WAR OFFICE STAFF
  WAR OFFICE STAFF
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Film Industry (Quota)
  Film Industry (Quota)
  Australian Import Restrictions
  Australian Import Restrictions
  Light Castings (Export)
  Light Castings (Export)
  Board of Trade (Staff Dismissals)
  Board of Trade (Staff Dismissals)
  Textiles (Service Contracts)
  Textiles (Service Contracts)
  Coronation Souvenirs (Imports)
  Coronation Souvenirs (Imports)
  Scotch Whisky (Prices)
  Scotch Whisky (Prices)
  Export Goods (Packaging)
  Export Goods (Packaging)
  Prefabricated Houses (Export)
  Prefabricated Houses (Export)
  Sulphur Supplies
  Sulphur Supplies
  Waste Paper (Collection)
  Waste Paper (Collection)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Sovereigns
  Sovereigns
  Cab Services, Manchester and Salford (Petrol Tax)
  Cab Services, Manchester and Salford (Petrol Tax)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Defence Production and Research (Expenditure)
  Defence Production and Research (Expenditure)
  Social Survey
  Social Survey
  Home Information Services (Economy)
  Home Information Services (Economy)
  Sticks for Blind Persons (Tax)
  Sticks for Blind Persons (Tax)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Employed Married Women (Tax Reliefs)
  Employed Married Women (Tax Reliefs)
  NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES (STAFF ECONOMIES)
  NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES (STAFF ECONOMIES)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Snowdonia National Park (Administration)
  Snowdonia National Park (Administration)
  Site, St. Marylebone (Parking)
  Site, St. Marylebone (Parking)
  Municipal Offices (Loans)
  Municipal Offices (Loans)
  Sewer, Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Sewer, Newcastle-under-Lyme
HOUSING
  Steel Supplies, Newbiggin
  Steel Supplies, Newbiggin
  Applications
  Applications
  Houses For Sale (Licences)
  Houses For Sale (Licences)
  Building Programme
  Building Programme
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Government Offices. London
  Government Offices. London
  Drinking Water, Palace of Westminster
  Drinking Water, Palace of Westminster
  Grandstand, Bungay (Licence)
  Grandstand, Bungay (Licence)
  Businesses, Trafalgar Square (Licences)
  Businesses, Trafalgar Square (Licences)
EMPLOYMENT
  Accrington
  Accrington
  Electronics Industry (Recruitment)
  Electronics Industry (Recruitment)
  Labour Force
  Labour Force
  CIVILIAN WORKERS, MALTA (DRIED MILK PURCHASES)
  CIVILIAN WORKERS, MALTA (DRIED MILK PURCHASES)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (EXTENSION CHARGES)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE (EXTENSION CHARGES)
  16th INDEPENDENT PARACHUTE BRIGADE (TRAINING)
  16th INDEPENDENT PARACHUTE BRIGADE (TRAINING)
AGRICULTURE
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Horticultural Marketing Schemes
  Horticultural Marketing Schemes
  DENTAL SERVICE (CHILDREN)
  DENTAL SERVICE (CHILDREN)
  BROADMOOR PATIENTS (UPKEEP COST)
  BROADMOOR PATIENTS (UPKEEP COST)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Bishop of Oxford—Took the Oath.
The Earl Baldwin of Bewdley—Affirmed.

TOTTENHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CIVIL AVIATION
2.38 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have given or intend to give any new directive to the Air Transport Advisory Council regarding respective activities of the air corporations and the air charter companies.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF TRANSPORT, FUEL AND POWER (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, the Air Transport Advisory Council consider applications from independent air companies to operate scheduled services as associates of the Air Corporations and advise the Minister of Civil Aviation on the acceptance or otherwise of such applications. The Council discharge these duties under a directive from the Minister. The directive at present in use is the one issued by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, when he held office as Minister of Civil Aviation. It was, however, modified in one respect by my right honourable friend Mr. Maclay, when he was Minister. As I informed the House on December 5 last, the Minister decided that, for the time being, agreements coming up for renewal should not be extended beyond March, 1953, nor should
796
new agreements be granted extending beyond that date. This is a temporary measure while policy is under review. The directive to the Air Transport Advisory Council is among the questions which the Government are looking into as part of their review of policy. As for our intentions, I would ask the noble Lord to await the general statement on the future policy of the Government for civil aviation which will be made a little later.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, it is obvious that we must give the new Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation a chance to look round. At the same time, I feel that I must point out to the noble Lord that many of us are beginning to become extremely restive and to feel that Civil Aviation is being treated as the Cinderella of the Departments. I can only hope that the new Minister will prove to be the Prince Charming for whom a great many of us are looking.

NEW PRISON INSTITUTION
2.40 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is proposed to establish a branch of the Broadmoor Institution in Surrey; whether the proposed site is within the Green Belt area, and if so, whether they can give an assurance that approval will not be given to these proposals unless all the local authorities concerned are in agreement.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, a protracted search has been made on behalf of the Prison Commissioners for a suitable site on which to erect an institution, as recommended in the Report of Sir Norwood East (who is the Medical Commissioner of Prisons) and the late Dr. Hubert, on The Psychological Treatment of Crime, for the care, study and treatment of selected groups of prisoners of carefully defined classes, the majority of whom would require active psychiatric treatment. The institution would be within the prison system and under the control of the Prison Commissioners. It would

797
have no connection with Broadmoor Institution, and persons who have been found insane would not be eligible for admission. A site at the disposal of the Crown near Merstham, in Surrey, within the Green Belt area, has now been brought to the notice of the Commissioners, who are in consultation with my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government on the planning aspect. The noble Earl may be assured that my right honourable friend will give fullest consideration to the representations made by the local authorities concerned.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor very much for the answer which he has given, may I ask him whether Her Majesty's Government do not think it most undesirable to reserve an area of upwards of 300 acres in the North Downs reservation area for the purposes which have been indicated? Does it not seem a pity also that such an institution should be placed so closely to a densely populated area such as this? Furthermore, may I ask whether the noble and learned Lord does not think it essential that the consent of the local authorities must be forthcoming—and at present they are all unanimously opposed to it, already having four mental institutions in this area?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have no doubt that those are amongst the points which are being brought forward by the local authorities for the consideration of my right honourable friend, and I have no doubt that he will give full weight to them.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can the Government state whether this institution will be a prison with or without bars?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must ask for notice of that question.

LONDON PASSSENGER FARES
2.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether London will receive the same concessions as the provinces in any
798
new scheme for passenger fares; what proportion of the total loss of £2,500,000 in annual revenue these concessions will represent, and whether, in view of the injustice to Londoners of paying higher fares than travellers in the provinces in the meantime, they will require the Transport Tribunal to review the operation of the present scheme in London.]
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that, so far as practicable, the same principle will be applied in the London area as in the rest of the country. The British Transport Commission have been asked to submit proposals, and until these have been considered it is not possible to say what concessions will be made or to give any precise estimate of the loss of revenue in the London area and in the rest of the country respectively. The figure of £2,500,000 which has been mentioned was merely intended to indicate the sort of amount expected to be involved in total. The fact that all the increases outside the London area have been suspended for a short time does not justify requiring the tribunal to review the operation of the scheme in regard to the London area.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I should like to ask him whether he can give us an assurance that he, personally, will do everything he can to expedite a new scheme for passenger fares, because every day that passes increases the hardship and injustice to London.
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, I appreciate that there is an injustice to London until these fares have been put into proper shape, and I am losing no time in pressing to get this matter adjusted. It is entirely a matter for the British Transport Commission to submit their new scheme to us, and they have been requested to do so with all speed. Immediately we receive it we shall proceed to make the necessary adjustments.

EDINBURGH MERCHANT COM PANY ENDOWMENTS (AMEND MENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
MOTHERWELL AND WISHAW BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
2.46 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Charges for certain drugs, medicines and Appliances
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, regulations may provide for the making and recovery, in such manner as may be prescribed, of such charges as may be prescribed in respect of the supply, as part of the hospital and specialist services under Part II of the principal Act, of drugs, medicines or appliances.
(2) No charge shall be made under this section in respect of—

(a) the supply of any drug, medicine or appliance for a patient who is for the time being resident in a hospital;

(b) the supply of any drug or medicine for the treatment of venereal disease;

(c) the supply of any appliances for a person who is under sixteen years of age or is undergoing full time instruction in a school within the meaning of the Education Act, 1944, or the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946; or

(d) the replacement or repair of any appliance in consequence of a defect in the appliance as supplied;

and regulations may provide for the remission or repayment of any charge payable there-under in such other cases as may be prescribed.
(3) Any reference in this section to the supply of appliances shall be construed as including a reference to the replacement and repair of appliances.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved to insert as a new subsection (1):
"(1) Notwithstanding anything in section sixteen of the National Health Service (Amendment) Act, 1949, or the following provisions of this section, no charge shall be made in respect of drugs or medicines supplied to a person who is under sixteen years of age or is undergoing full-time instruction in a school within the meaning of the Education Act, 1944, or the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946."
The noble Lord said: In moving the first Amendment on the Marshalled List,
800
I venture to remind your Lordships that this was one of those Amendments which, owing to the operation of the rather rigid timetable in the other place, was not discussed there. For that reason your Lordships may well consider that it is all the more important to discuss it here. The short point of the Amendment is that under this clause of the Bill it is proposed to make a charge for drugs and medicines, and the Amendment seeks to provide that such charges shall not he made in respect of drugs or medicines to be supplied to a person under sixteen years of age or undergoing full-time instruction in a school. I would call attention particularly to the fact that this Amendment would cover drugs or medicines in respect of which authority to charge was given by the Act of 1951; that is to say, it is not limited to charges in respect of hospital or specialist services, but includes the charges which it is proposed to make in respect of prescriptions given by general medical practitioners. I do not think I need labour that point, but I would mention that the Act authorising the imposition of those charges was never implemented, and that, in any event, that Act stated that those charges, if and when they were imposed, would operate for only a temporary period.
Obviously if drugs or medicines are prescribed for a child or young person, that child or young person must be ill, and the prescribing physician must think it necessary for that child or young person to have the medicine. I have not heard any suggestion of abuse in connection with medicines supplied to children and young persons; and, so far as I am aware, no evidence was given in another place of any such abuse. As your Lordships will appreciate, this charge of 1s. would have to be paid by the parent, who naturally would wish to carry out the doctor's prescription and do the best he or she can for the child. That parent would have to pay the amount of 1s. in respect of each form filled up. It may be said by noble Lords opposite that there would be no great hardship here, and that it would be quite competent for any parent to go to the Assistance Board if he or she could not afford to pay for the prescriptions. I should have thought—and I hope your Lordships may agree—that it would be very humiliating for a parent, whose child had to have medical

801
attention and prescriptions, to have to go to the Assistance Board, where, one knows, evidence as to means and so on has to be given, and to ask for a reimbursement of the 1s. (or it may be more). The result will be, therefore, that many parents will not go to the Assistance Board; they will prefer to go short in some necessity of life themselves.
I would remind your Lordships that there are many people in this country who have quite a number of children. There are instances where not one but may be two or three children of a family are ill at the same time. As I understand it, in respect of each of those children it will be necessary to pay 1s. for every prescription. That, clearly, is, or may be, a very great hardship indeed. I gather that one of the reasons, if not the principal reason, for imposing this charge in this Bill is to do away with abuse. As I say, there has been no evidence of abuse, and it would seem to me that where a charge is to be made for a particular article (in this case a drug or medicine) the natural tendency will be to endeavour to get as much as possible for one's money. The parent will say: "Give me a large bottle of medicine or sufficient to last not only for a week or two weeks—"but perhaps for quite an extended period. In that way there is, I submit, more possibility of abuse, because more medicine will be asked for than would be the case if the parent could take his or her child to the doctor every week. The tendency will be, when one has to pay 1s. on every occasion when a prescription is made up, to make the medicine last as long as possible and to get the largest quantity possible. In that way, I submit, there may well be substantial abuse. I invite noble Lords opposite—the Lord President of the Council, perhaps—to indicate how that possibility is to be dealt with.
Finally, I call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the lack of the provision embodied in the Amendment makes this part of the Bill inconsistent with the rest, because your Lordships will see that there is elsewhere in the measure a provision that persons under sixteen requiring appliances are freed from the charge. Similarly, children or young persons (in this case persons under twenty-one) are freed from any charge if they require dental treatment. It seems to me—and I submit the point to your Lordships with
802
some confidence—that it is quite inconsistent to free a young person from a charge for an appliance and free a person under twenty-one in respect of a charge for dental treatment, and not similarly to free a child from paying for a prescription The Amendment would make the Bill more uniform, more harmonious and more consistent. It must be obnoxious to all of us to think that a charge is to be made in respect of medicine or drugs used for the benefit of little children. I do not think there is one of your Lordships here who, in your own affairs, would wish to put such an imposition on the parent of a young child. Having regard to all those facts, which I submit are indisputable, I invite your Lordships to approve this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD WOOLTON): I think I might reasonably assure the noble Lord at the outset that none of us likes the idea of imposing extra charges on any body; but I cannot follow his line of argument that a child is necessarily a necessitous person, even although I appreciate that the family may have quite a large number of children. There is no real logical argument to lead us to think that, because people have a large number of children, they are therefore unable to pay 1s. for a prescription when the doctor thinks it is necessary. As the noble Lord is fully aware, we have already made provision under the Family Allowances Act to help people with more than one child. I have been through all these Amendments which have been put down by noble Lords opposite. Very many of them, let me frankly admit, nave a very strong sentimental appeal, because they deal with people who are suffering. Let me say at once that we are not unsympathetic to the needs of the several distressed classes of people, but surely it is quite a simple point at issue: if a person is in such a state of financial need that 1s. will debar him from getting the necessary medicine, then indeed he must be in a state where he has other hardships, too.
The Government are already taking steps to relieve those hardships by increasing insurance benefits and pensions

803
If, however, additional help is needed—and this is really what I want to submit for the consideration of your Lordships—the principle on which the Government propose to work is to deal with the indigent family as a whole, not on the basis of each separate need, and to try to deal with it from one source—namely, the National Assistance Board. By that means, we aim to enable each person to use, on a parity with the rest of the community, the services which the State is providing. In this way, we shall avoid, what I think your Lordships all recognise, the demoralising effect of an individual having to seek relief in one form or another from a number of different places. We shall certainly reduce the cost of the administration and—although I do not for a moment suggest that this point arises in the case of children under sixteen—we shall reduce the risk of fraudulent application for relief. I thought it well to make this general statement of our position at the beginning under this particular Amendment, because it will save me repeating it on many occasions as the individual Amendments come up.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment. I do not think it is a good thing to try to place upon the chemists and the doctors the administrative burden of deciding whether a person is or is not of school age. I think we shall get a very much better result if we follow the line that I have suggested. May I add this? In the exceptions which we are making under the Bill we do not propose that the persons concerned should be exempt from the charges but that they should obtain repayment of the charges from the National Assistance Board. That, of course, could not apply to children. I hope your Lordships will not think it necessary to press this Amendment. I am sorry that I am unable to accept it.
EARL JOWITT: I must say to the noble Lord that I think he made a most singularly unconvincing reply. He has not attempted to deal with the point which the noble Lord made in moving the Amendment. The noble Lord said that, for some reason or other, you have treated children specially from the point of view of appliances—I think rightly—and you have treated children specially from the point of view of dental treatment,
804
again for good reasons. The noble Lord was asked: When you treat children specially from the point of view of appliances and dental treatment, why do you not treat them specially from the point of view of drugs and the like? I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and I do not think he attempted to answer that question. He has given no answer at all. I very much hope that the noble Lord will do better than that. He can defeat us quite easily in the Division Lobbies, but that is not the point. What we want is that he should make some reply which satisfies us that he has a case and has considered the matter. At the present moment, he has not attempted to answer our point. I do beg the noble Lord to have a second innings presently and to attempt to make some sort of reply to the case which is put up.
The next thing I want to ask is this. The noble Lord talks about the charge of 1s. Now I may have this Bill completely wrong, and the noble Lord may correct me, but I understand that there is no limitation of the charge to 1s. under this Bill. No doubt the Minister will say: "At the present moment all we have in mind, and all we contemplate, is that the charge shall be 1s." As I understand it, we are asked to pass a Bill under which, if he were so minded, he could charge 2s., 5s., 10s. or any sum. Am I right on that, or am I wrong? When I was in the Government I had some six years of this from noble Lords opposite, Time after time they said to me—and I appeal to them now, because they heard it often—"Put it in the Bill". If I introduced a Bill which gave me power to make all sorts of charges, and then I said: "Well, I am only going to charge 1s." I should have been told: "Put that in the Bill." I ask the noble Lord this question: Am I right in supposing that, if we pass this Bill, the charge will not necessarily be limited to 1s.? That is the figure the Government have in mind at the present moment but next year, without passing any new Act, they could make it 2s. or 4s. I want a categorical answer to that question. If that is the position, and I understand the matter aright—and the noble Lord, of course, knows—then it is no good saying: "This is a very small matter. This is only 1s. and surely people can pay that."

805
It seems to me a lamentable thing that the sort of reply we have just had should be regarded as sufficient, because it is not. Of course, we know that the children's allowances are going up. May I ask the noble Lord whether he has considered the difference between a childless couple and a couple with two children? Does he really think that that difference is surmounted by the payment of 8s.? Let me assure him that you cannot keep one child on 8s. a week; and if the noble Lord does not know that I shall be very much surprised. I suggest that the greatest service the citizens can render this country at the present time is to have children. I suggest that a wise policy for this country is to see that people are not penalised because they have children. If the children get ill, and require appliances or dentists' treatment, or doctors' treatment in the form of drugs, then I suggest that this great community ought to see that that is not a charge on the parents. To my mind it does not meet the point to say that the parents who have to pay the money can go running round to the Assistance Board. In a great many cases they will not do that, and we all know it. I suggest there is a case for continuing for drugs what has already been done in the case of appliances and dentures. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord this question: Why have you treated children differently in regard to appliances and in regard to teeth, and why do you not extend that differentiation to drugs? The other question I ask is this: Am I right or wrong in saying that we are here asked to pass a Bill which confers upon the Government the right to impose whatever charges they think proper in their discretion, or is this merely a matter of 1s.?
3.6 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): Perhaps it would be useful if said a word in answer to what has been said by the noble and learned Earl. He asked a number of questions, and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability. First of all, the noble Earl asked: Why was a differentiation made between drugs for children and appliances for children? There is a definite medical
806
reason for that. Children, as we know, grow, and appliances which might be quite adequate for them at, say, the age of six would prove to be totally inadequate at the age of nine or ten. Therefore, the expenditure which might be involved by the parents is very much greater than in the case of supplying drugs. Somebody has a cold or influenza, whatever it may be. That is not a continuing and enlarging expenditure. That is expenditure to meet the single disease or emergency which has arisen. The noble Earl may not agree with that, but that is the argument which is produced and, to my mind, it is a valid one. Appliances and drugs do not come into the same category at all.
Then there is the question of the 1s. charge. The noble and learned Earl is perfectly right when he says that the Is. charge is not in the Bill. It is a matter to be settled by regulation. I would remind the noble Earl (perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, will forgive me for one moment) that exactly the same device was used by his own Government in the Act of 1947. At the present moment, at any rate, it is not the intention to consider any increase in the 1s. charge, any more than I am sure it was the intention of the Government of the noble Earl's Party, when they produced their Bill, regularly to increase the charge then proposed. This method is adopted merely for convenience, and it is certainly much less rigid. The noble Earl said: "You may put it up to 2s. or 3s." Equally, the Government might wish to reduce it to 6d. It might go either way, and in that case it would require an amendment of the Act. That is the reason why it is to be done by regulation. The noble Earl's own Party thought it the right way to do it, and we followed their example in that respect.
EARL JOWITT: May I suggest that if you put a limitation in the Bill, "Not to exceed 1s.," that would not in the least prejudice reducing the charge to 6d.? If you like it could be "not to exceed 2s." The mere fact that my Government did it does not mean that two wrongs make a right. I think it was wrong, because I think it is always wrong to confer upon a Government by Act of Parliament far greater powers than they say they want to use. I believe that is a perfectly genuine principle, which I

807
learned in the last six years, and whether or not my Government did it does not enter into the question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: All I can say is that the noble and learned Earl used a very different argument when he was on this side of the House. I do not think he can have any complaint against this Government for doing exactly what his Party did in similar circumstances.
The noble Lord also asked why we did not differentiate for children. He said that people might have one child, or two or three children, and might be involved in far greater expenditure on that account. Of course, it is true that people may have small families or large families but it is not necessary to assume—and it is a far too general assumption in many quarters—that because people have children those people are always ill. In fact, the number who are ill is normally very small. This charge of 1s. is regarded almost as a kind of constant charge on the weekly income of the wage earner; but that is not so. The charge, as it will apply, year in and year out, to the average family, is not a heavy one. I have seen this argument used again and again. The assumption appears to be that in any large family the children are always ill and that therefore the parents are very hardly treated by this Bill. That is not true. A 1s. charge, for the average healthy family is, in fact, a very small one indeed.
I must point out again that children were not differentiated in the case of the Labour Government's Bill, no doubt for the same reason that I am urging now. I do not think that it would be possible to make this differentiation. The only effect would be to defeat the whole object of the Bill. That object is, without causing undue hardship, to reduce the national expenditure at a time of great national danger. And if I am told—as I am constantly told—that this saving will be a very small one, I can only urge, as I have urged constantly in this House, in Opposition and when my Party have been in power, that the only way you can make economies at all is by making a number of small economies. It is no good trying to make single economies of £150,000,000 or £200,000,000, because that cannot be done. You have to make
808
small economies where it can be done—limiting, as far as ever you can, the hardship which may be caused. Therefore, I make no apology on behalf of the Government for not making an exception in this case. I am quite certain that the exception would not have been made by noble Lords opposite if they had had to deal with these same circumstances.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I venture to intervene because the unofficial members of the Conservative Party opposite seem remarkably and unanimously reluctant to defend this Bill. We are considering the position of children under sixteen years of age at school. The object of the Bill is either to prevent abuses or to save money. Does anyone allege that there have been abuses in the prescribing of drugs of children under sixteen? I cannot imagine that anyone would say that the drugs prescribed for children have led to abuses. That is a point which must be answered, for it is one of the legs on which the Bill stands. There is another point. The noble Marquess spoke of economy. He said that we must have economy. Has he any information how much we are contributing, to the rearmament drive by taxing pills and medicines for these young people? There must be some idea of how much we are saving: is it to be £10,000, £15,000, £20,000? I do not know, but I think some answer ought to be given. Another question was that concerning regulations. The noble Marquess says that these things can be done by regulation. I think my noble and learned friend's point about the charge "not exceeding" a certain sum was a perfectly sound one. It is hard to put in the Bill a definite sum of pounds, shillings, and pence, but suppose that the Government were to introduce a regulation fixing, say, 4s. We could not amend the regulation. We could reject it, but this House would be very reluctant to do that, and so would another place. What is to be the position?
The whole tone and temper of this Government, and their whole approach to this problem, are difficult to understand. We on this side have always said that many and healthy children are the true wealth of a country. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, spoke of the "demoralising effect" of not having a charge. It is true that he hastened to say that he was not referring to the charge

809
in relation to children. But how can anyone speak of giving medicine to a sick person as being "demoralising"? I remember that in the year 1910 or 1911 (I ant not sure which), at the time when the old-age pension was being discussed, leading Conservative statesmen in Opposition said that a payment of 5s. per week to an old man of seventy would have a shameful and demoralising effect. Whatever may be the truth of that, certainly it is an argument that cannot possibly apply to a sick child. We do everything to assist a child from birth; we attend to its health in its early years; we see that it is sent to school, in a bus if necessary, and so on; but when the child is sick we say "we shall have to charge you 1s.; it would be demoralising for your parents not to have to pay something." I assure the noble Marquess that this Bill can produce very little money and that it will have a damaging effect upon the reputation of the Conservative Party.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: The noble Marquess said that children are not likely to be ill. Would he deny that it is just in the years up to about the age of sixteen that nearly all children have all kinds of diseases?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not deny that children, like other people, are sometimes ill. I said merely that the assumption among opponents of this Bill was that all children were always ill and that, for instance, if a man had twelve children he would be paying 12s. per week. In fact, we all know that the children are not always ill at the same time. In any case, as I pointed out, this 1s. charge is not a weekly charge for each child. It is a sporadic charge for each child. One or two children may get a bad cold—or even more if there is an epidemic If there is a serious infectious disease, the children will be sent to hospital. But in the ordinary case the charges would be sporadic ones. That was all I said; the noble Earl could not quite have understood it.
LORD GIFFORD: I should think the right way to look at this matter is that tax allowances and children's allowances are given in order to compensate for these payments. The bachelor might well have a serious complaint if he had to pay 1s. for his prescription, when the man next door, who has children, gets it free.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two. The noble Lord and the noble Lord who has just spoken seemed to think that allowances were given on income tax for people who have children. That is so, but allowance is not made in respect of this particular imposition, which is to be imposed by regulations to be made by this Government. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, seemed to think that everybody should be running to the Assistance Board. He seemed to imply that there were other sources to which they might go and that it was desirable, in the case of all these who are entitled to repayments—
LORD WOOLTON: Indigent people.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Indigent people. Is there any other place to which indigent people can go, except to the Assistance Board?
LORD WOOLTON: Not all people; only the people who are in need.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I speak subject to correction, but so far as know there is no other place to which people can go for relief in one form or another except the National Assistance Board. Therefore, the noble Lord's argument seems to me to fall to the ground. He spoke about the demoralising effect of going to numbers of other sources. There is only the National Assistance Board. Therefore, the noble Lord's argument was a completely false one. There would be no saving in administrative costs, about which he spoke. Surely the very fact that these medicines and drugs are going to be paid for at 1s. a time will increase the administrative charges. It will increase charges tremendously to ensure that all those who want medicines and prescriptions have to pay 1s. on every prescription. That is going to be a tremendous administrative question indeed. It was mainly on that very point that the previous Government felt it was not desirable or practicable to proceed with their proposals. Here the noble Lord comes along and implies, for reasons which I cannot follow, that there will be a great saving in administration. In my view the imposition of these charges will effect hardly any saving at all. We have not been informed what the prospective saving is. Probably, it

811
will run the administration into a great deal of expense.
Then I noticed that the noble Marquess, if he will give me his attention for a moment, mentioned the differentiation between the prescription and the appliance, but carefully avoided saying anything about the dental treatment. Where does the differentiation come in there? What is the difference between taking one's child to the dentist and having its teeth out or having it dealt with in some form or other, and giving it medicine on a prescription? Why do the Government propose to exempt the child in the one case of dental treatment, and not to exempt the child in the other case of medicine and drugs? I submit to your Lordships that all these impositions are—I will not say designed, but will have a deterrent effect on parents and on children. Principally, of course, the effect will be on parents, who will not take their children to the doctor as frequently as they might otherwise do, and as frequently as necessity requires, because there is this charge. To some noble Lords it may be a very small amount, but to poor people in some of the congested streets which I represented for many years, it will be a very serious charge indeed. It will mean that the housewife out of her small monies will have to find at least 1s. or 2s., or it may be much more, in respect of these prescriptions. In my view, the result of these impositions will be to exercise a deterrent effect, to prevent children from being medically attended to as they should be, with the result that the health of our young children, which for some years past has been the admiration of the world, is likely to be seriously affected.
Finally, I would reinforce what the noble Viscount said as to the saving that will be effected. I shall be glad to hear from the Benches opposite what savings will be effected by the imposition of this charge for drugs or medicines on children or young persons under the age of sixteen. How much is going to be saved by the refusal of this Amendment and the insistence upon this charge? Is it going to be £50,000, £100,000 or £1,000,000? Cannot some estimate be given, or is it, like so many of these proposals of the Government, rather a leap in the dark? I hope the noble Lord will give us the answer to that question.
3.25 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to summarise, if I can, the case that has been made so far against this Amendment. First, I gather it is that the Government are doing exactly what the Labour Government proposed, and, therefore, they are perfectly right and justified in what they are doing. I wonder whether they are going to accept that kind of case as a precedent in everything they do? If they can do no better than the Labour Government did, what happens to all the representations that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, made during the Election, that he could do so much better in every possible respect? We are expecting that the present Government will use their own intelligence, will rectify whatever may have been wrong in the work that the Labour Government did in the past, and will improve upon it; but over and over again we are hearing here that "This is what the Labour Government did, and therefore we are justified in doing exactly the same."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We do not say we are justified in doing exactly the same, but, if we do so. noble Lords opposite complain that we have no right to do so.
LORD SILKIN: Oh, no. Surely we are entitled to consider on its merits every measure which the Government introduce, and the mere fact that a year or two years ago a certain line was taken by the Labour Government does not debar the present Opposition from considering this measure on its merits. The case that is made for this measure to-day is not the case that was made by the Labour Government two years ago, when circumstances were quite different. Nor is this measure the same. The other point that was made, both by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, and by the noble Marquess, is that in practice there will be no hardship on the parent if a charge is imposed on the medicine of the child. "No hardships," says the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, because the parents can pay, and then, if they are indigent or they qualify under the regulations of the Assistance Board, they can get their money back. "No hardship," says the noble Marquess, "because the Opposition have grossly exaggerated what is likely to happen in representing that all

813
children are ill all the time." So far as I know, nobody has ever suggested that that is the case. Of course, children are not ill all the time nor are all children ill at the same time. Noble Lords opposite are very fond of putting up a case which we on this side have not made, and then answering that instead of answering the case that we do make.
The case that I make is this: that this charge is going to fall particularly hardly on parents with a number of children. It is quite a common thing for a number of children in a family to suffer from illness at the same time. I happen to be a grandfather and have gone through this phase in the last six months with one of my sons, who has three young children. It happens that almost continuously for the past few months the children have been ill with whooping cough, with measles, with German measles or with mumps: one thing has followed another. The fact is that, when that happens, a parent does hesitate to go to the doctor and get medicine, if he has to pay these shillings at a time for the medicines. If the charge operates as a deterrent, it is surely undesirable. It is surely in the national interest that parents should seek a doctor's advice when their children are ill, and not be deterred by the thought of having to pay for medicines, possibly regularly over a few weeks. In so far as it acts as a deterrent, I say that this Bill will have a very serious effect on the health of young people.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, says that if things are as tight as that—they are not tight with every family, but they are tight in a number of cases—the parents concerned can get their money back from the Assistance Board. With great respect, I doubt if they can. I doubt if they would qualify. The noble Lord has referred to the indigent family, but the families I am thinking about are not indigent in the sense that they would be eligible under any conditions that the Assistance Board are likely to make. There is the normal family where the husband is at work and earning a normal wage, of six pounds a week if you like, with two or three children. Such a family may just about manage with a tight squeeze, and every additional penny that the housewife has to pay out can be met only by sacrificing some other small thing which is really a necessity or a tiny comfort. They may sacrifice their summer
814
holiday. They would not be regarded as qualifying for assistance from the Assistance Board by reason of that sacrifice. Suppose a family has saved up seven or eight pounds to enable them to take a summer holiday, and then one or two children become ill. They have no reserves out of which to meet these charges, so they dip into their summer holiday money, and they are not able to take a holiday. They could not go to the Assistance Board and say that they are indigent or destitute. But is it really desirable that people should be pressed as tightly as that? I can assure the noble Lord that that is the position of a large number of families in this country.
This Bill will be regarded with terror by parents who have young children and who, in addition to the rising cost of living, will now have to meet these charges—not all the time and in respect of all the children, but quite often, and particularly in the case of younger children. Therefore, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, has said, I hope the Government will reconsider this matter. They have not met the case that my noble friend Lord Milner has put, distinguishing this from the case of dental treatment. I see the point of what the noble Marquess has said about appliances, but he has not met the case of dental treatment, which is on all fours. If the Government could see their way to reconsider this mater, it would do a good deal to mitigate the great hardship which otherwise this Bill is going to impose.
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: As I understand that the Opposition propose to divide the House on this Amendment, the Committee will perhaps permit me to say a few words to explain the course which will be taken by my noble friends and myself on these Benches. We shall vote for the Amendment, and for these reasons. In the first place, we think that the Bill is rightly framed in its other clauses in exempting children from the charges under the Bill, not only in the case of appliances, but also in regard to dental treatment. In dealing with the point with regard to surgical appliances, the noble Marquess did not, as I think, give a very convincing answer, saying merely that children grow and therefore they need the appliances to be renewed. I do not think that that is convincing on the whole

815
matter, and it certainly does not apply to dental treatment. The reason why children have been exempted from these charges is that the charges are very costly, especially in regard to surgical appliances for which the parents could not afford to pay. That applies less powerfully with regard to prescriptions, but it does hold good, and I think that from the beginning the Government would have been well advised to lay down a rule that this should not be an addition to the cost of bringing up a family.
Everyone knows that the class in the whole community who are the most hard pressed financially are the working people in the early years of their married life, when a number of children are coming along. Very often they are the most poverty-stricken of all and, wisely, the State has, on the one hand, tried to exempt that particular class from the new charges and, on the other hand, to help them by means of family allowances. This is a case in point; and when a poor working class family is put to extra cost owing to the illness of a child—and there are all sorts of indirect costs—it does not seem to be a reason for imposing a charge for prescriptions, and so forth, from which they are at present exempted.
That is the main reason why we shall vote for the Amendment. We do not think that a sufficient answer has been given by saying that family allowances are the means by which such charges should be met, and that family allowances have recently been increased. Those increases have been given owing to the rise in the cost of living, and of course are much more than consumed by the fall in the value of the pound.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said that if the allowance is not adequate, the family can go to the Assistance Board for assistance. I understood him to say that we ought to treat the family as a whole, and that if they are as badly off as all that the time has come for them to go to the Assistance Board. But consider how that works out in practice. There are tens of thousands of prescriptions in these cases. Are a family expected at any one moment, on the first prescription, to say, "We cannot afford to pay this shilling. We are going through all the formalities of applying to the Assistance Board and having our case heard"—for the sake of a shilling? They
816
would not do it. They will get into the habit of paying a shilling as a matter of course, and if there are several children and several illnesses, those additional charges will come at the very moment when they are least able to pay. In general, in all these matters, the right way, in our opinion, is not to impose extra charges on the sick at the time when they are sick, but rather, if it is necessary to raise fresh funds to limit excessive charges on the Health Service, to increase the general insurance charge. The people themselves pay a huge proportion of the millions that are spent upon the National Health Service, and if that is not enough, and if it is necessary to go to the people for more, then charge them at the time when they are in good health, and not at the time when either the bread winner or one of the dependants is sick. Therefore, we shall vote for the Amendment.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: The noble Viscount has thought it incumbent upon him to explain why he is supporting the Amendment. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain why I am not supporting it. I think that the Amendments we have to consider this afternoon are all designed to put before the Committee situations which, in many circumstances, can be distressing. The variety is very great. We have heard arguments about the young and about children, and particularly about medicines. The reactions of individuals to prescriptions and medicines vary greatly. I generally seek the first opportunity to empty the medicines down the sink. But, of course, with modern medicine, there are drugs and prescriptions which are specific and which are essential to a cure, or even to the continuance to life. Those cases, however, will not apply particularly to children. If they are requiring treatment with expensive specific drugs, they will almost certainly be in hospital.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: How will they get into hospital?
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: Did I hear someone say: "How will they get into hospital?"
VISCQUNT STANSGATE: Yes. I asked that because of my own experience. People come to me and tell me that they have been kept waiting for weeks and weeks because there is no room in the hospitals.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: That is very largely the result of the legislation which was passed and which threw the doors of the hospitals open to everybody, from the richest to the poorest in the land. Now, in many instances, a patient who could well afford to pay for treatment outside, is occupying a bed which in the old days would have been occupied by someone who could not afford to pay. But I do not want to enter into an argument. All I wish to do is to justify my attitude on this particular Amendment—an attitude which will apply to many other Amendments, because these distressing situations are going to be paraded during the next few hours. We have heard about the young; we are going to hear about those who have cancer; we are going to hear about the chronic sick; we are going to hear about
persons who are out-patients after they have been in-patients; we are going to hear about the disabled; we are going to hear about those who are getting assistance already under the Workmen's Compensation Act; we are going to hear about people suffering from tuberculosis and we are going to hear about those who have diabetes. That is the programme. In every case argument can be advanced to show that there is special need. But provision is made to meet the special need, either in this Bill or in other enactments. For these reasons I shall not support the Amendment.
3.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said subsection shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-contents, 70…

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Greenhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Jowitt, E.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Pakenham, L.

Henderson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Hall, V.

Kenswood, L.

Rea, L.

Mersey, V.

Kershaw, L.

Rochester, L.

Samuel, V.

Lawson, L.

Sempill, L.

Stansgate, V.

Layton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Silkin, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan) [Teller.]

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Sinha, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Terrington, L.

Cawley, L.

Morrison, L.

Winster, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Nathan, L.

Wise, L.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Buckmaster, V.

Dormer, L.

Davidson, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Woolton, L. (L. President.)

Furness, V.

Gifford, L.

Hudson, V.

Greville, L.

Sutherland, D.

Long, V.

Hampton, L.

Margesson, V.

Hawke, L.

Maugham, V.

Hindlip, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Monsell, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Reading, M.

Swinton, V.

Leathers, L.

Salisbury, M.

Templewood, V.

Llewellin, L.

Lloyd, L.

Albemarle, E.

Aberdare, L.

Mancroft, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Audley, L.

Palmer, L.

Bessborough, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Remnant, L.

De La Warr, E.

Belstead, L.

Rochdale, L.

Dundonald, E.

Bethell, L.

Saltoun, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Sandford, L.

Howe, E.

Broughshane, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cherwell, L.

Schuster, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L.(E. Clan-william.)

Somers, L.

Rothes, E.

Teviot, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Courtauld-Thomson, L.

Teynham, L.

Selborne, E.

Cranworth, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Selkirk, E.

De L'IsIe and Dudley, L.

Wolverton, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Dorchester, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.53 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (2), after the words "in respect of," to insert:
"drugs, medicines or appliances authorised to be supplied before the commencement of this Act, or in respect of".
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the second Amendment on the Marshalled List. Its object is to ensure that these charges for drugs, medicines and appliances, are not made retrospectively. I need hardly remind the Committee that it is very rarely that taxes or charges are made retrospective, and there are no special circumstances, so far as I know, why the charges proposed to be imposed by this Bill should be made retrospective. The contrary is the case. There are instances where, especially in the matter of appliances, a prescription or order has been given by a responsible medical practitioner or specialist for an abdominal belt or surgical boot and, through no fault of the patient, delivery of the appliance has been delayed, it may be for many months. Your Lordships know that many of these appliances are only now being manufactured in quantity, and for some time past there have not been sufficient appliances available. The consequence is that the patient has to pay for something for which he never anticipated paying. That is an additional hardship on the patient or his family. It is almost in the nature of a breach of contract.
Six months ago I was examined and my specialist ordered me a surgical boot. I anticipated getting it for nothing and entered into the transaction on that basis, and when delivery time comes I have to pay £3 for it. That seems to me almost a breach of contract, certainly a breach of the spirit of the arrangements provided in the first Act. Ex hypothesi, the individual concerned is an injured or disabled man, possibly unable to work or only able to work at some ill-paid occupation; but notwithstanding, he has to pay in the case of appliances up to £3, a large sum to such a man. This position has been recognised in connection with dental treatment. Clause 2 (3) of the Bill says:
"No charge shall be made under this section in respect of any services provided in pursuance of a contract or arrangement under which the first examination took place before the commencement of this Act."
820
Clearly, before a person could obtain a prescription for an abdominal belt or surgical boot, he must have been examined by a qualified surgeon or physician. Why should a person who requires dental treatment be exempted from retrospective payment when the person who requires a surgical boot or abdominal belt has to pay? It seems to me that in this respect again the Bill is inconsistent, and I ask for the same concession to the person who has been examined for such appliances before the commencement of the Act as is given by the Bill to the person who requires dental treatment. I submit that otherwise injury is likely to be done to national health. Anyone who requires one of these appliances and thought he was going to have it free now has to pay for it. But he may not be able to pay for it, and the result is that he may struggle on with an old appliance which is dirty or insanitary or does not fit and is dangerous. Here, again, the terms of the Bill, without the exemption for which I ask, form a considerable deterrent to those who require any of these appliances.
There is also the point which I mentioned on Second Reading. The Government have sent out instructions to hospitals, and the hospitals in turn are communicating with persons who have appliances on order requiring them to sign forms to the effect that they know they will have to pay for the appliances when they are delivered. Surely that is anticipating that the decision of your Lordships' House will be in favour of the Bill, that your Lordships will not be willing to give any exemption to retrospective claims. I submit that your Lordships may properly think it right to support this Amendment and ensure that charges are not made in respect of appliances supplied before the commencement of the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, after "of" insert the said words.—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had not intended to interpose, but my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill, having heard mention of breach of contract, thought it would be appropriate for me to deal with that point. There is no question of breach of contract and no similarity between the case we are now discussing and that which arises in respect

821
of dental treatment. In respect of dental treatment, there is a dental estimate form, and the dentist and patient enter into a written contract. If there is such a contract, it is right that it should not be broken, and if there is a contract in this case, it is equally right that it should not be broken. But the noble Lord has not referred to any contract or suggested with whom the contract has been made. If there is a contract, the contracting party will have his remedy; but I do not think there is any contract being entered into here. There may be some kind of informal arrangement and authority. I notice that the words of the Amendment are:
"appliances authorised to be supplied before the commencement of this Act."
Those words are wholly inappropriate if a contract has been entered into. The analogy of the dental treatment on which the noble Lord relies really has no application to this case. If that has no application, and if there is no contract, why should the differentiation be made between the man who wants an abdominal appliance and orders it tomorrow, and one who ordered it yesterday? Both have the same need, and both are required under the Bill to make some contribution. I venture to submit that there is no foundation for the proposed Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question. The purpose of this Bill is to prevent people from abusing the National Health Service. A man goes and says, quite lightly, that he will have a surgical boot, because he will not have to pay for it; and then he suddenly finds when this Bill is passed that he is going to be charged for it. Is that not essentially a breach of understanding? He entered into the arrangement, but he then says: "I shall do without the boot. It will not help me, and I shall have to limp; but, inasmuch as it is my having a boot or the children or family having something, I will go without it. "Is that not reasonable? What is the objection to putting in words such as we suggest? One hardly imagines that a person goes to a surgeon, has an appliance, and says:" I have a form of contract. Will you have this signed in the presence of witnesses?" He orders the boot because this is the Health Service and he expects
822
to get it free, and then he finds that he is going to be charged perhaps a substantial sum. My noble friend asks that in such a case, if it can be shown that the appliance was ordered under the old Act, that the man shall not be charged under the new Act. That seems to me a reasonable case, and I do not think the Lord Chancellor has adequately dealt with it merely by dealing with a signed and sealed contract.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The contrasts are simply between the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Milner, where there is a case, and the present case, where there is not. An authority to supply does not amount to a contract between the parties. The unfortunate man to whom the noble and gallant Viscount has referred is in no different position because he had authority before to have an appliance supplied from the man who goes to-day. One is very sorry for them both, if it means pressure on their finances. But why should a man who, if you like, had one promised before this Bill be placed in a better position than a man who suffers from an abdominal complaint to-day? They are both in the same position. I feel that it would be unfair to provide the appliance free for one and not the other.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Perhaps I might ask this question. Supposing a man has said that he will have the appliance, which is worth £5 or £10, and then says: "I entered into this on the basis of it being a free gift from the State. I cannot afford it." Who then bears the loss?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He need not take it if he does not want it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then, does the practitioner who ordered it bear the loss? Who pays the man for making the wooden leg?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is going rather far. I do not think for a moment that the man will be placed under any obligation to take that which was authorised to be supplied to him, But one would have to look at the whole of the circumstances of the case.
EARL JOWITT: I agree that there is no contract involved, but I feel that this is a very hard case. There are many cases where you have the alternative put

823
to you of either having an operation or of having some sort of appliance. Take the case of a man who, in the old days, before the Act was passed, went to the surgeon and was examined, and the surgeon said that he had better have a boot, belt, or whatever it might be. In the circumstances as they then existed the man was entitled to get it free, and said: "Very well; that is what I will do. I will carry on, give up the idea of an operation and look forward to the day when I get this appliance." Owing to delay—for which no one is to blame—the appliance does not come as quickly as it might have; and it so happens that the delay extends over so that the appliance is not delivered until after this Bill has become an Act of Parliament. The proposal here is that this man should not be penalised because of the delay that has occurred. If a man has had authority from the surgeon, who said that the appliance should be supplied, and all that has happened has been a delay, it seems very hard that the man should pay. I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to consider this matter between now and the Report stage to see whether there is not some way in which he can meet what is certainly a disappointment, and something which may in some cases, it seems to me, create hardship. I should be quite satisfied if the noble Lord would say now that he will look into it to see if there is a case, without in any way making any sort of promise. I understand that at the present time he thinks there is not a case, but I would ask him not to bang the door to-day, but to consider it and find out if there is any more in the matter than he seems to think at present.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not seek to anticipate the answer which my noble friend will give. I rise on a point of elucidation. I am not clear what the noble and learned Earl means. Does he want us to look into the Amendment again with a view to seeing whether we can meet the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Milner; or is he concerned with the limited point of whether a man who had ordered a surgical boot, and afterwards found that it was going to cost him £3 or £4, should shoulder the burden? Clearly, nobody wishes the unhappy man to have to pay for the boot, he having said that he cannot afford it,
824
and having refused to take it. That clearly would not be fair to him. On the other hand, there is, as I am sure the noble and learned Earl will agree, considerable force in the argument put by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, that there is, in fact, no contract, and that if you give this man a special advantage you will, in comparison, be penalising other people in the same position. What the Government intend is that, if the person wants the boot and is prepared to pay, he should pay the £3 or £4, or whatever it is, but that if he does not want the boot, he should not pay at all. That seems a practical proposition. But the more limited question of who, in fact, over the interim period, between the time just before and the time just after the Act is passed, pays for the boot which the man no longer wants, merits consideration.
EARL JOWITT: Of course there is force in what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, says—there is force in everything that he says. But I should like the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to look generally into the problem that my noble friend Lord Milner has advanced. It may be that as a result of looking into it the only thing that can be done is something on the narrower lines suggested by the noble Marquess. All I should like is some sort of assurance that he will look into the matter.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There is one point that I should like to raise, before we leave this question. The Lord Chancellor said, very properly, that when you fix a date it quite clearly brings a hardship on one man who falls on one side of the date and not on the other. That must be so. I venture to suggest that there is involved here between two people a hardship which is very notable. Two men go to a surgeon who is considering giving them an artificial appliance—one man goes in January, let us say, and another man in March. The man who goes in March goes to some place where surgical boots are made quickly; he gets it before the Act and he gets it free. The man who goes in January may have to wait five months before he gets it, and it comes after the Act. In that case, you get a much greater hardship in comparison between the two cases under this Act. I support my noble friend's

825
suggestion that the Government should at least promise to look into this matter, without necessarily giving any undertaking.
LORD WOOLTON: Let me relieve the House. I shall be very glad indeed to look into this matter again.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I hesitate to disagree with anything the Lord Chancellor said, but I think that my noble friend Lord Milner was correct in drawing attention to the contrast between the provisions of Clause 1 and Clause 2 of this Bill. Clause 2 is not confined to cases in which the dental treatment is supplied under contract. Clause 2 deals also with cases in which the dental treatment is supplied by arrangement, and I do not think, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord, that the word "arrangement" is intended to be synonymous with "contract". It is much more likely to be synonymous with the word "authorised", which my noble friend has used in his Amendment. If there is a good case for exempting people from paying for dental treatments which are to be provided under an arrangement made before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, then why should not precisely the same apply in the case of other treatments which have been arranged or authorised before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament?
Let me put one other point to the noble Lords opposite. This Amendment deals, among other things, with the supply of appliances. It must be well known to noble Lords that thee are cases in which the supply of an appliance is an alternative to having an operation. It is not proposed under this Bill that anybody should be obliged under the National Health Service to pay for an operation. What is the effect of this proposal, as the Bill stands, to charge for appliances? It means that people will be inclined to have operations, where that is the alternative, instead of having an appliance. I am not certain that that will be a good thing for the National Health Service. Nor do I think it is a good thing that a financial compulsion should be imposed upon any person to have an operation rather than to have an appliance supplied to him. I beg the noble Lords to reconsider this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must say that I have never heard a more extraordinary argument advanced by anyone. An appliance would cost, perhaps, two or three pounds, and he puts forward a proposition that people would rather have a severe operation than have an appliance.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I did not say "a severe operation."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well, an operation. I should have thought that the charges which are to be made for these appliances, even under the present arrangement, are of the most moderate character. To suggest that people would rather go, to the detriment of the country and the Health Service, into operations than to pay a moderate charge, is not, think, a serious argument to put before the Committee. I would point out to the noble Lords that my noble friend has already said he is very ready to look into this question. He said that he would look into all the arguments that have been raised and considerations that have been urged. I do not think that the Government can go further to meet the Opposition.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Let me make myself quite clear about this matter. I am glad to know that the undertaking which has been given is an entirely comprehensive one, to look at the whole of the proposal which my noble friend Lord Milner has made. I thought it was a more limited one than that. If it covers the whole of the Amendment, then it is satisfactory.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I just want to clarify one small point. Lord Milner pointed out that people were being asked to sign in advance a form undertaking to recognise certain charges. If they sign these forms, will they be indemnified in any way in respect of pledges and promises which the noble Marquess has been good enough to make?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: "Pledges and promises" are a slight exaggeration. What I said was that the whole matter will be looked into. I must say here and now to the noble Viscount that I made no pledges and promises except that the matter would he looked into.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: Having regard to the assurances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
4.18 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW LORD KERSHAW moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "patient" to insert "who is suffering from malignant disease or." The noble Lord said: I am rather hopeful, now that the House has resumed a more friendly atmosphere, that the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, will not be unsympathetic with the case I present to him. Before I do present the case for those suffering from malignant diseases, I should like to say that this Amendment refers only to Clause 1 and therefore refers strictly only to people who are out-patients at hospitals and not to the generality of insured people.
Two reasons for the Bill have been submitted and have been mentioned again to-day, both by the Lord President and by the noble Marquess. Those reasons are that it is necessary from an economy standpoint and because there are abuses. Let us take abuses first. It has already been stated that no evidence whatever has been produced to show that there are abuses. I am entitled to remind the House that some years ago, in the early thirties, there was considerable agitation in the Press about the alleged abuses of Unemployment Insurance, and Lord Blanesburgh, who was at that time Chairman of a Committee sitting on the subject, declared at their first meeting that before they went any further in this matter they should discover whether, in fact, there was any truth in the agitation about abuses. An Inquiry was set afoot and, I think, some 400,000 claims were sifted; and at the end of it all, if my memory is right, less than eight cases were found to justify any sort of action against the people.
I have been looking up the last Annual Report of the Ministry of National Insurance. I find there that the average new claims amounted to 137,700 weekly, in the year with which I am dealing. That means, if my arithmetic is correct, that well over 7,000,000 people come every year under the sickness benefits scheme. Then, if I turn to table 30 at the end of the Report, I find that in only 503 cases were legal proceedings instituted. In other words, this terrible abuse which
828
has been spoken of, and which is supposed to justify a Bill of this kind, so far as legal proceedings are concerned, amounts to seven cases in 100,000. I suggest that the excuse that there will be abuse in respect of the whole of the insured population is entirely unfounded, and if we apply it only to those people with whom I am especially concerned in this Amendment, obviously to suggest that anyone would pretend to be suffering from a malignant disease is an argument impossible to justify.
On the question of economy, again I looked up the Report of the Ministry of National Insurance. What do we find there? The Insurance Fund increased last year by £138,000,000 to a total for the Fund and the Reserve Fund of £1,120,000,000. Now I suggest to your Lordships that if economy is really the reason for this Bill, an easy and a sensible way of dealing with the matter would be to increase the 10d. which is deducted from the contributions and credited to this Fund by 1d. or 2d. for the period of the rearmament programme. There would then be no need from the point of view purely of economy to do anything of this nature. There is a very good precedent for such an action. I may remind noble Lords that many years ago—perhaps twenty years ago—the present Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a raid, as I call it in this case, by reducing the State grant under the National Health Insurance Fund from 2/9ths to 1/7th. From an economy standpoint, therefore, it is perfectly clear that quite a modest rearrangement of the allocation of the moneys from the stamps would do all that is necessary.
Now let me come to the particular section of the community with which the Amendment is concerned. Having regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said and to my knowledge of him as a man, I am entitled to assume that he will approach this subject with the humane outlook of which I believe he is capable. I hope that at the end he will be able to assure us that a case has been made out for a review of the Bill in this connection. The Amendment with which I am dealing relates only to people with malignant diseases—cancer and the like. Obviously, similar considerations would apply to quite a number of other classes of people—to tubercular people and the

829
other classes mentioned in some of the Amendments to follow. It must he known, at any rate to those who consider this problem, that some 94,000 to 96,000 people die every year from cancer. The estimated duration of the disease has been given to me—I did not know it myself—as probably ten to twelve months. Again it is estimated that people with this disease will require prescriptions at the very least of about one a month. The, one a month on those figures would cost about £2,500,000, and the amount saved if the 1s. were charged in respect of these unfortunate people could not possibly be more than £100,000 a year.
I know full well that this Bill, as it stands, does not apply charges to the whole class of sick people, but it is reasonable to suggest that great numbers of those suffering from cancer will be hospital out-patients. One of the greatest factors in dealing with people suffering from cancer is the follow-up service after they have been in hospital—the post-operative service to those people. It would seem that 55 per cent. of these people require dressings or drugs. It is important to point out tint a medical officer of health stated that all his nurses had said that people suffering from cancer were suffering unnecessary pain because they were not getting enough sedatives. If you are going to charge for every prescription for sedatives, dressings and things of that kind, you are going to add to the difficulty of dealing with these people. The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, initiated a debate on the Health Service a few weeks ago, and I mentioned that a survey of the social conditions of people suffering from cancer had been conducted. I shall be very glad to give the noble Lord a copy of that report, which shows a condition of things which is really terrible. It would he harrowing to your Lordships if I were to read from that report. It shows without question that if any sort of impediment is placed in the way of these poor people getting all they want in the way of drugs, appliances or dressings, greater suffering will be entailed for them.
There is another point which I wish to stress in connection with this matter. This Amendment is different from the one upon which we divided, because that was concerned with young people and this is concerned very large)/ with old people. It was found that 70 per cent, of the
830
people suffering from cancer were of the age of sixty or over, and that 24 per cent. were over seventy-five years of age. All these people require drugs and dressings. There is another factor which is of some importance in this matter. The inquiries show that the degree of suffering endured by these people—and, remember, the inquiry was conducted under the general direction of the medical officers of health throughout the whole country, together with the Queen's Institute of District Nurses—in the case of 27 per cent. was "slight" or "none at all"; in the case of 37 per cent. was "moderate"; in the case of 31 per cent. was "severe," and was "not known" in the case of 5 per cent. Therefore, some 70 per cent. of the people suffering from cancer were enduring great pain. And these are the people who, for the sake of what I call "fake" economy, are to be called upon to pay 1s., or whatever it may be, for the prescription. I cannot believe that any noble Lord who goes into this subject will be able to justify doing anything to discourage those people from getting all they need
I should like to go to the other end, as it were, of this dreadful scourge. We are doing all we can to encourage education—it is the only term I can use—in cancer treatment. We know the difficulty of avoiding creating what I may call cancer-phobia; and, therefore, the education that is needed in this connection is most carefully arranged and conducted. But is it helping us in our campaign to deal with this dreadful problem if we have a charge of Is. on prescriptions? Obviously, however little effect it may have on the educational side of things, it militates, to some extent, against that education. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give an undertaking that this matter will be considered. It is, I assure him, well worth his further consideration. I feel, too, that it will be quite possible to devise some scheme whereby the difficulties I have mentioned may be avoided.
What I am saying now will apply not only to malignant disease, but perhaps to a few other disabilities that may be mentioned later. I realise the difficulty and danger of excluding charges merely on the grounds of a particular disease. It is possible that information will be conveyed to the patient that might otherwise be regarded as better not communicated

831
to him. But would it not be possible to exclude from this Bill the people I have metioned? We have been asked already to exclude people up to the age of sixteen years; I am now asking the Committee to exclude people over sixty years of age, in order that those who are excluded will not be able, by reason of that fact, to assume that they suffer from a particular disease of whose nature it is better not to let them know. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, will be able to help us in this matter. I am putting the case very imperfectly, but I assure him that I am putting it from a very long survey of a good deal of work which has been done in connection with people suffering from cancer. I can assure the noble Lord that the imposition of a charge of 1s. in those cases will have a very deleterious effect, not only economically but psychologically, on people who certainly ought not to be caused any further worry in addition to that which they already have by reason of their illness. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("patient") insert ("who is suffering from malignant disease or").—(Lord Kershaw.)
4.35 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: The noble Lord has, of course, been dealing with a disease of which we are all frightened and which I think, more than any other human ill, commands our sympathy. He was good enough to say that he thought I would give the Amendment humane consideration. Perhaps he will not mind my mentioning the fact that for over twenty-five years I have been associated with endeavours to find some cure for this terrible scourge. There is, then, no question, I assure the noble Lord, of any lack of sympathy on my part. When I received the brief in connection with this Amendment which was provided for me by the Department which I am representing, the thing that went straight to my mind was the question of notification. I know, from personal experience, the fear that comes into a person's mind if he or she is told that he or she has cancer—or if any doubt is left in the person's mind about it. It is on those grounds that I would ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment. Let the person who has this terrible disease remain, as long as
832
nature will allow it, in ignorance of the fact.
Many will immediately say: "But will the person be able to get the necessary medicine?" Well, I think we have provided for that. I am not trying to make any Party point in this matter: this question moves me personally so much that I could not do that. But I think I may say that we have made provision that will enable these persons to get the necessary medicine even if they have not the means to pay for it themselves. I beg the noble Lord not to press this matter and thus put people with cancer in such a position that they will be told about it. I am sure that they are very much better left in ignorance—always provided that the State has made some provision whereby they can get the necessary medicine. That is a matter about which I talked for some time with the Department, because on this particular issue I was moved as the noble Lord has been moved. I have stated the conclusion I reached. I hope the Committee will think that it is the right conclusion, and that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. I have not dealt with the other issue which the noble Lord raised, the question of whether there were abuses or not. Perhaps I can deal with that later on, in connection with other Amendments, so that we can keep this matter of the malignant disease separate from the rest.
VISCOUNT HALL: I am sure we all sympathise with the noble Lord in his very difficult task, but I must say that I cannot for a moment consider that he answered the case so ably put by my noble friend. We all agree that these persons who are suffering from this terrible disease are deserving of all the sympathy and assistance that it is possible to give them. Why the noble Lord suggests that they would be informed of their complaint if they were exempted from the payment of this fee for prescriptions, I cannot understand.
LORD WOOLTON: They would be separated from other people.
VISCOUNT HALL: Why should that mean they would be informed of the nature of their disease?
LORD WOOLTON: I thought the point was that these people should be told that they did not have to pay for

833
their prescriptions because they were suffering from a particular disease. That, I thought, was the point which the noble Lord was putting to me.
VISCOUNT HALL: I did not understand that. There is no reason whatsoever why they should be informed. The only thing is that they would not be charged. They would be an exception. I dare say that every noble Lord sitting in this House has been faced with the tragic situation of having a member of his family who has suffered from this dread disease. When Her Majesty's Government say they cannot consider for a moment the exemption of a very small proportion of the population, it cannot be argued that the charge is to be imposed upon because of any abuse. There is no abuse whatsoever. It is simply a question of not in any way giving way, for fear that other cases might be argued as strongly as the case can be argued in this case. Much of what can be said in relation to the case which was argued by my noble friend Lord Kershaw can be said about other cases, but nothing nearly as strong as can be said about this particular disease.
May I quote one point to the noble Lord and other noble Lords opposite? What justification is there for exempting a person who is suffering from venereal disease and not a person who is suffering from a malignant disease? Can you justify such an exemption? I should be very surprised if you could justify it on its merits, or indeed if you could convince anybody that such a distinction was justified. It may be true that there is an international agreement which asks that tolerant treatment should be given to persons who are suffering from the latter type of disease, to which I have referred, but I beg the Government to show something more than sympathy in relation to this particular case. The amount of money which will be saved is infinitesimal. Let it not be said that there is any Party in this country that is going to impose what I consider a very unjust charge upon the people who are more deserving of our sympathy than almost any other section of the population.
4.42 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I shall take up only two or three minutes of your Lordships' time. I cannot: see any way out of the dilemma which has been put to us by the noble Lord, the Lord President
834
of the Council. Everyone in future will be charged unless he comes under the exceptions which we find in Clause 1, subsection (2). If, therefore, somebody gets off without a charge, and he is not in hospital and not suffering from a venereal disease and is not a school child, why will he be getting off? If the only exception made is this one, with which we all sympathise, of people suffering from a malignant disease, that will be the only reason why they are not charged by their medical practitioner or whoever else certifies this charge. A patient may go along and speak to a neighbour who, although he or she may not know the terms of the Bill (or the Act when it becomes an Act), may ask, "What did you have to pay for your prescription?" The patient will say: "Nothing." "Oh—have you really got that? How awful for you!"—because immediately that person will be put in the cancer class. Let us realise that that is what is going to happen if this disease is made the only exception.
The noble Viscount asked: "Why except people suffering from venereal disease and not these people, because, as we all know, anyone who is suffering from veneral disease has himself or herself taken the risk arid contracted the disease, which cannot be said to be the case with anyone suffering from cancer?" But the difference is surely that people suffering from cancer are, more likely to cure themselves if they have not the worry of knowing that they have the disease. I know of a case where a person thought that an operation had been successful. The doctors knew that it had not, but they never told that particular patient. She thought it had been a completely successful cure. From that moment, although the doctors had failed, the thing disappeared the cancer left her. That would not have happened unless she had had in herself the faith to think that she had been cured.
On the other hand, if you do not let people off in the case of venereal disease, they may be likely not to go for early treatment—and that is the very worst thing that can happen to anybody who catches a venereal disease. The whole idea there is to make treatment as easy and as anonymous as possible. I think it is quite right that the charge has been remitted in that particular case, but I

835
honestly believe that we might be doing more harm than good if we were to treat as the only exception, out of hospital (I leave out venereal disease, because everybody knows whether or not people have that disease), people suffering from the most grievous complaint of all, people with whom we all have the utmost sympathy. Until it is necessary for them to know, and by that time they are probably in hospital, they should surely be relieved of the anxiety of knowing the truth and should not get the news in the roundabout way in which they would if no charge were made upon them for any medicine. From the practical point of view—I am not a doctor, of course—I do not quite know what medicine or drug peculiar to cancer can be given. If there is one, I do not know of it, but I do not believe that there is any cure of that sort for this disease, so that it is not as though we are dealing with a drug that is specific to the disease itself. For those reasons, I hope that, although we have the greatest sympathy with the people suffering from this complaint, we shall not make them the only exception.
LORD BURDEN: I am sure that everyone who listened to the moving speech of my noble friend and colleague Lord Kershaw must be aware of his knowledge of this problem and that he speaks with a wealth of understanding of what is involved. Speaking for myself, and I think for everybody on these Benches—and. I hope, for some noble Lords on the opposite Benches—I feel that they must be profoundly disappointed with the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, particularly as my noble friend Lord Kershaw had foreseen the point which the noble Lord made and pointed out a way in which it could be met. The noble Lord said in that speech, as in his previous speech, that those who really were in need could be provided for. That was the tenor of what was said by the noble Lord in his introductory speech. But before I come to that point, may I just deal with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. Is there any reason to suppose that those who ask people who attend for cancer, and would know that they had cancer if they were exempted from the charge, would not ask those attending for treatment for venereal disease? Is it not just as likely that people suffering from venereal disease
836
may be asked whether or not they have paid for their prescription, and on saying that they had not, would be asked, "Are you _suffering from that?" Is not that rather indulging in logic-chopping?
LORD LLEWELLIN: The whole difference between the two is surely that the neighbour knows that the patient has been to the doctor only by the fact of the patient coming back and saying "I went to the doctor and got some medicine." A person suffering from venereal disease is not likely to start that conversation.
LORD BURDEN: I have never heard such a weak and ineffective argument in my life, particularly when it may concern areas where this may possibly develop. I will not pursue that point, because one realises that it is a matter of logic-chopping, and logic-chopping only.
To get back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wootton, may I suggest to the noble Lord, in all seriousness, that in basing his case on need he is departing from a principle which has been operative in this country for forty years? He is departing from the principle laid down in the Act introduced by Lloyd George in 1911, and embodied in the 1925 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, said that we are putting forward these proposals on sentimental grounds. There is a good deal to be said for these claims on sentimental grounds. But apart from the grounds suggested in the moving speech of my noble friend Lord Kershaw, I would put this forward from another point of view. These charges mean that persons are being deprived, not of what they could expect under a contract but certainly of what they had reasonably hoped for after many years of contribution to the National Insurance Fund and in National Health contributions.
For many years—in fact since 1925—people have been voluntarily contributing towards their expectations at the end of their time. They may have paid 4s, and something a week for benefits, including medical treatment. After that, if they were prudent people, and were self-employed, they would pay 6s. and something a week. They had reason to expect that if these troubles arose in their old age they would receive medical care and

837
attention without further cost to themselves. They were making reasonable provision for that. But the noble Lord says: "No; those who have made reasonable provision for themselves and do not come within the scope of the help which can be given under the National Assistance scale must pay; but those who have not, those who are within the National Health scale, will get help and will not pay." That may not be a breach of contract, but I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country in the category that I have described, who have been deprived of what was a reasonable expectation to them—namely, that in their declining years they would have medical care because they have paid for it. I put it to Lord Woolton that he is introducing once again, and for the first time in this Administration, the Poor Law test. He is bringing back again the principle that help will be given in cases of necessity, but that those who have paid for it are not to have it.
Apart from the moving speech put forward with a wealth of knowledge of the circumstances by my noble friend Lord Kershaw, I suggest, on grounds of equity and reasonable treatment for people who over a number of years have paid in the hope of not having to contribute for any sickness in their declining years—and particularly for this disease which is the dread disease of old age—that the shadow should be lifted from their lives in a way possible without any fear of letting them know. Let the line be drawn at 60, 65, or what you will, but give this help to people who have contributed towards it and who had a reasonable hope of expecting that treatment and help would be given to them in the last days of their lives.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I gathered from the speech which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, that he would like to accept this Amendment but for the fact, which has been reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that it would mean identifying the people who suffer from this particular kind of disease. If that is so, I would suggest that that is all the stronger reason why, when we come to it, the noble Lord should be willing to accept an Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucan, which would exempt those
838
who are certified as "chronic sick." That would be a means of escaping this difficulty of identification. and of enabling to be done what it seems every member of this Committee would like to see done.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I had not intended to intervene again in these discussions, but the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has more or loss challenged me to take some part. I would take this opportunity to try to keep a better balanced view in regard to the matter dealt with in this Amendment, and to remember that the only effective treatment for this disease is to be obtained in hospital. Treatment that can be given outside hospital, unfortunately, is only palliative. Many people have the idea—I should like to put this crumb of comfort into the debate—that cancer is a painful disease throughout its course, and they paint lurid pictures of the agonies of pain accompanying death from cancer. That is not a true picture. I have had half a century of work particularly with cancer, and I have had to work with cancer patients who were kept in hospital to the very end. It is not the outstanding clinical picture—that picture of pain. It may be great discomfort. Pain can be relieved in various ways, not only by medicine but by nerve section, and so on, so that the part affected is made insensitive. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, suggested that people were going to be deprived of medical care. They are not being deprived of medical care. The only suggestion is that when they require some medicaments they should pay, like other sufferers.
I wish to make only one other remark to the Committee, and that is in order to reinforce the view of the Lord President of the Council with regard to the undesirability of giving to the patient any idea that he has a malignant disease. He must be guarded from that, I think. I know some people take a different view, but my experience has been that it has never done a patient any good to be told, and almost invariably it has done serious harm by undermining morale. I would give the Committee just one illustration. In the whole of my surgical career, when I have had to suggest an exploratory operation, on many occasions the patient has said: "I insist on knowing what you find." If you do not go into their room the next day, or that same evening, and say: "Well, you have

839
nothing to worry about; all is well," they do not ask you. In the course of half a century of practice I was asked only once, and then by a very strong-minded man, and he did not ask me directly. The day before he left the nursing home he said, "I have a lot of loose credits lying about; would you advise me to buy an annuity? I said: "If you cannot manage your own money you are a different type of man than I take you for." I mention that only because to me it has been a most striking fact that in all that time only one man should have asked, and then only indirectly. So I beg your Lordships not to do anything which would make it more likely that the patient would realise that he had a malignant disease.
LORD KERSHAW: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to deal with a few points that have been raised. In the first place, I should like to say that I never thought I should live to hear an eminent surgeon declare that cancer is not a painful disease. I think it is shocking that an eminent surgeon should declare that we are exaggerating the painful nature of cancer.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: If the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, will give way to me for a moment, I should like to explain that I did not go so far as to say that cancer is not a painful disease. I said that that is not a predominant feature of the clinical course throughout the progress of cancer.
LORD KERSHAW: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. If an ordinary person reading Hansard to-morrow does not get the impression that the noble Lord would place other factors in connection with the disease as being of more importance than the physical suffering of the patient, then I cannot understand the English language. I wonder whether the noble Lord is, perhaps, getting out of date on this matter. There is a very definite movement in hand at this moment to persuade people that if they are suffering from some pain which they do not quite understand they should take early advice. An eminent surgeon who is occupied almost entirely with this subject, and who I am glad to call my very dear friend, tells me that he is quite sure 8,000 people die unnecessarily every year through cancer. That is to say that, if
840
we could persuade them to take early advice on this matter, 8,000 people could be saved every year. When I remember the interests, the very powerful interests, that were aroused some years ago in relation to the fact that some 2,000 or 3,000 women were dying unnecessarily in childbirth every year, I wonder if the public knew that there were these 8,000 people who could be saved, what kind of agitation could be worked up in this country in connection with that matter. This is such a dreadful subject, the suffering of these people is so heartrending, that no one can think of it without being disturbed. I did hope that the Committee would approach the matter from the point of view of a Council of State rather than as two Parties.
LORD WOOLTON: Hear, hear!
LORD KERSHAW: It is all very well to say, "Hear, hear!" The only thing that matters in this connection is action. What are you going to do? The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, says that it is quite right to exclude people suffering from venereal disease, because it is so desirable that they should take early treatment. God bless my soul! the very thing we want in connection with cancer sufferers is that they shall take early advice and treatment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If the noble Lord would kindly give way to me for a moment, I should just like to say that I was not approaching this grave and important matter in any Party spirit. I hope that the noble Lord will acquit me of doing that in a serious case like this. I believe it would be wrong to tell these people by an indirect way: "You are suffering from cancer" I really believe that, and I hope that the noble Lord will give me credit for it.
LORD KERSHAW: I think I made it perfectly clear, in moving this Amendment, that that was the difficulty—that if you exclude people on account of their having a malignant disease, then it might be that they would discover that fact through not having to pay for their certificate. But in my time I have had a good deal to do with our wonderful Civil Service, and I am satisfied, in my own mind, that even if cancer sufferers alone were to be excluded—and as the Committee knows, there are later Amendments which would exclude other sufferers, and the more

841
other classes of sufferers are excluded, the more the danger that Lord Llewellin referred to will be diminished—our Civil Service could devise a system of prescribing which would not entail a payment every week or month by people suffering from this and similar diseases. All I ask the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, to do is to take this matter back and think about it.
I am not approaching it at all from a Party spirit. I know of many noble Lords on the other side of the House who are as keen as I am on this subject and spend as much time as I do on it, and I claim no Party advantage for this Amendment or anything connected with it. But I say, with all the knowledge I have of this subject, that it is worthy of further consideration by the noble Lord. I am satisfied that ways and means could be devised that would avoid the disclosure of this disease to the patient, and I hope that the noble Lord will find himself able to respond in this matter. I appreciate that where a Minister in charge of the Bill is not in charge of the Department from which the Bill emanates, it is difficult to give a reply, but if the noble Lord will undertake to discuss the matter with his Minister, I shall be most grateful to him, and I think he himself will feel that he had done something good for these people.
EARL JOWITT: Before the noble Lord replies, may I make this suggestion? I appreciate the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, mentioned about having to disclose to a patient that he has this sort of disease and that that is what influenced the mind of the noble Lord. The last Amendment on the first page, No. 7, reads,
"or is certified by a medical practitioner to be one of the chronic sick."
Might that not be a way out, if the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, saw his way to accept this Amendment? Then, if a man suffering from cancer, who needs all kinds of sedatives and other medicines, is treated as one of the "chronic sick," he will not be labelled to his own knowledge to be suffering from a malignant disease. It seems to me a very unpleasant task for any Minister to have to impose a charge on these unfortunate people. If the noble Lord wants to help them, as he said he did—arid I am sure he does, as we all do—is there not a possibility that
842
by accepting Amendment No. 7, he may get out of this difficulty and meet Lord Llewellin's point?
LORD CHORLEY: Before the noble Lord replies, may I ask a question? The noble Lord has indicated that the Government would be prepared to accept this Amendment if it were not for the fact that it would involve disclosing to sufferers from this terrible disease that they are suffering from it. In many of these cases it is perfectly well known to the patient and there is no question of secrecy at all, but in those cases where the patient does not know he is suffering from this disease, it is the doctor handling the case who is in the best position to judge. If the doctor thinks he should not know, then the doctor need not give him the prescription. If this Amendment were accepted as it stands, would it not leave the matter in the hands of the medical practitioner in charge of the case?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is one of those cases where any House of Parliament would find itself in great difficulty, and I frankly confess that we on the Government's side find ourselves as much moved by the issue as anybody else in this House. It is a difficult question. The noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, said that if only we could accept this Amendment, that at any rate would give ease and comfort to a number of people. He seemed to indicate that if we accepted this Amendment, he would not press for any others. There are other similar Amendments on the Order Paper. For instance, there is one dealing with those suffering from tuberculosis. It has been my sad misfortune to know people in the last stages of tuberculosis, and I cannot believe that the suffering from cancer is very much greater than that. There are other Amendments dealing with other serious diseases, and there are other diseases which are not included in the Amendments and which might well be included. For example, there are no references to any disease of the heart, and some of those are just as painful and just as unhappy as this terrible disease we are discussing now. I do not think it would he possible to accept this Amendment without considering the acceptance of a great many others. I do not know where this would stop. With the best will in the world, it puts us in a difficult position.
What I would suggest for the consideration of the House is this. I hope the

843
noble Lord will not press this Amendment or any others, and when we come to the omnibus Amendment dealing with those suffering from chronic diseases—although I do not know exactly what a "chronic disease" is—that is a matter which might be considered before the Report stage, although I should not like to give any great encouragement. I should be dishonest with the House if I were to do so. I do not think it would be possible for us to accept this Amendment without accepting a large number of others, about which the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, does not care so much, but to which other noble Lords attach equal importance. Therefore, I am sure my noble friend feels that we must stand firm on this Amendment because it does not seem to us that in this case we could make a differentiation. I am sure that others of us would be willing to consider some sort of wider Amendment, but I could not give very great encouragement about accepting it, because it seems to me to drive a cleft in the Bill and cause such injury to it that it would be hardly worth while putting it in.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No one who has heard this painful debate can be unaware of the fact that the question has entered a third phase. First, nobody says it is to save money. Secondly, nobody says that a man is humbugging, that he is shamming cancer to create an abuse. The new argument is that we must charge a man a shilling in case he should find out that he has cancer. That is the argument. The effort of the noble Marquess to get out of that is to say that we are moving an Amendment which is not anything so direct. If he can reject this Amendment, then it is clear that
when he comes to the chronic sick Amendment, all the arguments advanced on this Amendment can be fortified ten times and that chronic sick Amendment can be rejected. The fact of the matter is that this Bill is a thoroughly wicked Bill. It is a wicked Bill because it is charging money to people who are poor and people who are sick. That is the basis of our objection to the Bill, and it is focused on that particular point. Of course, we all sympathise; but what is the good of sympathy? Here is a person who is poor and suffering from cancer, and you pinpoint him for a charge: and you say that you should charge him because he has cancer. That goes also for the man who is a diabetic, and for the man who is tubercular. It means that the person to be charged is the person in the direst danger. Therefore, I think the Amendment is a good one, and that the mover should insist on it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I feel that the noble Viscount's speech is a most ungenerous one. I should have thought that it was clear to all noble Lords that we are very sincere in our attitude to this matter. For the noble Viscount to suggest that this is a pure Party manœuvre—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I never said a word about that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That was the implication. I thought it an ungenerous and an almost indecent speech to make.
On Question, Whether the said new words be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Chorley, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Jowitt, E.

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Morrison, L.

Greenhill, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hall, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Pakenham, L.

Stansgate, V.

Henderson, L.

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Kenswood, L.

Quibell, L.

Ammon, L.

Kershaw, L.

Rochester, L.

Archibald, L.

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Bingham, L, (E, Lucan.)[Teller.]

Layton, L.

Silkin, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Davidson, V.

Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

Furness, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Woolton, L. (L. President.)

Harcourt, V.

Gifford, L.

Hudson, V.

Greville, L.

Margesson, V.

Hampton, L.

Wellington, D.

Maugham, V.

Hindlip, L.

Monsell, V.

Leathers, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Rothermere, V.

Llewellin, L.

Reading, M.

Swinton, V.

Lloyd, L.

Salisbury, M.

Mancroft, L.

Willingdon, M.

Aberdare, L.

Milverton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Parmoor, L.

Alexander of Tunis.

Aldenham, L.

Remnant, L.

De La Warr, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Dundonald, E.

Audley, L.

Rochdale, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Bethell, L.

Rockley, L.

Howe, E.

Blackford, L.

Saltoun, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Sandford, L.

Rothes, E.

Cherwell, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwlliam.)

Schuster, L.

Selborne, E.

Cranvvorth, L.

Selsdon, L.

Selkirk, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Teviot, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Dorchester, L.

Teynham, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Ennisdale, L.

Wolverton, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
5.30 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I have a statement to make with regard to future Business. There are already seven speakers on the Motion on the Order Paper for to-morrow in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cork, and about thirteen or fourteen on the Transport Motion, Therefore, it has been arranged through the usual channels that we should take Lord Cork's Motion first, which will probably continue until half-past four or five o'clock. It is then proposed to take the Transport Motion, to adjourn the House at seven o'clock, and to continue the debate on that Motion on Tuesday next.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, the noble Earl says that it has been agreed "through the usual channels." Is he sure that he is right? What happened, so far as I am concerned, was that my noble friend Lord Shepherd came to me and told me of this proposal and asked what I thought about it. After seeing those concerned with the Transport Motion it was obvious that they were reluctant to do this. Therefore, I said that I would not agree. I cannot think that after that Lord Shepherd would have agreed, and I feel that there must be a
846
misunderstanding. I feel this would be a most inconvenient arrangement. It is unfortunate that we cannot start our discussion on the Transport Bill earlier. Personally, I should rather have had a full day of it, even if it meant going over to Tuesday. I think it is most unsatisfactory to have a debate in two parts. I do not think, after you have had the first "bite at the cherry," so to speak, that it is possible to get the debate satisfactorily going again. I am inclined to think that it would be better to put off the whole matter until Tuesday. May I make this suggestion? The machinery seems to have broken down. Would noble Lords consent to the matter being mentioned again to-morrow, and in the meantime we will get busy, through the usual channels, and try to make an arrangement that will satisfy everybody?
LORD REA: My Lords, may I support the noble and learned Earl? One noble Lord who was corning to speak tomorrow will not now be able to come. The normal channels have been blocked in this direction. I should appreciate it if the noble Earl's suggestion could be considered.
EARL FORTESCUE: I understood from Lord Shepherd that he had agreed on behalf of noble Lords opposite to this arrangement. We will look into the matter again and I will make a statement early to-morrow.
EARL JOWITT: I am sure that there must be some misunderstanding
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would say this to the noble Earl. Of course, we will revert to the matter tomorrow, but there is no Business on the Paper for Tuesday, and I am still doubtful whether we shall be able to complete the debate on Transport in a single day. That I do not know. This seemed to me a possibility—and I am putting it to the noble Lords only so that they may consider it overnight: we could have, say, the first part of the debate, to include a statement by my noble friend, Lord Leathers, to-morrow. That would give an opportunity to the Opposition and to the noble Lords on the Government side to consider what he says. That would be half a day. Then there would be a full day to finish the debate on Tuesday, for which day, as I say, there is at present no Business.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
5.35 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to paragraph (a) of subsection (2): "or is under twenty-one years of age." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that patients who are out-patients of hospitals and who are under twenty-one years of age will not be liable for any charge in respect of the supply of drugs, medicines, or appliances. This, again, is a very special and limited case. Of course, it will apply to children and, although the question of children has been dealt with in an earlier Amendment as regards those who have to purchase drugs and medicines as the result of a prescription from their doctor, this is a much more limited case of children who are outpatients at hospitals and require drugs or medicines.
The intention of this Amendment is that they should not be subject to any charge. Of course, it goes further than children; it applies to young persons under the age of twenty-one. The justification, to my mind, for exempting persons under twenty-one, is two-fold. In the first instance, they are clearly people
848
whose earnings are low and who may be trainees or apprentices, just beginning to make their way in the world. A charge may be a hardship to them. Secondly, in any case, by the very fact that they are attending as out-patients of a hospital, they are suffering a certain amount of disability because normal treatment at the hospital is in the daytime and they have to get time off from their work, presumably losing pay. So there is a double hardship in the case of persons under twenty-one, who are of an earning age: first, that their earnings are low and, secondly, that they are, by the very fact of their attending hospital as out-patients, losing pay. This is a limited class of persons who, I would submit, are deserving of special sympathy. I would further submit that the cost to the Exchequer is bound to be very small. There cannot be large numbers of young persons under twenty-one who are attending as out-patients at hospitals: but those who are will suffer some hardship if they have to pay this charge. For those reasons, I hope that this Amendment will receive more sympathetic treatment than its predecessors. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("hospital") insert ("or is under twenty-one years of age").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I cannot quite see the argument of the noble Lord that people who are being treated as outpatients should have special treatment which would be different from that received by people who for other reasons, probably by arrangement, go to their doctor's surgery in the evening. I think that would be most inequitable. Also, I feel that it might tend to encourage people to attend hospitals and, therefore, to overcrowding the out-patient departments, if they thought that by going to an out-patient department, rather than to their family doctor, they could get their medicines or appliances free. Of course, so far as the appliances are concerned, a large proportion of the people under twenty-one are already exempted—that is to say, children who are under sixteen or who are still receiving full-time education at school. I do not think the arguments here are even as strong as those raised in support of what I may say were more serious cases. I am afraid that I am unable, on behalf of Her Majesty's

849
Government, to accept the Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
VISCOUNT HALL: It is not our intention to do anything other than express our point of view upon this Amendment. It is not intended that we should divide, but we protest against this as a part of the Bill which is objectionable.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.42 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL LORD GREENHILL moved to add to paragraph (a) of subsection (2):
"or in a chest clinic or other treatment centre administered as part of the hospital service ".
The noble Lord said: I know that it is customary to say that I hope the Government will accept this Amendment in a non-controversial spirit, and will agree to it. I do so quite seriously, however, because I think there is nothing in my Amendment which conflicts in any way with the intention of the Government. The Government have said that, owing to the fact that the country is rather hard up, they expect a contribution from the National Health Service Fund. However, they say that, in spite of the country's being hard up, there are certain cases in which no charges will be made. One of those charges is as indicated in lines 11 and 12 of subsection (2) (a):
"The supply of any drug, medicine or appliance for a patient who is for the time being resident in a hospital;"
All I am asking is that you add to that:
"or in a chest clinic or other treatment centre administered as part of the hospital service."
I cannot believe that what the Government are saying, in effect, is that a charge shall not be made for somebody resident in hospital but that the exemption shall not apply to a person in a clinic.
I say this not on any grounds of sentimental appeal. I say this because I have been in touch with the Medical Officer of Health for Glasgow. My information is that considerably anxiety is felt about this particular matter by the Western Regional Hospital Board and by the Executive Council there. In Glasgow, for example, tuberculosis clinics were formed a quarter of a century ago, and no charges have been made to people receiving treatment there. Even now, the Regional Hospital Board supply certain foods, such as malt, cod liver oil, and so on, and dis-
850
infectant to those attending, for which no charge is made. Since 1948, everyone placed on the list of a general practitioner can get that service free. The question is: Why should we make a special charge on these people? Is it the case, for example, that this Bill will now require dispensaries to make a charge for medicines? If so, certain difficulties will arise. For example, as noble Lords will appreciate, this matter of disinfectants is of very great importance. Disinfectants, I understand, are on the drug tariff, and are therefore regarded as a prescription. Since it is of the utmost importance that these vessels should be kept absolutely disinfected, does it mean that every time a disinfectant is prescribed the sufferer will have to pay his Is. for the prescription?
Again, there are the substances given by way of nourishment to people suffering from tuberculosis. As noble Lords will know, when the Sir Henry Cohen Committee reported, they advised that there were certain substances which could be given to persons such as those who were losing weight. These substances could not be called drugs, but were called foods and, therefore, would not be liable for the 1s. prescription fee. One would like to be clear about that point—that is, whether these foods, as the Report calls them, or drugs, as medical men are inclined to call them, are to go on to a prescription; and, if so, whether 1s. is to be charged. When one considers the numbers involved, particularly in the Glasgow and South-Western area, one finds that the numbers are very considerable. In respect of definite drugs, I am told that the number of prescriptions in any year would amount to 60,000. Each of these prescriptions covers a period of about two weeks for the drugs supplied; and if a prescription were also necessary for the disinfectant that would add a further 96,000 prescriptions, making a total of 156,000 prescriptions per annum. At a cost of is. per head, I am told that that would involve E. figure of £7,800. Assuming that some intention not to demand payment is included in this Bill, I would ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Wootton, cannot see his way to include these additional words in that particular part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("hospital") insert ("or in a chest clinic or other treatment centre administered as part of the hospital service.")—(Lord Greenhill.)
LORD WOOLTON: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the noble Lord. I do not know whether there is a misapprehension, but if the noble Lord will be good enough to look at subsection (2) (a) he will see that it reads as follows:
"the supply of any drug, medicine or appliance for a patient who is for the time being resident in hospital."
and, then, according to the noble Lord's Amendment he wants to add "or in a chest clinic.…" Have I got that right?
LORD GREENHILL: Yes, that is the wording. I confess that that did occur to me, and I wonder whether it would satisfy noble Lords if I were to ask leave to amend my words and have "or who attends a chest clinic," rather than "resident in."
LORD WOOLTON: Thank you very much. I did not want there to be any misapprehension because, of course, if a person is in a hospital, then the whole question which the noble Lord has raised does not in fact arise, because the patient gets all these things free. It arises only if he is not in hospital but is being attended by his doctor or going to one of these institutions which the noble Lord mentions—
LORD KERSHAW: Or as an outpatient.
LORD WOOLTON: Or as an outpatient in a hospital. I do not think it would be just to say that the person who goes to a doctor shall pay for his prescription, but that the person who goes as an out-patient to any of these institutions shall not pay. As I am sure your Lordships realise, the result of that administratively would mean that one would have still further overcrowding of hospitals, clinics, and the like. And on those grounds we did not think it would be a good thing to do.
The noble Lord raised the question of prescriptions. I do not think it need be quite so hard as the noble Lord indicated in the figures he quoted: because, of course, these disinfectants are required all the time by people in this condition: and it is perfectly proper for the doctor to give a prescription for a quantity which would cover quite a long period. The noble Lord also raised the question of whether a patient would have to pay for the drugs and the foods that were involved and were prescribed by the doctor
852
in his prescription. The answer is that the Bill does apply if they are attending an out-patients' department or a private doctor. It may be that the noble Lord had in mind people who were resident as patients in rehabilitation centres. If so, since, by the definition in the Act of 1946, these places are "hospitals," those people do not have to pay. I regret that I am not able to accept the Amendment.
LORD GREENHILL: Perhaps I may be allowed to ask a question, based on my experience in this House. I should like to have some clarification on this matter. On May 1 in another place, Commander Galbraith, who, I think, was speaking for the Ministry of Health said:
"I want to make it clear to the hon. Member that treatment at the clinic does not come into this matter at all. but it is only where a prescription is given to be taken away from the clinic that the charge is made …"
What exactly does that mean?
LORD WOOLTON: It is always difficult to interpret what someone else means.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But Commander Galbraith read his whole speech. It was an official brief.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: He might have written it himself.
LORD WOOLTON: My interpretation was that Commander Galbraith was assuming that this was a clinic in which people were resident, where the prescription was taken away from the clinic. If it is administered in the clinic then people do not pay, because the doctor there is doing the administration. It is when you take the prescription away that you have to pay for it. I think that that is the correct interpretation, though I am taken a little at a loss by not having had notice of the question. If I am wrong I will apologise at the proper time.
LORD KERSHAW: I think the noble Lord will find that out-patients, even though they get their prescriptions dispensed at the hospital, will have to pay for the prescription.
LORD WOOLTON: It depends whether they are consumed on the premises.
LORD KERSHAW: Not consumed: taken away.
VISCOUNT HALL: We certainly need a little more information in connection with this matter. I should advise my

853
noble friend to withdraw the Amendment and, if the noble Lord will agree, we may have a talk between now and Report stage and see whether something can be done.
LORD WOOLTON: I am delighted to accept that suggestion.
LORD GREENHILL: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to add to subsection (2) (a):
"or is an out-patient following on a period of resident treatment
The noble Lord said: I hope this Amendment will not be rejected by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. I think that everyone will agree that the modern technique in our hospitals is to get the patient up and out as quickly as possible. Whether that is right or wrong from a medical point of view it would be presumptuous for me to try to determine, and I should not in any way try to do so. But I think that everyone is aware of the great pressure on our hospitals to take in cases, and it is natural, therefore, that they should try to get patients out as quickly as possible. In these circumstances, I suggest that the illness should be regarded as a continuous illness and that there would be no payment for treatment or for anything involved following the stay in hospital.
There is under the Bill a curious contrast with the former practice. Under the 1929 Act, which was passed by a Conservative Government, people were compelled to pay—or, rather, it would be more correct to say that local authorities were compelled to render an account for full costs for the stay in hospital, and then the various committees of the council would determine what charge should be made, or whether no charge at all should be made, for the stay in hospital. But we now get the curious anomaly that a person who has had a stay in hospital and. is sent out, quickly or otherwise, has to pay for anything which arises—including, as I understand it, appliances. Surely this is putting a great strain on human nature. Let me give an example. "A" goes into hospital
854
and requires certain surgical appliances for which, under the Bill, if he were not in hospital a charge would be made. Now "A," fortunately for him, gets the appliances while he is in hospital. But "B," in the next bed, requiring perhaps similar appliances and not getting them, owing to a time lag in the supply, goes out and then has to apply to the hospital again, and has to pay for the appliances. Surely there should be parity of treatment in cases of that kind, and not the unfairness which arises through difference of treatment between two persons who may be in hospital at the very same moment.
There is another point. As I understand the Bill, it will apply also to mental hospitals. It is the practice in mental hospitals that some patients, for various reasons, are let out on licence. It is not unknown for a patient in a mental hospital to require some sort of appliance, not necessarily connected with his mental trouble but connected with some physical trouble or disease. If he is in the mental hospital, as I understand the Bill, that appliance will be supplied, but if he or she is out, then it will have to be paid for, whether it is a surgical belt or whatever article it may be. I believe that already it has been suggested that that problem might be overcome' on the "cat and mouse" principle, which some of your Lordships may remember operated many years ago: "Let them out, bring them back in, and then let them out again" The idea is to let him out and, if he requires an appliance, bring him in and then let him out again on licence—an ingenious way of getting over the difficulty, if the doctors in the institution lions care to apply it. I do not know—it may be going too far to suggest that that has been indicated as a way out. I am not sure of my facts in regard to that matter and I prefer not to develop the point. But I beg the noble Lord to realise that, so far as an illness is concerned, it should be treated as continuous and steps taken to bring the person concerned to health and to enable him to return to industry as quickly as possible. I am sure that can be done only by the acceptance of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("hospital") insert the said words.—(Lord Burden.)
6.1 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Here, again, by the noble Lord's Amendment, a difference—I do not think it is a right difference—would be created between those who for some reason carry on the remainder of their treatment as outpatients, after being in hospital, and those who return home and are treated by their doctor. We have heard much about equity and fairness from the Benches opposite this afternoon. Why should noble Lords opposite suggest now that a certain class of person, because he or she prefers to be treated by the family doctor at home, should pay whatever it is that he or she is required to pay, and those who choose to go to the outpatients' department should get it free? I may be stupid, but I fail to see why that difference should exist. I cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HALL: Is there not another point to this matter? What my noble friend had in mind, very largely, was the fact that there is a scarcity of hospital beds in this country. There is scarcely a district in which there are not hundreds on the lists waiting to get into hospitals, while a substantial proportion of persons who really ought not to leave the hospitals are persuaded to leave and continue their treatment at home. If that is so, of course they are serving a very great need. Is it fair and equitable that those people, in the event of their requiring what was suggested by my noble friend, should pay because they have accommodated the hospital authorities and had their treatment at home for a week, or a month, perhaps for six weeks? I have known of many people who, with their consent, have left hospital within a very short time of a serious operation, solely for the purposes of making room available for others to come in. I do not quite know what the circumstances are or what the position is, but it would be very unfair for those people to be called upon to pay simply because they had met the request of the hospital authorities.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Viscount misunderstood me, because that really was the theme of my argument. Lord Burden's Amendment covers only those people who, when they come out of hospital, are treated in the out-patients' department. Those who go home and are treated by the family doctor would
856
not be excepted. That is the whole of my argument. Admittedly, both classes have said: "We are prepared to get out of our beds earlier than possibly is wise, in order to give way to other people in need of in-patient treatment." One goes to the family doctor because it is more convenient, and the other continues in the out-patients' department. By this Amendment, you would give free treatment to those who, for whatever reason, were treated in the out-patients' department, but not to those who went home. That is not equitable. We cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: We should be happy to extend the Amendment to cover those who go home, and to dispose of the anomaly in that way, if there is an injustice. That is quite simple.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Lord has not that Amendment down on the Paper.
LORD BURDEN: I know, but the point surely is this: that a person who is requested to attend as an out-patient, and attends as an out-patient, does not elect to attend as an out-patient. Obviously, there is something in his trouble that the hospital staff require to have under care and supervision. For that reason—it may be the journey involved in travelling to the hospital, or all sorts of other conditions of that kind—while we have not been able thus far to do away with the anomaly of charging at all, we do suggest that where, obviously for the convenience of the hospital, a person is asked to go home, and it is said: "You must come here regularly for two or three months," that should be regarded as part of the treatment and not charged for. This is really also a matter of business. There are plenty of people on the hospital management committees who will say: "Very well, if that is the line that is being taken, and people who for our convenience are sent home are going to be mulcted in charge when they come to the outpatients' department or in some way are brought into the hospital purview, then we will keep them in."
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He has gone slightly wrong, because, if they are

857
receiving treatment in the out-patients' department, they will not pay for the treatment.
LORD BURDEN: No.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is only if they take a prescription away to get a bottle of medicine. They will not pay for the treatment.
LORD BURDEN: I know; that is the point. They have to go there in order to get their trouble attended to.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: And they get it free.
LORD BURDEN: But, to the best of my knowledge, there are few out-patients' departments that administer medicines or anything of that kind. People go there for consultation, they are advised there, and also there may be an examination by a doctor there. They may be put to all sorts of inconvenience in going there. I suggest that this is a minor Amendment. There is little money involved in it. It is an administrative matter which might help hospital management committees to continue their present practice—because there are involved not only treatment but also appliances. The noble Lord has not dealt with the point in regard to appliances which I raised—namely, that "A" may be in hospital and get his appliance free, while "B" is sent home and then will have to pay. Surely, that is an injustice, too. Will not the noble Lord look at this point and see whether anything can be done to remedy what I believe is a real defect which might be adjusted with little difficulty?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I understood the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to say a few minutes ago that, although a charge would be made on a person who was attending as an outpatient at a hospital for any medicine which was given to him there, it was only in the case where he took away a prescription that he would be charged. Would the noble Earl explain how he reconciles that statement with the provisions of subsection (1) of this clause and also with the provisions of subsection (2) paragraph (a), which we are now discussing?
LORD WOOLTON: I think there is a mistake. I did not hear precisely what my noble friend said, but I am quite sure
858
of the facts of the position, and they are these. If the patient going to hospital under the conditions that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has indicated, has to have treatment there involving the use of medicaments, then he is not charged for those. On the other hand, if he gets a prescription at the out-patients' department and has to take that elsewhere to be made up, then he is in precisely the same position as if he had not gone to an out-patients' department but had consulted what we call the family doctor.
LORD BURDEN: What about appliances? I am not satisfied, but we are not carrying this Amendment to a Division. We shall probably wish it to be considered again in a different form on the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved to add to subsection (2) (a):
"or is certified by a medical practitioner to be one of the chronic sick''.
The noble Earl said: The Amendment I now propose to move falls into the category which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, when he spoke some time ago. It is one of those for which the main grounds are sentimental. I have yet to learn that it is any reproach to be actuated by sentiment in questions of the sick and the elderly. In fact, although I am no anthropologist, I should doubt whether there are many savage tribes in which the care of the sick and elderly does not arouse sentiment and sympathy. The chronic sick are, almost by definition, amongst the poorer people in the community, because chronic sickness does not arise shortly; it presupposes a long period of illness during which the patient or sufferer is not able to earn as well as his fellows. He is probably someone who has been in hospital and has been discharged as incurable. Sometimes he may still continue to attend hospital for the advancement of medical science. The doctors may require that the patient should continue to attend hospital in order that the progress of the disease may be watched. Generally, such people need medicines at more or less frequent intervals. That, shortly, is the case for this Amendment. There is a genuine class of person who will suffer under this Bill. Only a day or two ago, two old ladies

859
to whom I was talking were almost in despair at the prospect of having to make frequent regular payments for their medicines. The case is simple. It is founded on the same arguments and, I consider, the same strength of case as many others. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("hospital") insert ("or is certified by a medical practitioner to be one of the chronic sick").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord in charge of the Bill has asked me to reply on this Amendment, possibly because he feels that he can give only the same answer and would like to hear somebody else give it. It is only the same answer that one can give here. Already it has been indicated that we must resist the Amendment in regard to a class of persons which commands our full sympathy—namely, those who are suffering from a malignant disease. We have excluded children, for whom so much sympathy has been called. I am afraid that we shall have to oppose an Amendment in regard to those who suffer from diabetes; and we must oppose the Amendment which deals with those who are certified to be of the chronic sick—I understand that to be a technical expression. No doubt it covers those who are suffering from diseases to which at present the medical profession has found no cure, such as rheumatoid-arthritis and some forms of paralysis. But precisely the same answer must be given.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Which answer?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer that Her Majesty's Government are not able to accept the Amendment. I am sorry. I did not appreciate the noble Viscount was not able to hear. Her Majesty's Government cannot. I fear, accept this Amendment. If there are real cases of hardship, once again one must say that there is assistance available. One must say this, too, in regard to this class of illness; that doctors will be able on one prescription to provide a large quantity of the drug or other medicament that is necessary for those who suffer from a chronic disease. The Committee will not, I hope, think that either I or any other noble Lord on this side of the House is wanting in sympathy for any class of
860
persons who suffer. But the position is just impossible. If we make an exception in favour of this class of person, and we make an exception in favour of another, so we go on until the exception becomes the rule. On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: I am surprised at the reply of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. The noble Marquess did indicate that he was prepared to look at this matter. He would not make any promise, nor did we expect any promise to be made. I do not dispute the overwhelming sympathy of noble Lords opposite; nobody has said that there is no sympathy in the noble and learned Lord. But sympathy does not "butter any parsnips"; it does not deal with the issues involved. May I beg the noble and learned Lord Chancellor to—I will not say honour the pledge which the noble Marquess gave, but the noble Marquess indicated that he felt there was something that might be looked at here, to alleviate cases which come within the category of the chronic sick. If anything can be done in this direction I beg Her Majesty's Government to do it. Do not let us have the stigma that all that can be done now is to tell people they will either have to pay, or go to the National Assistance Board, which is still regarded by hundreds of thousands of people in this country as the old Poor Law. Do not have that stigma on this Bill. Please do something for the chronic sick who, in the main, are men and women over the age of sixty and in the declining years of their lives. Please do something to show practical sympathy as far as these people are concerned.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There will be nothing to prevent noble Lords opposite putting down this Amendment again on the Report stage if they want to, but I venture to think that what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said is true. Noble Lords opposite must appreciate the fact that any responsible Government in this country have got to economise. We can argue about the form of economy, but all economies are very unpleasant. A great amount of beneficial social work will continue under this Bill, but it is the task of this Government—and the necessity for it was admitted by the previous Government when

861
they were in power—to see that expenditure on the National Health Service, which has so greatly exceeded all estimates, is limited.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask the noble Earl a question? Has he any idea, or has anyone supplied him with any idea, as to what amount is to be saved by rejecting this Amendment?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is easy for the noble Viscount to take one particular case and say: "What you are going to save on this matter is so paltry, so unworthy, that you cannot resist the plea I am making." I have been listening to noble Lords using that argument all this afternoon. It is easy to make a plausible case for any one Amendment. But the Government have to draft a Bill which is consistent, and which has the cumulative effect of making important economies I personally am satisfied that they cannot depart from the line indicated by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor without sacrificing the principle for which this Bill stands.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Burden, made an appeal to me. I do not want to "butter any parsnips"—which, I think, was the expression he used. Why should I? The Government have come to the conclusion that in the interest of economy it is necessary to impose these charges, and I ventured to point out that to make exceptions which lead to other exceptions would absolutely defeat the policy upon which they have embarked. I cannot say any more than that. This is not a case in which an exception, in our opinion, ought to be made. If I have been guilty of any indiscretion or any lack of courtesy to the Committee I beg to be forgiven. But, I repeat, I do not want to "butter any parsnips." I face the realities of the position, and I beg noble Lords opposite, instead of making these appeals in one case after another, to realise what the position is—that, in our view, we have to do this unpopular thing in the interests of economy. We do not like doing it, but we have come to the conclusion that it has got to be done.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am not sure about "buttering any parsnips." I have never quite understood what that
862
expression means, but I will not do it if it is not approved of in this Committee. We have had an argument brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, to the effect that we need not move this Amendment now because we can put it down at the Report stage. That is the only new argument which I have heard advanced. I should like to recall to the memory of the Committee where we are in this Bill. This is a Bill which everyone dislikes. I think we are all agreed about that. It is always apologised for by occupants of the Government Front Bench and no one on the back Benches has defended it except Lord Gifford, whose interesting contribution has so far been unanswered. This is a Bill which has never been debated fully in the other place—it was produced under guillotine. It was put forward in the "People's House"—I call it the "People's House" speaking in the old Liberal tradition. We here pride ourselves on being a revising Chamber. What revision have we made so far? We have sat here for four hours, and we have moved, with a considerable wealth of argument, a number of Amendments, but not one concession of any kind has been made to us. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, it is true, did give a benevolent reply in one instance, but he did not indicate that the further consideration which was to be given to the matter in question was going to result in any amendment of the Bill. Two arguments which have been presented were, first, that economy was needed, and the other that abuse must be stopped. Then we came to the cancerous patients and in that connection a third argument was produced—namely that we must not tell them what was wrong with them. That was the only new argument. It was a shock to me. I never thought I should hear that argument advanced here. No doubt it was put forward quite sincerely.
LORD WOOLTON: It was put forward by the medical profession.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, who went on to say that cancer was not so serious a disease as many people imagined.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: He never said that. That is a complete misrepresentation.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Those are the only three arguments that have been produced. We ask if it is not possible to get round this awful necessity to impose a charge on a person who has some dire disease—diabetes, tuberculosis, or cancer. Cannot we get round the difficulty that by not charging them a shilling we should inform them that they had the disease? We say that if you made these exclusions more general the people would not know what disease they were suffering, from. They would simply know that they came within the excluded classes and that they were saved money. And even a shilling is a very serious matter for people with small incomes. When we came to this Amendment the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said: "I give the same answer." I ask the question whether he based his answer on economy, on abuse, or on pain to the sufferer, because pain to the sufferer was a strong argument used against the cancer Amendment. Then despite what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, had said, the Lord Chancellor said it was purely a question of economy and he did not refer to what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, promised he would consider.
There is one practical suggestion which I should like to make. The Lord Chancellor has based himself squarely on economy. He would not speak from the Treasury Bench and make this statement without having a built-up figure in mind. May we know something about that figure? There is a department which goes into all these things and knows the costs of the different matters; that department knows the cost of dental treatment, of artificial limbs, and all the rest of it. Could we not have, at the Report stage, some considered statement, so that we may know that the chronically sick must pay for their medicines because we want to save £250,000 or whatever it may be? I think that is only fair. Of course the noble and learned Lord may say that every little saving counts—cheeseparing, candle-ends and so on: that is good Gladstonian dictum. But it should be possible to obtain some reasonably accurate figures. I therefore beg the Government to consider producing a break-down of the global figures of economy which this Bill is expected to effect, so that we may know which suggestions of ours would be expensive, and
864
which might be considered at a later stage.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I presume that the noble Viscount who has just sat down was referring to me a few moments ago. The intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has, I hope, brought to the notice of the noble Viscount that he has grossly misrepresented what I said.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I had no desire at all to do that. I understood that the noble Lord had given us what he called a "crumb of comfort" in that aspect of the matter. I for one was grateful.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Viscount always does misrepresent.
LORD SILKIN: I hope that it may be possible for the Government to give the Committee some information in response to the plea which has just been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, because we are in a difficulty. The speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has rather accentuated that difficulty, because he has treated all these Amendments alike. He assumes that they all have equal merits or demerits, and that whatever the position may be about them the Government must reject them all. I would submit that that is not really the position. For instance, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, in a reply on an earlier Amendment, said it was not true that people were constantly having to get medical attention. Illness among children, he said, was relatively rare, and on the few occasions when children had to get medical treatment it was not a great hardship to pay for their drugs. It is a matter of opinion as to how frequently parents with young children have to resort to the doctor. In this case, it is admitted, by definition, that the chronic sick are constantly receiving medical attention, to relieve pain, to keep them alive or to keep them in some degree of comfort. They are constantly in the hands of the doctor.
The argument that this is an occasional charge, which can be met by going to the Assistance Board, if necessary, is not correct. The majority of the chronic sick are in pain most of the time, and many drugs are given to them for the purpose of alleviating pain. I should have thought

865
this was a case which could be differentiated from the others and not rejected out of hand, particularly if it were found that the cost to the community of making this concession was not very great. If the Government went into the cost of giving this concession, allowing for the fact that a great many of the chronic sick would be entitled to a refund because they are not in a position to work and earn money, might not the noble Lord find that the cost to the community of making this concession would be small and would be justified by the economy in administering refunds to patients? Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will be given more sympathetic consideration than has been given to the others. In the circumstances I have outlined, I hope that this general bar against all Amendments will be lifted, if only to a small extent, and that the Government will be prepared to give further consideration to this Amendment.
LORD WOOLTON: I am glad the noble Lord has made his case in a reasonable speech. He pointed out, that a considerable number of the chronic sick would already be given some form of financial help from the State. The point I tried to make in my first remarks was that where there was financial need, we wanted to meet that need by help from the State. In all the cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred, that need would be met. But there are many other people who have the misfortune to be chronically sick and who are able and willing to pay for medicaments prescribed for them. The issue has been much confused this afternoon by noble Lords opposite. We are not hard-hearted people who do not care for health. Look at our record! Of course, we care for the public health and want to do things to help the public health, but this Bill has been forced on us by the need for economies which we are bound to make. It will save something like £20,000,000. We need quite a few sums of £20,000,000 to get out of our financial difficulties.
Noble Lords opposite are just as anxious as we are to get out of these difficulties, and we are as anxious as they are to help people who are sick and in need. Need we really have these continuous arguments about it? The noble Lords opposite do not like the Bill. Neither do we. We wish the circumstances in which
866
we came into office had not forced this Bill and other unpleasant Bills upon us. Perhaps if the Party opposite had been returned, they would have had to do something similar to this; I do not know. But they would certainly have had to take some drastic and unpleasant actions. I appreciate the sentiments expressed, but we must realise what the Bill is trying to do. We are making provision for the needy, but saying that the rest of the country must pay for their prescriptions. That is why we are resisting these Amendments against very great pressure. We have heard heart-rending cases brought before us, one after another, and all our inclinations are to wish that we could agree and avoid contention. So far as I am concerned, I am fastened on this issue; I have to save £20,000,000; and very disagreeable I find it.
LORD SILKIN: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I return to the attack once more. I do not think he has quite met the point I have tried to make. Although I believe that this Amendment has great merits, I was arguing less on the merits than on the question of administration. From practical experience we know that the vast majority of the chronic sick are not in a position to pay and that they will have to come back and make a request for repayment or go without their medicine—which nobody wishes them to do. It is the one comfort they have. It may turn out to be not worth while to make a charge on these people. I am putting it only on the question of administration. Would it not be worth while for the noble Lord to have a look at this point to see whether it is true that the majority of these patients will get their money back? Rather than take the money and give it back, and go through all the paraphernalia of filling up forms and employing people to do it, would it not be better to let by a few cases of those who could afford to pay? We are all out to economise. Might it not turn out to be an actual economy to accept this Amendment? All I ask is that the noble Lord should keep an open mind on the subject and be prepared to look at it, to see whether I am right or wrong. It is largely a question of fact. If I am right, then I shall have made some contribution to national economy. If I am wrong, the noble Lord can still proceed with charging the chronic sick. There-

867
fore, I would ask the noble Lord to keep an open mind, to look at this again and let us know the result on the Report stage.
LORD WOOLTON: I am most anxious that I should not deceive the noble Lord by saying that the people who have advised me—obviously this is not my Department—have not been into this question very thoroughly. The noble Lord has asked me whether I will look at the situation. I hope that I shall never be in a position where I shall refuse when noble Lords opposite ask me to look at something. Of course, I will look into it. But in saying that, I must not be understood to be giving any undertaking beyond the precise meaning of the words. I do not know whether that is agreeable to the noble Lord.
LORD SILKIN: I was asking the noble Lord to look at it and tell us the result on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT HALL: I have no desire to prolong the discussion, and I dislike very much having to deal with each of the points brought forward in the Amendments, because I realise that we are dealing with subjects which must be painful to noble Lords on whatever side of the House they sit. Noble Lords opposite have a difficult task but, if I may say so, I think they are creating some difficulties for themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said that the Department advising him have gone carefully into these matters. I should like to repeat the question put by my noble friend Lord Stansgate, to ascertain what would be the actual cost of the concessions, if concessions were given, which are asked for in these Amendments. The cost must be very small.
A great deal of general matter has been discussed upon this particular clause. It must be realised that we are dealing with people who, as a result of sickness or accident, have had their income reduced by something like 50 per cent. The most generous benefit given by the State will not reach much more than, say, £3 10s. or £4 per week. I know men who are sick, who have families dependent upon them and whose average earnings are something like £7, £8 or £9 a week. Immediately there is this serious reduction. It is said that
868
provision is made for a refund of even the 1s. charge upon the prescription. If there is a refund, that at once takes away from the Exchequer part of any savings which might accrue as a result of charging for prescriptions. Then there are other difficulties. Take the chronic sick, or the malignant disease cases. Those people just cannot go to Assistance Board offices to collect the money. As a matter of fact, in my own home it costs more than 1s. in fares to get to and from the office of the Assistance Board.
The noble Marquess the Leader of the House, when we were discussing the third Amendment, suggested that we might take the Amendment now before your Lordships with that Amendment and look at them between now and the Report stage, to see whether there could be any accommodation. May I suggest that we take the other Amendments dealing with cases of this kind, say, up to Amendment No. 12, and carefully consider them to see whether any accommodation can be given in respect of any of them? If not, then we can debate these matters upon the Report stage. If the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is correct in saying that the Government have come to the conclusion that nothing can be done, and that none of these Amendments can be met, that presents a closed door, whatever arguments may be adduced from this side. I think it was wrong for the Government to adopt that attitude; it takes away from Parliament much of the power of persuasion—because persuasion there can be—and it limits the power of noble Lords in charge of the Bill. I would ask the noble Marquess whether it is possible to hold over the other Amendments: the Government will not commit themselves, but it will give an opportunity for a thorough consideration of those Amendments. After all, this Bill has been rather rushed, both on Second Reacting and on the Committee stage. It was only a week ago that the Bill was brought to your Lordships' House and it has been impossible to give it the consideration which a Bill of such consequence deserves. I do not think any of the Amendments moved in Committee this afternoon were discussed in another place, because of the application of the guillotine. If my suggestion could be accepted, it would mean that progress could be made, and it would give

869
an opportunity for discussion to see whether some of the points which we desire could be met.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, we are anxious to meet noble Lords opposite, so far as possible. But I must remind the Committee of the purpose and genesis of this Bill. It is purely and simply to make a necessary economy. It is not for the pleasure of reducing the health benefits—nobody wants to do that. It is because, in the situation in which the Government found themselves—I do not expect the Opposition to agree with the measures we have taken, but that is our position—we have to economise in every way possible, and this is one of the methods that we have chosen. Therefore, if it were found that the Amendments which noble Lords suggest meant, in effect, destroying the purpose of the Bill, clearly it would be impossible for the Government to accept them. I feel sure that that will be understood. Moreover, it may well be that there are technical difficulties which would have to be overcome. We talk, broadly speaking, of the chronic sick. I do not know exactly what diseases or what number of patients would be covered by that term—it is a technical term. We have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that, in his view, we should almost make money by accepting this Amendment. I find that a little difficult to believe.
LORD SILKIN: I asked the Government to see whether they would.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should be very astonished if that turned out to be the case, much though I should like it. I think I can go as far as to say this. Without giving any undertaking, or, indeed, any encouragement—because, quite frankly, I cannot do that—I feel that we should be justified in transmitting what has been said to-day to my right honourable friend the Minister of Health for his information and consideration before the Report stage. However, I should be willing to suggest that only on the basis that I cannot give any encouragement if what is proposed would destroy in any way the financial purpose for which this Bill has unhappily had to be brought forward.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Really we have a great concession! The whole debate is worth while if only to extract from
870
the noble Marquess the undertaking to transmit to the Minister of Health what has been said in this House! I presume that would mean giving him an early copy of the Hansard report of our debate. He said another thing: that these Amendments might well destroy the whole purpose of the Bill. These Amendments do not strike at the wider economies. They deal with cases—and I am sure noble Lords opposite feel the same about them—of real hardship, diabetes, tuberculosis and cancer. I venture to repeat the request. We have been told, especially by the Lord Chancellor in a very "hefty" interjection, that the purpose of this Bill is economy. Lord Woolton said: "I have my mind on the £20,000,000." It has been repeated by the noble Marquess. In view of the fact that this matter has not been discussed in another place, would it be too much to ask the noble Marquess to give us his firm undertaking that the Department which has prepared the Bill and which has supplied him with information about all these promised economies, will supply the same information to this House, so that we may know what is the exact estimate of the economies effected in these particular cases? If that could be done, I think we should be in a better position on the Report stage to decide which of these Amendments might be moved again.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount rather ridiculed my statement. Nobody has ever asked a noble Lord opposite to do this. My noble friend cannot give promises affecting another Department; all he can do is to transmit, and we will do that. I said I cannot do any more and I will not do any more. Whether it is possible to give the noble Viscount the accurate break-up of exact figures which would be saved here and there is much more doubtful. But I return to my point. I will transmit what has been said before the Report stage. I cannot do more than that, and I will not do more than that.
EARL JOWITT: I had great experience of this kind of thing for six years. I was in a different position from that of the noble Marquess. Whereas I always knew I had a majority in the House against me, I had every inducement to be ultra-reasonable, and I did not say, "I will transmit"; I used to indicate that I was greatly impressed by the arguments

871
which had been advanced. Of course, I had a very stern task-master in the Minister of Health—whoever it might be—or the Minister concerned. All I could say was that I would see whether I could not operate upon his mind and impress upon him the arguments which noble Lords had advanced in this House, and try to get him to consent. But I must say the noble Marquess does not give us much hope. I think he regards in his own mind that this thing is rather jejune. If it is so in his mind, will it not be much more so in the case of the Minister of Health? Frankly, I do not think that in this way we shall get anywhere. I think we had better continue the discussion of the various Amendments to this Bill. I realise the difficulty of the noble Marquess. Of course, he is the last man in the world to lead us "up the garden path" by saying things he cannot make good. I am not making complaints. I am inclined to think that he has done the best he can. I think we had better proceed with the discussion of the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think in any case we should have a little more definition of what is going to be put before the Minister of Health. I imagine that, in a discussion of this kind, the proceedings in your Lordships' House are very carefully studied by the experts in the Ministry of Health. I presume, therefore, that the noble Marquess proposes only to underline certain arguments which apparently affect him and the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. They seem to have been touched, shaken and disturbed by some of the arguments coming from these Benches. Having listened to most of them, I am not a bit surprised. I am going to add even one more, and it is this. I have not followed the arguments on this Bill very closely because I have been away, but when I saw the Marshalled List I took it for granted that this particular Amendment would be accepted as rectifying an oversight. I took it for granted that the chronic sick would be given free treatment. Consider the actual position to-day. If we had not had a great war and there had not been a great shortage of labour, materials and money, we should have had many more hospitals and many more hospital beds. We all know that we need at least 500 additional
872
hospitals at the present time. That is an established fact. If we had them, a great many of these people would be in hospitals. It is far better that they should be in hospital than living at home in unsuitable surroundings, with no hope of recovery. Yet, because of the situation in which we find ourselves, these people who should be in hospital are not in hospital. I honestly thought when I looked at these Amendments that they were meeting a real oversight and would be accepted almost automatically by the Government.
I rose to ask for a little clearer definition of what the noble Marquess meant by consulting his right honourable friend the Minister of Health. On which Amendment—the one so far discussed or, as my noble friend suggests, the Amendment No. 12? I think we should know just where we are. I would say, in passing, that the arguments—no doubt, very cogent ones—which will be advanced on the other Amendments, including several that deal with quite different aspects of this whole problem, have not been presented to the House at all. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for a little clearer definition as to what the noble Marquess means by consulting his right honourable friend the Minister of Health.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Do I understand that the noble Marquess has not the information as to what the proposals embodied in these Amendments would cost, or do I understand that he has the information and will not disclose it to the House?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before the Leader of the House replies, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he could tell us how many scores of millions of pounds the Labour Government were out in their estimate of what this scheme was going to cost? My recollection is that they were about £100,000,000 wrong in their estimates.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I will look it up and send it to the noble Earl.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have two questions to answer—one from Lord Strabolgi and one from Lord Stansgate. Lord Strabolgi asked what I was going to transmit to my right honourable friend. What I meant to transmit was

873
Amendment No. 7, which we are discussing. With regard to the point raised by Lord Stansgate, the answer is that I have not got the information.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: How is the total figure made up, if you do not know the elements of the total?
LORD STRABOLGI: This is quite a new situation. Am I to understand that the Leader of the House is to consult the Minister of Health about all these Amendments?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think the noble Lord was here in the earlier part of the discussion, otherwise he would know. We have discussed a number Of Amendments covering certain individual diseases. With respect, I may say that it would be impossible to make concessions in regard to these individual diseases. If we were to make a concession on cancer, somebody would at once come along and say: "What about tuberculosis?" If we were to make a concession on tuberculosis, somebody would come along and say: "Why not include a concession on another disease?" Therefore, we made it clear that we should have to resist these individual Amendments; and we did. There was a question of an all-embracing Amendment which seemed to cover the chronic sick. It was on that point that I said I would transmit to my right honourable friend what had been said in the House to-day. I think that covers the questions I was asked, and I feel it is the most that we can do. I do not think the noble Lord was here when I spoke, but I made it clear that I could give no undertaking and wanted to raise no hopes. But as the feeling in the House seemed to be in favour of giving the Minister of Health another opportunity of considering what was said in this place, I felt it right that I should do what noble Lords wished in that respect.
EARL JOWITT: In view of what has been said—I have not much hope, but while there is life there is hope—my noble friend will take this course: he will not withdraw his Amendment, on the other hand, he will not put your Lordships to the trouble of a Division but will allow the Amendment to be negatived, so that there will be an opportunity to transmit the information.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl will vote on this Amendment?
EARL JOWITT: Not in view of what the noble Marquess has said, if that suits my noble friend.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is just one point which I should make clear to the House. This puts us in a certain difficulty. I am anxious to help the Opposition over this, but I must be frank with them. We all know that if no Amendments are made there will be no Report stage. If we adopted our normal procedure, the last step we should take to-night would be to move that the Report be now received. That would be agreed, and the Report stage would be over. In view of what I have said, I do not want the Government or the Opposition to be put in that position. I understand that it would be possible not to move to-night that the Report be now received, and retain that until the next stage. That would give me time to transmit to my right honourable friend the proceedings in this House. That is the best I can suggest.
There is one matter that I think ought to say to the House. I will be quite frank: if this Bill is to be passed it is important that it should be passed as soon as possible. The whole object of this Bill is to make rather disagreeable but necessary economies; and therefore we wish to get it by a certain date. For our purposes this Bill must have received the Royal Assent by May 23. We will do what we can. I will institute these communications to my right honourable friend as soon as I can, and I have no doubt that the Opposition will co-operate in completing the further stages of the Bill after I or my noble friend Lord Woolton have made the Government statement. That is the best I can suggest, and it is clone with a genuine desire to meet the difficulties of the Opposition and our own difficulties.
EARL JOWITT: I am grateful to the noble Marquess, and I accept that. I may say at once that we have not the slightest intention to attempt any sort of obstruction. It is quite outside the capabilities or the sense of this House. We do not want to do that at all, and we shall certainly be glad to co-operate. On the other hand, let us face this fact. Owing to the operation of the guillotine—

875
and I am not making a Party point at all; it may have been necessary, although I do not know—there are large portions of this Bill which have not been discussed at all. Therefore I feel that this House would be failing in its duty if it did not go through this Bill carefully. I think we ought to go through this Bill and discuss all these matters. I am glad to see that I am receiving the assent of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. I am grateful for what the noble Marquess has said, and although I have no doubt that we shall not succeed in carrying any of our Amendments, at any rate we shall make our position plain and see where the two Parties in this country stand in this matter. Although economies are certainly necessary, I do not believe that these particular economies are necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is a matter of opinion. I am very grateful to the noble Earl, and I agree that we should have whatever discussion is required. We are not in the least anxious to limit discussion in any way. In reply to what the noble Earl said about the guillotine, I will say only that it was not unprovoked.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Since we are discussing the affairs of another place—which I understand is totally out of order—may I say that the guillotine was made necessary merely by the fact that the Government so overcrowded their programme that they were not able to operate the normal procedure of the Standing Committtee?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
7.8 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW LORD KERSHAW moved to add to subsection (2) (a):
"or is a person registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, as handicapped by disablement."
The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move the two following Amendments on behalf of my noble friend Lord Crook. The arguments which can be used in connection with the first Amendment are very much the same arguments which have been used in connection with the other Amendments. There may be just this slight difference—that the people who come under this Amendment are largely
876
victims of road accidents and the like. I appeal to noble Lords opposite to treat these matters as matters of State rather than as Party matters. I have come to the conclusion that my appeals have fallen on stony ground, and therefore I do no more than move this Amendment and leave it to the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("hospital") insert the said words.—(Lord Kershaw.)
LORD WOOLTON: I am sorry that the noble Lord finds the ground a little stony on this side. As he anticipated, I cannot accept this Amendment. It would exempt from hospital out-patient charges all registered disabled persons, quite regardless of the degree of their disablement. If they are disabled war pensioners then, of course, they are already provided for. It might be that the disability was only a slight disability. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD KERSHAW LORD KERSHAW moved to add to subsection (2) (a):
"or is receiving or is a dependant of a person receiving compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Crook I beg to move this Amendment. I would add to the other arguments that have been advanced only that it is not long since we passed an Act dealing with pneumoconiosis and byssinosis. The people there dealt with are the people who would come under this provision—the only people who could come under it—from the old Workmen's Compensation Acts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("hospital") insert the said words.—(Lord Kershaw.)
LORD WOOLTON: I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. I can only suggest, as I did in the somewhat long speech I made before, that people in this position should get the financial relief they need—if they do need it—from another source.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Kershaw. There is a slight difference here. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, referred to the fact that provision has been made for those incapacitated by war service. But here

877
we are dealing with men in the coal industry—by far the larger majority come from that industry—who were not allowed to enlist for active service and whose injuries were sustained in their country's service, though in the coal industry. I am glad that provision has been made for men who suffer their disability through war service, but these men in the coal industry served their country just as well as did the soldier who was incapacitated. These men who were not allowed to enlist should be placed in she same category as the soldier. The number is very small.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD GREENHILL LORD GREENHILL moved, in subsection (2) (b) after "treatment of" to insert "tuberculosis and." The noble Lord said: I am aware that in the course of this afternoon's debate arguments have been raised against dealing with a particular disease under this general heading, but I would ask the noble Lord opposite to bear in mind that, whatever may be the case with such diseases as cancer, we are not dealing now with a disease of that kind. I put this Amendment on the very grounds which the noble Marquess himself emphasised, and that is the grounds of saving further expenditure. I am prompted to do this, first because I come from a place which is described, even in the Report of the Department of Health, as "one of the black spots for tuberculosis." Those are the exact words. The numbers in Scotland affected by respiratory tuberculosis reach the enormous figure of 34,963, according to this same Report. The question of pinpointing the individual who suffers from a particular disease does not arise in the case of tuberculosis, because already local authorities are providing special housing facilities for those suffering from that complaint, and many steps are being taken in favour of those who are known to be suffering from it.
When this matter was being discussed in another place and it was asked why venereal disease was included in the Bill and tuberculosis was not, the answer given, so far as my memory serves, was, first, that venereal disease came under the Brussels Agreement of 1924; and, secondly, that nowadays drugs were obtainable which, taken early enough,
878
cured this disease very rapidly and therefore prevented its spreading. I would ask the noble Lord whether in the event of a drug being obtainable which would similarly provide a speedy remedy for tuberculosis he would be prepared to insert "tuberculosis" in this Bill. Surely the reason which was applicable to venereal disease ought to be applicable to tuberculosis. But there is another reason, and this is an economic reason. The direct cost might, in the opinion of noble Lords opposite, be very great. I am suggesting that if that money were not saved by refusing to include this, you might save very much more in an indirect way by including tuberculosis under this heading, for the reason that, in the case of an infectious disease—and this is an infectious disease, as we all admit—it is not only the one individual who is suffering: it is all those with whom he comes into contact. Therefore, if you give him certain facilities which tend to prevent that spread of infection you are thereby saving a fair amount of money. It seems to me, therefore, that in the long run, by including this man and making no charge in his case you would be saving money.
There is another reason which will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, because of his interest in and knowledge of psychology. These suggestions are not being made in respect of those who can afford to go, for instance, to Switzerland to be cured. They are made in favour of those who cannot afford to go abroad for their cure. These people take their prescription week by week, or month by month, and pay their shilling. These are the people whose condition is chronic. This regular process, on purely psychological grounds, must in itself tend to retard the man's recovery The thing is always on a man's mind: another shilling to pay, another prescription to go for, certain drugs to get, certain vessels for sputum and so on, to obtain. You are doing this for what reason? You are doing it merely in order that the country may be saved a little money. Is it not reasonable to say that the amount saved would be greater by preventing this man's anxiety and by preventing the spread of his disease, which tends, to infect others? By so doing we should benefit both the country and the individual at the same time.
LORD OGMORE: I should like to say a word on this proposal, because, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I come from a part of the country where in the past tuberculosis has been rife and may well become rife again. I remember that, when I was a boy in South Wales, rather more than thirty years ago, there was a big drive by the authorities to try to limit the incidence of this dread disease. It is particularly rife in South Wales, partly because of the nature of the work that the people do, and partly, perhaps, because Welshmen of a certain type seem more likely to contract it, than do many other types of people. There is a narrow-chested type of Welshman who seems to contract tuberculosis easily. Be that as it may, about thirty years ago the authorities decided to have a great drive to reduce tuberculosis in South Wales. That drive had some effect, but even to-day South Wales has one of the greatest percentages of tuberculosis of any district in the whole of the United Kingdom, or, I believe, in Europe.
If I understand correctly the arguments of the Government, they are, first, that venereal disease is a social disease—in other words, if a person contracts venereal disease he is able to transmit that disease to other people, maybe innocent people. Therefore you enable him to have treatment and drugs for nothing, not because you want to benefit him but because you want, if possible, to prevent him from transmitting this disease to somebody else. If that is not the case, then of course, as in many cases of which we know, where it is the man's own fault and the result of moral turpitude that he gets venereal disease, he should be the last person to have free drugs. Why should he have free drugs and the unfortunate person who contracts cancer or tuberculosis have no free drugs? If we are still a moral people with moral reasoning, we should not, as in fact this Bill does, bestow the benefit upon the immoral person, the person who has committed an immoral act, or has been unfortunate in committing an immoral act, when we are not prepared to give any benefit at all to someone who has lived a perfectly good life but who, through misfortune, has contracted a disease such as cancer.
If that is the argument of the Government—and there is something to be said for it—then I would say that, by that
880
same argument, tuberculosis must come under the same rule. In other words, tuberculosis is also a social disease. It is a disease which can be easily transmitted, and if we do not enable a sufferer at the early stage of the disease to get relief or remedy then we are putting a number of people in peril. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to realise that point, and to realise that there is a very serious case here. It is not the same as diabetes and, with respect, it is not the same perhaps as cancer. I understand that we do not quite know how cancer is caused. I myself believe that the Government should give way both on cancer and on diabetes. I believe that sufferers from cancer and diabetes should have relief. But even if, taking the Government's case, we say: "No, those people, however much they may suffer and however poor they may be, cannot have relief," then I would say that tuberculosis comes, not in the category of cancer or of diabetes, but in the same category as the social disease, as venereal disease. I would ask the Government to look at it from that aspect and to realise that they may be "penny wise and pound foolish" over this; that in fact failure to include this Amendment in this Bill may have the result of spreading this frightful disease of tuberculosis which already, both in Scotland and in Wales, takes a heavy toll of the population.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I should like it to be known straight away that I have great sympathy with what the mover of the Amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, have said on this subject If I may say so, I think that they are speaking from the point of view of the nation rather than of Party. At least, that is the way I looked at it. But I do feel that it would be wiser to leave this disease again to be discussed, as the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has suggested, under the omnibus Amendment originally moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. Before I sit down, I may perhaps say a word or two in answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said on the question of these two social diseases. The noble Lord said that those suffering from venereal disease may be anti-social people, whereas in the case of those suffering from tuberculosis it is through no fault of their own that they have caught the disease. Of course, an

881
important reason for the exemption of those suffering from venereal disease is our commitment under the Brussels Agreement of 1924. A difference between these two diseases is that prompt treatment for venereal disease kills the disease, and quickly stops its transmission through infection, whereas the present drugs and treatment that are prescribed for the tuberculosis patient do not, at least for some time, immunise that person from passing on the infection to others. So in that way there is a difference between the treatment of the two diseases from a social point of view.
There is another point that I might make which I think probably covers some of these other Amendments as well. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mentioned the worry caused to a person who knows that every so often, every week or fortnight, he has got to provide 1s. for his prescription. I do not think it has been brought out this afternoon on either side of the House that, of course, in the case of many of these diseases or illnesses that last for some time, or are even chronic and will go on to the end of the patient's days, doctors will be able, at their discretion, to dispense medicine in quantities which will last for a considerable time. For instance, there are certain illnesses which are kept in check by drugs in tablet form, the tablets lasting for two or three months. I understand that a man could get tablets which would last him for two or three months for the 1s. he pays on one prescription form. I think some of our discussions this afternoon have rather led the House to believe that every week, or every two or three days, a person will go to the doctor and will have to pay 1s. on an amount just for that time. That is not quite so, particularly with these long-drawn-cut illnesses. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
EARL JOWITT: That seems to me an extraordinarily bad argument. The whole case is given away on that.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I cannot see it at all.
EARL JOWITT: I do not know what the treatment is or what kind of drugs there are. But supposing you could get a year's supply and that the supply would not go bad, is the suggestion that the
882
medical man should give a year's supply for 1s.?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Not a year's supply.
LORD WOOLTON: Perhaps the noble Lord has exaggerated the length of time, but I think my friend is replying to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, who referred to the psychological effect on a man who had constantly to go and get his prescription and produce his 1s. I do not know whether he thought that the psychological effect was in the production of the 1s. or in having to go frequently to the chemist.
LORD GREENHILL: If I may say so, it is the mere awareness of this atmosphere of the prescription; the 1s., and the drugs and so on.
LORD WOOLTON: Yes, he must have the awareness of the need to take the medicine—that we cannot get away from. What my noble friend was saying was that the medical attendant, whether he be in hospital or whether he be a private doctor, is at liberty to give in his prescription something that will last over a considerable period, so that the man will not have to go once a week or once a fortnight to get the prescription. I think that was all that he was trying to convey to the House.
EARL JOWITT: But how is this going to work out? Has it teen thought out at all? Let us assume that the drug is something which is not deteriorating in point of time. There would be different considerations. Could the man give a couple of years' supply for 1s.? Are you going to have regulations about this?
LORD WOOLTON: I think from the regulations and from the medical man's knowledge, quite obviously it would be foolish to give a year' supply; it would not be foolish to give three months' supply. I hope that that answers the point that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, made.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is happening already under the present system. It is recognised as the economical and sensible way of dispensing in certain cases. Doctors are already giving a fairly long period of supply of certain medicines.
EARL JOWITT: Are they giving a year's supply?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would not say a year—in fact I know that this is not done because I asked that question myself. I do not think there is any medicine yet which is known to last for a year.
LORD KERSHAW: Does not the noble Earl know that this habit on the part of some doctors of giving medicaments and the like to cover a long period has been frowned upon by the Ministry, and that we in the hospitals have already urged the doctors to give a much smaller supply, because clearly so much of it was wasted? Again, economy has been used as a reason for this Bill, but it looks to me as though you are going to lose far more by giving larger quantities of medicine at a time than you are going to save by the charge for the prescription.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is it not really a question of degree? The argument on this side was addressed to the suggestion made on the other side, that it was a matter of paying 1s. a week, and that sort of thing. Really it is nothing of the kind. The doctors, in their discretion (which of course must not be exercised too generously), can give a supply which will last a substantial time. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, would not suggest that the doctor should never prescribe an amount which would last for more than a week. It is a question of degree.
LORD KERSHAW: With all respect, I was saying that the policy of the Ministry which had filtered down through the hospitals with which I am connected, recommended that supplies of medicine should be smaller than had been given.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No doubt it has been abused in the past but, on the other hand, it is a gross exaggeration to suggest, as I think was implied in some speeches that I have heard to-day, that the patient will have to go to a doctor once a week to get 1s. worth of medicine. Doctors must use their discretion properly, and if there has been abuse, then the Ministry has been quite right in giving them directions which have filtered clown through the hospitals with which the noble Lord is connected. It is a matter of degree.
EARL JOWITT: Wherever you give discretion, you run the risk of an indiscretion. I understand that the doctors are to be given a free hand to use their discretion, and for some reason which is inscrutable to me, whereas three months is perfectly all right, one year is too long. Whose edict is this? Is this the edict of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, or that of the Minister of Health?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It has been going on.
EARL JOWITT: The noble Earl says it has been going on; but, as I understand it, the present tendency is that the Minister of Health has been using all his persuasion in trying to get shorter periods by limiting the amount of drugs given at any one time, which seems to me to be wise. In the so-called interests of economy you are leaving it to the discretion of the doctors greatly to extend the time. Apart from that, do let us consider this Amendment. This measure is supposed to be in the interests of economy. I put this to the Committee, and we have got to face up to it: is it really necessary to say to an unhappy person who has tuberculosis that he must pay for these things? Do you want tuberculosis cured? Obviously, yes. You want it cured because, first of all, you have ordinary, decent, Christian, humanitarian feelings; and secondly, because it is a disease that spreads. Therefore, in the social interest it is immensely important to try to stop it, to cure it, to eradicate it if you can. That is common ground between us. Then do you believe that these drugs are useful to stop or to control tuberculosis? Obviously you do, otherwise you would not have them. Then, if you want to stop tuberculosis and you believe that these drugs are one way in which to do it, is it a sensible thing, on the ground of economy, to make it a little more difficult for a man to get the drugs which are going to cure the disease? I do not see the logic of it at all. People do not go as a matter of fun to get drugs to cure or try to keep in check tuberculosis. There has never been any abuse in relation to this matter. No one has ever gone and asked for too many drugs for tuberculosis.
Is it really the fact that the Tory Government say that because this country is in difficulties (and we all know it is), because we have got to do unpleasant

885
things, which any Government would have to do, then we must do this particularly unpleasant thing? Are you really saying to the country, "It is necessary for us in our troubles of to-day to make it more difficult for patients suffering from tuberculosis to go and get their drugs"? What in the name of reason is the sense in that? It means to say that you are taking a step—a small step it may be, but still a step—not in the interests of stopping the incidence of this dreadful disease, but in the interests of making it a little more difficult for people to cure this disease, by making them pay a little more money for the remedy. Do you think that that is an economy? From the economic point of view, let alone the time point of view, I suggest that the fact that the disease exists is a great disadvantage to this country. If this disease could be cured we should save ourselves thousands of millions of pounds. What in the name of economy is the sense of saying, "In future the patient who is suffering from tuberculosis must pay for his drugs"? In that way, he will be rather more reluctant to go and get them and get cured. I know perfectly well that if this Amendment goes to a Division we shall be beaten. But I venture to say that there are many noble Lords opposite who, if they could be free to vote as they liked, would say, "This country may be hard up, but we are not going to put a special handicap on those who already suffer the great handicap of tuberculosis."
LORD WOOLTON: No one would have thought, listening to the noble Earl, that he was talking of logic. It is a long time since I learned any, but I believe there was a fallacy called the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle, and I cannot help feeling that the noble Earl suffers from it. We are not trying to prevent people from being cured of tuberculosis, as the noble Earl knows perfectly well. What we have said is that we want people to go and get all the treatment they need. If they are able to afford to pay for it, they should pay for it. If they cannot afford to pay for it, then the resources of the State are available for them. I do not know whether these are curative drugs or not—it is beyond my knowledge. We are not trying to prevent people from getting these drugs. if they are the drugs that the people with tuberculosis need. Let
886
us face up to the financial situation. What you are suggesting is that if people go into hospital, then they have treatment free there; if they go to their own doctors, they must pay for it. That is not a position that we are prepared to accept. I am sorry. If the noble Lord feels that he must divide the House on the matter, then he must. I cannot do anything more.
LORD SALTOUN: I have known a good many people with tuberculosis and have worked beside them in offices. Some of them have been very poor people, but I think it is an absurdity to suggest that to pay 1s. for their medicine is to put an obstacle in the way of their cure. I am perfectly certain that all those with whom I have worked will agree with me in saying that. It so happens that for some time past I have been attending a doctor and he has prescribed various medicines for my condition. He has given me three prescriptions which would have meant a charge of 3s. for amounts of medicines sufficient to cover the period necessary for me to take the medicine. That has already been mentioned here to-day, but I thought the Committee might as well know what is actually happening "on the ground," as it were.
LORD OGMORE: The noble Earl touched on the point that I made, and the point to which, by inference, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, made reference, but unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, did not touch upon it at all. My point is quite simple. The Government say, in effect, "Because venereal disease is a social disease, and with social implications, then we will give this treatment and any drugs free." That is a perfectly sensible argument, so far as it goes. My point, which the noble Earl appreciated, is that tuberculosis also is a social disease and, from that point of view, should be treated in exactly the same way as a venereal disease. If you do not treat it in that way, you are in fact benefiting the man who possibly has been immoral, and you are penalising the unfortunate man who has perhaps worked in the collieries in South Wales, where the disease is very common, and has contracted this disease—an honourable, honest man. That, surely, is lunatic logic. That is the point which I made. The noble Earl understood it but the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, did not. Nor did the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, who is

887
very good op these points as a rule. I am surprised to see him to-day not on the side of the angels. Usually he will support a matter to this kind even against his own Government. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, says: "It is only 1s. I have bad three prescriptions and they cost me 3s. That is nothing." The point is that to many of these people—
A NOBLE LORD: Three shillings is the price of a packet of cigarettes.
LORD OGMORE: A packet of cigarettes for whom? Believe me, a person suffering from tuberculosis cannot afford to buy cigarettes nor can he afford 3s. The point is that there is a repeated charge of 1s. a time. Lord Saltoun says that a shilling does not matter. Nor does 3s. matter. Nor, apparently, does 20s. matter. But it does matter to a person suffering from a dire disease and who may be in very poor circumstances. The other argument advanced was that they can go to the Poor Law—
LORD WOOLTON: We do not call it the Poor Law now. In this new, refined State we call it the National Assistance Board.
LORD OGMORE: I stand corrected. They can go to the National Assistance Board and get National Assistance from the National Exchequer. But there are many people who hate going to the National Assistance Board, even in these days of the Welfare State, when the money comes from the National Exchequer and not from the board of guardians. There are many people, elderly men and women who have lived decent, honourable lives, who would rather die than ask for National Assistance. The noble Lord probably thinks that is not an argument which I should bring forward, that that attitude of mind shows that such people should not be considered in your Lordships' House.
LORD WOOLTON: I did not say so.
LORD OGMORE: That attitude of mind is entirely irrational but people are irrational, as the Committee knows. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is no doubt aware from his experience in the Manchester district, and I know from my own experience in South Wales, that there are many people, even among the working classes, who do hold that view. There are many very decent, honourable
888
people who would not go and get this money from Public Assistance. What they would do would be to stint themselves of food in order to pay for the drugs, so that in fact, instead of people being cured by the power of these drugs, the effect of lack of food might well be to make them so debilitated that in the end they would probably die not of tuberculosis but of anæmia. That is the case I am putting. And I am not putting it from a Party point of view. I regard this matter from the national point of view.
The last argument put by the other side is the financial one. The noble Lord has said that the country is in a very serious financial position. We know that only too well. These matters are being included in a Bill, it is said, because they are matters upon which it is felt the country can economise. I am pointing out to the noble Lord that, so far from economising, if this is enforced it may well cost the nation vast sums of money. It is a false method of economy to economise in preventive medicine as against curative medicine. I would say that the same holds good for curative medicine, but for the moment we are discussing preventive medicine. To economise as regards preventive medicine I would submit is—using the term in its medical sense—most reactionary. So I ask the Government to look at this again and reconsider it, for I believe that they are making a great mistake.
The noble and gallant Earl the Minister of Defence has had great experience in this connection. He knows of the vast scale on which preventive medicine is used in the Forces—a scale on which it is never used in civil life. I am sure that in his heart of hearts he agrees with the view that to cut down preventive medicine, whether in the case of venereal disease, tuberculosis or any of these other killing diseases, is really to commit a great error. Would he, when he commanded in the Mediterranean during the war, ever have allowed any of his medical officers in any way to cut down the supply of drugs, equipment or anything else of a preventive character when there were people about who suffered from tuberculosis? The first thing he would have said, I am sure, would have been: "You must never do a thing like that, because of the danger of others contracting the disease from the sufferer. You must never do anything

889
of that kind." I am sure that the noble Earl would have been among the first Commanders to take that view. I ask the Government to take the same point of view, otherwise they may be leading us into very difficult and deep waters indeed.
LORD GREENHILL: I had not meant to continue this debate, but there is one point which strikes me particularly and on which I should like to reinforce what Lord Ogmore has said. I hope the Committee will forgive my intervention, and that the writer of this letter which I am about to quote will also forgive me. With your Lordships' permission I should like to quote just a couple of sentences from the letter of one who, it happens, is not only a medical officer of health but also a specialist in tuberculosis. He writes:
"It also frequently happens that a patient suffering from tuberculosis has more than one child attending the dispensary for observation or treatment. The child is obviously at risk, especially in the small homes so common in this city. It does not seem logical to spend money on B.C.G. vaccination and yet possibly withhold these medical extras which help so materially to build up the child's resistance to infection."
That, I suggest, most effectively supports the noble Lord's argument that if the State, in such circumstances, helped
the sufferer by giving him relief the State in the long run would benefit.
LORD SALTOUN: I rise again only because the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has pressed me on one point. I intervened earlier only because I was indignant at the suggestion that this charge of 1s. would tend to prevent the cure of cases of tuberculosis. I know well that the real trouble which the tuberculosis subject experiences is the difficulty of getting a job because people do not like working alongside him. That is the real difficulty from which he suffers. The 1s. charge is neither here nor there, and that charge is not going to prevent a cure.
LORD HAWKE: No one has yet mentioned in these debates that a vital part of the treatment of tuberculosis is extra food for the sufferer—eggs, milk and so on. That is expensive food which the patient has to have. To suggest that the charge of 1s. for three weeks is going to tip the scale and force a man on to the National Assistance Board, to which he would not have gone before, is to my mind a reductio ad absurdum.
On Question, Whether the proposed new words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Chorley, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Greenhill, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Hall, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Nathan, L.

Stansgate, V.

Henderson, L.

Ogmore, L.

Kenswood, L.

Pakenham, L.

Archibald. L.

Kershaw, L.

Shepherd, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Burden, L. [Teller.]

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hudson, V.

Hampton, L.

Margesson, V.

Hawke, L.

Woolton, L. (L. President.)

Monsell, V.

Hindlip, L.

Swinton, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Leathers, L.

Salisbury, M.

Aberdare, L.

Llewellin, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Lloyd, L.

Albemarle, E.

Aldenham, L.

Merthyr, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Audley, L.

Palmer, L.

Dundonald, E.

Blackford, L.

Remnant, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Brand, L.

Rochdale, L.

Howe, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Rockley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cherwell, L.

Saltoun, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L.(E. Clanwilliam.)

Sandford, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Cranworth, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Selkirk, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Selsdon, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Dorchester, L.

Teviot, L.

Yarborough, E.

Ennisdale, L.

Teynham, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Waleran, L.

Davidson, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Webb-Johnson, L.

Furness, V.

Gifford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "treatment of" to insert "diabetes and". The noble Lord said: May I congratulate the three noble Lords who are now occupying the Government Front Bench, and sympathise with the other noble Lords who are now going to get some refreshment? I hope it will satisfy their souls. I am sure the Amendment which I am submitting will be steam-rollered in the same way as previous Amendments have been. The Government have their serried ranks.
LORD HAWKE: Where are your serried ranks?
LORD BURDEN: Obviously, we have not the same numbers as the Party opposite. With due respect to the "Overlord," Lord Woolton, it would have been gracious and helpful if some consideration had been given to the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the House. I am sure that if there had been any Party approach to this matter, particularly by myself, the noble Earl would have been ready to call attention to it. As he said in his last contribution to the debate, this has not been approached by us in a Party sense. I have not a long experience of your Lordships' House, but I am sure that when the Government were on this side of the House, in spite of the fact that we had overwhelming strength in numbers in another place, we made every effort to meet some of the points which were put forward by the Opposition of those days. There has not been a single attempt to meet us in any way. But there it is. In this Amendment I am asking for consideration to be given to diabetic cases. Surely the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, cannot apply in this particular instance.
LORD WOOLTON: Which argument?
LORD BURDEN: The argument that doctors can prescribe in sufficient quantities for a supply of insulin. As everybody knows, so far as the diabetic is concerned, insulin is necessary to maintain anything in the nature of a working stamina and strength for him to continue his daily avocation. I am advised that it would be dangerous for more than what
892
is regarded as a normal dose to be prescribed by any doctor. It is a regular, continuing treatment, and they must have it throughout their lives. I do not suppose the greatness of our Empire will depend on the diabetic making his contribution, but that does not prevent me from moving this Amendment and endeavouring to commend it to the favourable consideration of the noble Lord opposite. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, after ("of") insert ("diabetes and").—(Lord Burden.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This is another class of persons suffering from a serious disease. The noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, stated in regard to the omnibus Amendment that he would see what could be done, although he did not hold out much hope. Therefore, it would be ridiculous for me to accept this Amendment, if all the others are to be looked at separately. But I would tell the noble Lord that this is one of the cases where the doctor may, and often does, give a large amount of insulin to last a long time. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Jowitt, is not here and I cannot say it to him. I am quite unashamed about that. He did not seem to get the point of the story at all. This method has been going on all the time, and it is accepted. It is where doctors have issued unimportant drugs and medicines from sheer idleness that there is wastage—where people are more or less making up their family medicine chest free. But where a responsible doctor is treating a particular case of a chronic disease, it is recognised by the Ministry and by the profession that it is often more economical to give a man a large supply which will last him for some time; and it diminishes the number of shillings he is asked to pay. With those few remarks, I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Earl spoke about the undertakings given by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. I wonder whether he could enlarge on that a little.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: The noble Viscount heard it said, but if he did not understand it I think he had better wait until to-morrow and read it in Hansard. It was perfectly plain.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: To-morrow will be too late, and it never comes; we are going to finish to-night. The noble Earl, as a member of the Government, receives with gratitude and deference everything that comes from the noble Marquess. But we on this side of the House are in the position of an Opposition. I could not gather what the noble Earl says from anything the noble Marquess said, and he is certainly the most charming Leader of any House I have known
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think perhaps that I had better tell the noble Viscount. I shall probably tell it to him on every single Amendment to this Bill. As a very old Parliamentarian it is clear that his object is to try and make the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, say something different from what I said, and more far-reaching. What I said on this omnibus Amendment was that I would transmit everything that had been said by the noble Viscount and other noble Lords to my right honourable friend the Minister of Health for his consideration. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who leads the noble Viscount's Party, was perfectly satisfied with that statement, and it is only the noble Viscount who still remains agonised and doubtful.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I must follow what the noble Marquess says. First, he says that I am anxious to make trouble between himself and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. He is practically charging me with being a co-ordinator.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would never do that.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: He goes on to say that he will transmit what was said to the parties in the other place. That they can find out for themselves by reading Hansard. I could not understand the trusting simplicity of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who said that inasmuch as the noble Marquess said on a
previous Amendment that these matters would be considered, why debate the Amendment?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is something that I am constantly wondering—why noble Lords on the Benches opposite continue to debate all these Amendments, in view of the assurance which I have already given. It is they who are raising these debates, not we.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: This is also called a debating Chamber at times. I imagine that, as a revising Chamber, it is our job. Now we see the whole Government design. First, we have a most obnoxious Bill. I am sure it is hateful to them to have to bring in this Bill. It is a revelation of niggardly behaviour which no one would like making. In the other place they get over it by having a guillotine. But when we come down here, no Amendments are to be accepted, with the effect, as the noble Marquess generously pointed out to us, that we do not get a Report stage. I suppose we get a Third Reading but I do not know what the Government will do about that. The fact is that each of these cases is showing clearly the meanness and wretchedness of this Bill. The Government must know how many diabetics there are; and they must know whether the economy is £5,000, £10,000, or what it is. But they will not tell us. The result is that people in the country are considering this a very bad Bill, because it strikes at people who cannot defend themselves. So far from desiring to hide these things, I think it is the duty of the Opposition to publish them, courteously but firmly, to the House and to the country, so that they may know just what legislation is being passed.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Chorley, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Greenhill, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Hall, V.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stansgate, V.

Henderson, L.

Nathan, L.

Kenswood. L.

Ogmore, L.

Archibald, L.

Kershaw, L.

Pakenham, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.) [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hudson, V.

Hawke, L.

Margesson, V.

Hindlip, L.

Woolton, L. (L. President.)

Monsell, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Swinton, V.

Leathers, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Llewellin, L.

Salisbury, M.

Aberdare, L.

Lloyd, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Merthyr, L.

Albemarle, E.

Aldenham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Palmer, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Audley, L.

Remnant, L.

Dundonald, E.

Blackford, L.

Rochdale, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Brand, L.

Rockley, L.

Howe, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Saltoun, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cherwell, L.

Sandford, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Sandhurst, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Cranworth, L.

Selsdon, L.

Selkirk, E.

De L'IsIe and Dudley, L.

Teviot, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Dorchester, L.

Teynham, L.

Yarborough, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Waleran, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Gifford, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Davidson, V.

Hampton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Furness, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2) after paragraph (d) to insert:
"( ) the supply of any drug medicine or appliance (not being an article of a kind for which a local health authority has, at the time when the article is supplied, a power to make and recover a charge under section twenty-two of the principal Act) to a woman who is an expectant mother or who has borne a child within the previous twelve months;"
The noble Earl said: I note that this is the thirteenth Amendment, I and venture to hope that that may be a lucky number for this side of the House. I think I am raising a new point, against which the arguments of the noble Lords opposite have not yet been deployed. I hope I may receive their consideration both on the policy issue of this Amendment and on the issue of administration. The policy point is this. My Amendment is to exempt expectant and nursing mothers from the new charges for appliances and prescriptions for drugs imposed by Clause 1—charges they will have to pay if the Bill passes into law in its present form, if they are treated as out-patients and sent to obtain their prescriptions from a chemist. I think it is generally recognised that expectant and nursing mothers are a special class of persons. It is recognised that their health is the responsibility of the community and not merely a private responsibility. It is for that reason that special provision out of public funds is made for those people in many different ways.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the recognition of expectant and nursing mothers as a special class is already embodied in this Bill. Your Lordships will observe that these persons are exempted from the charges that will be made for dental treatment under Clause 2 of the Bill. All I am asking is for the noble Lords opposite to pursue the logic of the Bill and to extend this exemption from dental treatment to charges that will be made for drugs, medicines and appliances under Clause 1 of the Bill. This is extremely important from the point of view of public health. There is no doubt that these charges will be a discouragement to many of the women concerned to take the necessary measures for their health and the health of the child that they will have. For that reason, if these charges are made, it could hardly be regarded as an economy in the medical sense, or as socially desirable.
There is another point of administration which I want to raise. I think I am introducing something of a novelty in this debate, if it is possible so to do, after six hours of the most continuous discussion; but it is the first time a matter of pure administration has been raised. I think it is extremely desirable—and I am sure noble Lords opposite will agree—that such points should be raised, because no mention of them was made when this Bill was discussed in another place. There was little enough time, on account of the closure procedure, for the matter of policy to be discussed, but

897
there was no time at all for matters of administration to be discussed. I am sure that, whether we like or dislike the Bill, we are anxious that there shall be no inconsistency or muddle which can possibly be avoided. If the Bill goes through as it stands, there will be one very curious anomaly. My attention was drawn to it by the London County Council which, of course, is the largest local health authority in the country. They are very concerned about it, and I hope noble Lords opposite will consider it extremely carefully.
May I give your Lordships an example of what will happen, under the Bill as it now stands? A woman who is expecting a child goes to a maternity centre of a local authority. There she will get her vitamins, cod liver oil, fruit juice or whatever may be required, entirely free of charge. I understand that the London County Council is only one of many local authorities who are in the habit of providing these things for the women who take advantage of these health centres. On the other hand, if this same woman goes to a hospital or ante-natal or postnatal clinic provided by the hospital, and she is told that she needs this, that or the other to help her, and is given a prescription and goes to a chemist, under this Bill she has to pay the full amount of the charge. It is surely very undesirable that a woman who has to go to a hospital, perhaps through some abnormality which a specialist has to examine, and is then sent out with a prescription to get what site needs, should have to pay the charge, whereas another woman who is in perfectly normal health and can get exactly what she needs from a local authority clinic will get what she needs without having to pay for it.
That is a matter of administration, and the Government might say: "Perhaps we can improve on this by making the authority charge for the things which they now supply free of charge." I very much hope that noble Lords opposite do not suggest that, although it would be one way of overcoming this difficulty and bringing both types of case into line. I am very glad to see that the noble Lord indicates that he will not take that line. I have been told by the London County Council health officers that it would be a very great handicap to them in their work if this charge had to be made by the local clinics.
The only other logical way I can see out of this difficulty—perhaps the noble Lord will suggest some other way—is to enable women who go to the hospital or the clinics provided by the hospital to get the same sort of drugs, medicines, or whatever it may be, free of charge. That seems to be the other way of doing it. The position is quite understandable because local health authorities are not included under the hospital and specialist services under the principal Act. If your Lordships look at Clause 1, you will see that it refers to services under the Act
"as part of the hospital and specialist services under Part II of the principal Act.…"
That is why local authorities are excluded and make these charges. Both on the grounds of giving the same treatment to mothers when they need medicines as when they need dental treatment, and on the ground of administrative logic, I hope that this Amendment will be carefully examined. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
8.26 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: I am sorry that I cannot help the noble Earl here, but with great respect to him I think he is suffering from a fundamental error in his argument. Having a baby is not a disease. It may be unpleasant, but that is a subject on which we are not very competent to form any judgment. But when it comes to the issue of preventive medicine, then we say that there are certain things which may follow from the period of pregnancy, particularly regarding the teeth, where it is most important for the maintenance of the health of the mother that attention should be given to them. Therefore we say that that shall be free. Similarly, but not in this Bill, the State says that it is very important that during this period a mother should have certain foods provided for her. It is one of the prides of my life that I was able to do that when I was Minister of Food during the war. I think it was a very good thing to do, and I can assure the noble Earl that I should very greatly regret it if any part of that welfare work were taken away. I am entirely with him in this respect. But that is not the argument. The argument the noble Earl puts

899
before us is this: that if a woman who is pregnant is ill from some other cause, then she should be treated as a separate class, different from the rest of the community.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: No. I am quite certain the noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent me, but this is not concerned with a woman who is ill, but with a woman who is simply suffering from the ordinary consequences of having conceived a child. That is the sort of case I had in mind. Her treatment will differ entirely according to whether she avails herself of the welfare service of the local authority or the services provided by a hospital which may, of course, include a midwife.
LORD WOOLTON: I am afraid that I had not quite understood. From what disease is this lady suffering? If she is suffering from any of the ordinary diseases or illnesses—let us use a more pleasant word than diseases—then, if she goes to a hospital and is treated as an out-patient, she pays for her prescription in precisely the same way as if she did not go to a hospital but called in a family doctor. Why should there be a difference between the two cases because a woman has had a baby—
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am quite sure the noble Lord does not wish to misrepresent me, but there is a genuine misunderstanding here. Take, for example, an ante-natal clinic provided by the hospital. If a woman goes there because she is going to have a child and the doctor says: "You need cod liver oil," and she goes to the chemist to get it, she then pays a charge on that prescription. But if she goes to the nearest clinic or health centre she will get the cod liver oil free of charge. That is an anomaly which I am sure the noble Lord will think quite ridiculous.
LORD WOOLTON: I do not see what I can do about it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Will the noble Lord look into it? That is all I am asking.
LORD WOOLTON: The woman is suffering a disadvantage even on the arguments from the other side. There is provision made by the State for her
900
to get the medicine free. I take it that the question is whether she could get it under this Bill free or under the local authorities free. I do not mind as long as she gets the medicine.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Of course, I want her to get it free. But if she goes to an ante-natal clinic run by a hospital, she will not get the same stuff free. It depends on where she is living. Not all local authorities are able to produce these supplies or provide them in the neighbourhood in which the woman lives. What I am asking is that, if the noble Lord has not had his attention drawn to the point, he will examine it and let me have his view on the next stage.
LORD WOOLTON: I did not get the noble Earl's Amendments until late. Probably the noble Earl knows that they came in late—a whole number of them. I am not blaming the noble Earl; I am just stating a fact. I will most certainly look at the point. But in saying that I must not be misunderstood: I am not entering into any commitments.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Earl has asked the noble Lord to look into the matter. He thinks that this means a great deal. I have listened a good deal this afternoon to talk about "looking into it" but, so far as I can see, it means nothing at all.
LORD WOOLTON: It might mean something. The noble Viscount must not make this a debating point. If I say I will look into it, why should he say that he thinks it means nothing at all? Suppose I looked at a thing and became convinced that what the noble Earl said was right, does the noble Viscount mean to tell me that I would not say so? Of course it means something: it means precisely what it says—and that is a great advantage in words.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am greatly stirred by the manly way in which the noble Lord has replied. But I have also heard the noble Marquess the Leader of the House say we were not going to have a Report stage. How could there be an Amendment?
LORD WOOLTON: Would the noble Viscount rather that I said I would not look into it?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Not at all. I am delighted at the noble Lord's charm and willingness, but it does not amount to anything. We have been told that things will be looked into, but we have also been told that we are not going to have a Report stage; so no amount of "looking into" things will mean an Amendment
LORD WOOLTON: I am wondering whether the noble Viscount might address himself to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, because it was the noble Earl who asked me to look into it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: When the noble Earl asked the noble Lord to look into it, he thought that some Amendment might be made. But what are the Government going to do? We know that this Bill is going to be passed into law. In order to exercise the noble Lord's powers of "looking into it," I suggest he publishes information about what the birth rate is in this country. Could he make a rough calculation and tell us what would be the cost of the concessions which the noble Earl has suggested? If he would do that, that would not commit him to any Amendment or to any divergence from Government policy, but it would be gratifying to certain people.
LORD WOOLTON: No, I will not.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: This is amazing. Here is a Minister in charge of a Health Bill imposing charges on expectant mothers and he says that he will not—
LORD WOOLTON: The noble Viscount is making a debating point. He knows perfectly well that I cannot get the detailed cost of this hypothetical concession. He knows that that is true. He asks me at half-past eight in the evening to find out these figures and give them to the House later in the debate. He knows perfectly well that it is impossible for anybody to give that sort of information or to get it at this hour.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: There is nothing criminal about the clock. This is a revising Chamber. I am asking whether, on the basis of the birth rate, which is a well-known figure, and of the charges on prescriptions, which are set out in the Government policy, though not in the Bill, he will make a calculation and tell us what this concession is likely to
902
cost. But the noble Lord was very straightforward. He says he will not do it at all. I asked the noble Marquess the Leader of the House this afternoon about malignant diseases, and he declined to tell me. The inference is that the Government could find out, but the noble Lord has said that they will not.
LORD WOOLTON: The noble Viscount has no right to misinterpret me in that way. He asked me if I could get him certain information and I said that I could not, because I knew I should not be able to get the information to-night.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Well, will the noble Lord give a date on which he can tell us? Can he tell us what the amount of the saving will be? Once we can get that we can break down the more harrowing phases of the Bill—which seems a thoroughly bad Bill. I have asked a simple question: "How many people are born in this country every year?"; and because it is half-past eight, he says he cannot tell us. What would the cost of the concession asked for in the Amendment be? The noble Lord cannot tell us, and we must draw our own inferences. There is not a soul behind who will give us any information. It is for the public to decide. All this is being written down. This is a revising Chamber and the public must and will make their own decision on the matter.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Viscount says that there is no one behind who is prepared to give information, but I can give him this information, as one who has had to compile figures. I cannot conceive any method whereby the breakdown of the costs of accepting these various Amendments could possibly be obtained with reasonable accuracy. Perhaps it may be easier in the case of diabetics—you could find out the total amount of insulin used in the country and issued to National Health Service doctors, and after that you could find out the average doses given and how many weeks' supply the doctor gives the patients, but in other respects the final result would be a guess and not an estimate at all. How are we to estimate precisely from the information at our disposal how many cases there are of people afflicted with eczema or any other disease in the country? It is imposible. The noble Lord could give a detailed figure

903
of the saving with reasonable accuracy, but he could not possibly break it down into these particular things.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for a most helpful speech. But how can you make the total if you do not know the components?
LORD HAWKE: The total comes in the total bill which accrues to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. You know what the flood of medicine costs in a year, and the total number of prescriptions. Then you estimate that there may be some slight abatement for people who have been abusing the Service and who are no longer applying for prescriptions. But you do not know the number of people suffering from these various diseases. You cannot possibly break that down.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I asked how many babies were born, and the Lord President was not able to say. The noble Lord, who is a statistician, knows how many diabetics there are and how many tubercular people there are. Why cannot we have the break-down, by giving us the exact percentage of those suffering from cancer, of expectant mothers, and so on, who are suffering so much? We are only asking for information; we are not putting forward arguments. The arguments can follow from the information. Why we cannot get the information I cannot imagine. I think it is being concealed.
LORD HAWKE: If the noble Viscount considers carefully what is being said, he will realise that it cannot be broken down unless each doctor categorises the disease for which he is prescribing each prescription. Only on that basis could a reasonably firm estimate be made. As for the latter point made by the noble Viscount, I do not believe that this particular Amendment depends in the slightest degree on the birth rate at all. It depends on which ladies happen to be living nearer one sort of clinic than another, and what proportion of the ladies are prescribed particular drugs. Some of them have their children without any drugs at all being prescribed. It is absolutely nothing to do with it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think I derive more comfort than does my noble
904
friend from what the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, has said. From what he has said—he will contradict me if I have misunderstood him—I take him to mean that he will look at this point, that he will see whether or not in this an evident anomaly exists and, if he thinks there is an anomaly, that he will say how he proposes to remedy it. I assume that he will be good enough to make a statement when this clause is discussed on the Report stage of the Bill. In fact, I think it is not going too far to say, that for the first time this afternoon, we have found some common ground between the two sides of the House. Noble Lords opposite think that this is a good Bill, but they also think that the removal of administrative inconsistencies would make it a better Bill. We think that this Bill is a bad Bill but we also think that the removal of administrative inconsistencies would make it a less bad Bill. It amounts to a measure of common ground between noble Lords opposite and ourselves. I am glad that the noble Lord has undertaken to look into this point and to make a statement.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved in subsection (2) after paragraph (d) to insert:
"( ) the supply of any drug, medicine or appliance for any person for whom residential accommodation is being provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act, 1948, and who is not paying the standard rate fixed for that accommodation under section twenty-two of that Act."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment to exempt a certain class of person from the charges under Clause 1 raises rather a different point from any that have been raised up to now. It differs in this respect from the proposals that have been made to exempt people suffering from certain diseases. The arguments on the opposite side of the House were, or at least one of the arguments was, that many of the sufferers from these diseases could afford to pay the charge. I am dealing with a class of person who cannot afford to pay a charge of even 1s. on a prescription. I am asking the Government to exempt from the charges under Clause 1 of the Bill the old people living in houses provided by local authorities if, and only if, of course, they are unable to pay the standard rate for their accommodation.

905
That covers the great majority of the people who live in these homes.
Because it is essential to my argument, may I just describe the financial circumstances of these old people? They are people whose only source of income is either a small pension or an assistance grant from the National Assistance Board. That comprises the whole of their income. For that reason, they cannot afford the standard payment charged by the local authority for their board and lodging. What the local authorities do is this: they deduct as much as they can from the total income of these old people, leaving them with 5s. a week as pocket money for themselves. Mind you, this 5s. a week has to cover all of their needs and enable them to meet the rising cost of living. These people are literally the poorest of the poor, and for them it is a real hardship to pay even 1s. on a prescription. A few of these people are treated as outpatients at hospitals, and the arguments I am using now are just as applicable—indeed, applicable with greater force—to an Amendment I have after Clause 1. I shall not repeat them. If your Lordships will be good enough to remember what I say now, that will be good enough. But even if under this Amendment a small number of cases are affected, the hardship in these cases will be no less great than in the great majority of cases of old people who get their prescriptions made up at the chemist's and go to the chemist's on the instructions of the general practitioner.
The Minister said in another place—and this is, I think, an exceedingly important administrative point to which I should like to direct the noble Lord's attention—that these old people receiving grants from the Assistance Board would be eligible to claim repayment of these charges from the Board. The first question I should like to ask is: did the Minister mean only the old people living on grants—
LORD WOOLTON: Did the noble Earl say "grants"?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: —living on a grant by the local representative of the Assistance Board, or also old people living on small pensions, retirement pensions or whatever they may be, but not able to make the full contribution to-
906
wards their board and lodging? That is the first question I should like to ask the noble Lord. Now let us assume that the Minister would include both as eligible for repayment of these charges on application to the Board. What I want to suggest is that this is an extremely inconvenient and unfortunate administrative method. What is wanted is not repayment but, as I am venturing to suggest in this Amendment, remission of payment, exemption from payment May I mention to your Lordships the difficulty of the method of repayment of the amount paid in the charge on a subsequent claim to the Assistance Board? This will mean hardship for the old people because, even if they are going to get 1s, back in a month's time or in two months' time, the loss of that 1s. in the meantime will mean a sacrifice of some real necessity.
Five shillings a week is not enough for more than the bare necessities and, if they have to lose 1s. because they are sent to a chemist for a prescription for one of their infirmities, that is an encroachment on the necessities of life. Furthermore, it is a great worry to these old people to know that they can get their money back only by filling up a form and making an application to the local representative of the Assistance Board. Some of these old people are ill. Many of them are nervously ill, and it adds to their worries if they have to cope with something that they find is difficult, such as making a repayment claim.
From the point of view of the officials of the local authorities, this puts a tremendous burden upon them. They will find that in many cases they will have to make the repayment claim. It is the officials who will have to make the claim to the Assistance Board. They will have to keep accounts to show what claims have been made, and at a time when we want to save manpower we shall be thrusting a lot of extra work upon these hard-pressed officials of the local authorities. I am expressing the view that is taken by a very large and responsible authority—namely, the London County Council. I have not had the opportunity of consulting other local authorities, but I should imagine that many of them would share the views of the London County Council. But all this extra burden of work thrown upon these busy officials, and the hardship for the old people, could be avoided if they were simply exempted

907
as a class, in the same way as the inmates of hospitals have, as a class, been exempted from the charges made under Clause 1 of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will consider this matter very carefully, both from the point of view of the welfare of these old people and from the point of view of the most efficient administrative method of preventing undue hardship. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD WOOLTON: I am advised that the National Assistance Board, with whom this issue has been raised, have agreed that people in the category to which the noble Earl refers are entitled to relief on grounds of hardship, and that administrative arrangements are being made to ensure that either they should not be asked to pay the charge for drugs supplied through the hospital, or if they are asked, that they should be entitled to a refund. I hope that that administrative step will meet the argument that the noble Earl has put forward.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his reply. I see that the matter has been considered very carefully by the Government. I presume that the Minister will make regulations under Clause 1 of the Bill. I am perfectly prepared to accept the alternative of making regulations under the Bill. At the end of Clause 1, subsection (2) (d) there is a provision to this effect:
"regulations may provide for the remission or repayment of any charge payable there-under.…"
There is a world of difference between "remission" and "repayment," and from what the noble Lord has said I am not sure of the type of regulation which the Minister will issue under the Bill—whether it will provide for remission, for exemption, or for repayment. It did not seem to me to be very clear.
LORD WOOLTON: I will repeat the words I used. Administrative arrangements are being made to ensure that either they should not be asked to pay the charge—
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That is remission.
LORD WOOLTON: That is the first thing for which the noble Earl asked.
908
They should not be asked to pay the charge for drugs supplied through hospitals, or they should be entitled to a refund—either one or the other.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I entirely appreciate what the noble Lord has said. I should be very much obliged if he would say which of those methods is likely to be used. May I ask one other thing? Would he be good enough to ask his colleague, the Minister of Health, to consult with the local authorities before administrative arrangements relating to this matter, or any regulations under the Bill, are made? I am not sure what the procedure will be, of course, but I am quite certain that these people who will have to administer this Bill will find it much easier if they are consulted before any final arrangements are made.
LORD WOOLTON: I will ask the Minister.
LORD LAWSON: May I ask the noble Lord whether this depends upon the person concerned claiming that it is a matter of hardship for him? Is this based upon the ground that there is going to be a claim of hardship by the person concerned?
LORD WOOLTON: No.
LORD LAWSON: Is the noble Lord aware that that is the very thing that causes all the trouble with people concerned in matters of this kind?
LORD WOOLTON: I think the noble Lord has misunderstood, and I do not wonder at that. The noble Lord asks whether it is automatic. The answer is, that it will be automatic. The words are very clear—namely, "They should not be asked to pay."
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Or what? We have got to know which of the two methods are to be used.
LORD WOOLTON: There may be variations, depending upon the particular case.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It is surprising to learn what can be read into the last two lines of subsection (2) of Clause 1. I understand that the point raised by my noble friend can be provided for by the words
"regulations may provide for the remission or repayment of any charge payable there-under.…"

909
It is under those words that the regulations to which the noble Lord has referred are to be made. These regulations will come under a later clause of the Bill before the Committee. If that is so, all the Amendments that we have been moving, about the sick and the poor, might also have been covered by the regulations under this subsection. I should have thought that the word "thereunder" was in some way a limiting word. But if there is so much which can be brought in under the last words of subsection (2) then, when the Lord Chairman puts the question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill, I think we shall have further questions to ask as to whether some of the matters that we have been discussing cannot be dealt with on the pledge of the Government to make regulations, without any Amendments in Committee at all. This has certainly taken me by surprise.
LORD WOOLTON: I did not say that this came in under the regulations; it was the noble Earl who said so.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: But: the noble Lord reassured my noble friend that what he desired would be done. The noble Lord read out from a paper some assurance on this matter. When my noble friend asked, constructively and helpfully, "I presume you mean under the last words of subsection (2)?", the noble Lord appeared to assent. He either did assent, in which case what I have said is correct, or he did not assent; and, if he did not assent, will he tell us under which part of the Bill the regulations will be made?
LORD WOOLTON: I merely gave the assurance which the Minister had given on this issue. I did not say how he was going to do it. I did not say under which regulations he was going to do it. I think perhaps noble Lords might be satisfied with the assurance of the Minister that he will do this.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not understand the point of having Acts of Parliament if they are not to direct the conduct of Ministers. I understood that is what legislation is for. Surely the noble Lord can tell us under what section of the Bill the provision which he has promised, in reply to my noble friend Lord Listowel to make, will be made.
The EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, for what he has said, on the authority of his colleague, the Minister of Health. I certainly do not propose to press this Amendment, but I should be obliged if the noble Lord could further clarify what he has said on the next stage of the Bill. I think the points upon which we should like clarification are first: How is this going to be done? Will it be a regulation of the kind I have suggested, or will it be in some other way? Secondly, which method will be used, and in what circumstances will the one method or the other be used? Thirdly, will there be a further consultation with the local authorities before the administrative arrangements, which cannot be concluded until the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, are finally settled?
LORD WOOLTON: I think it would be easier if I were to say that the consultations about this are now going on with the local authorities.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.0 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved to omit subsection (3). The noble Lord said: As the Committee are aware, Clause 1 provides that charges shall be made in respect of the supply of certain appliances. Subsection (3), which my Amendment seeks to remove, indicates that:
"Any reference…to the supply of appliances shall be construed as including a reference to the replacement and repair of appliances."
The purpose of my Amendment is to relieve those who have surgical appliances from the cost of repairing them. I need hardly point out that surgical boots, which are the principal item concerned, wear out very much more quickly than do ordinary boots and shoes. Moreover, of course, any repairs have to be of a rather special nature. The repair is not an ordinary one. Surgical boots, presumably, have either thicker or thinner soles or heels, or both, than ordinary footwear. They are made in some patent fashion which the repairer has to follow. Therefore, in my submission, in view of the fact that these boots have to be repaired very frequently, and that the repair has to be of rather a special character, to compel wearers or users of surgical boots under the National Health

911
Scheme to pay for their repair will inflict great hardship upon them. It will be a severe imposition on these people. Not only that, but clearly it must be dangerous for men and women to go on wearing surgical boots or other appliances which are not in good repair. The imposition of this charge will create a tendency for people to go on using appliances which are not in good order, which are possibly dirty and insanitary and a danger to the health of the person wearing them. Because of the cost of the repairs, many men and women may endeavour to cobble up their surgical boots or other appliances themselves. Again, that cannot conceivably be a satisfactory way of dealing with them.
In this connection, I should like to refer your Lordships to a picture which I happened to come across in a report of the Ministry of Pensions. It does not refer to surgical boots, but I think the same principle applies. This picture shows some of the fearful contraptions which are worn by people who either buy or make their own artificial limbs. They are unsightly, injurious, inconvenient and, quite obviously—as this picture shows—dirty and insanitary. I submit that precisely the same position would arise in the case of surgical boots. The question of expense and saving has been raised in many cases during this debate, and one can make some rough computation here. I notice that during the Second Reading debate the Minister said that the whole saving, by reason of the imposition of a charge for appliances—not repairs—would be in the neighbourhood of £250,000 a year. That is to say, in respect of the elastic stockings and surgical boots and all the rest of it the saving expected from that particular provision in the Bill is only about £250,000 a year. Quite clearly, the economy effected from making a charge for repairs will be a great deal less than that. I have no definite idea, and there are no facts on which to form an opinion, but I should have thought that repairs to surgical boots which probably cost something like £150,000 or £200,000 to purchase, could not exceed, perhaps, £50,000 a year. That may be the case. But in any event the sum involved is very small, and I hope that the Committee will feel it right to relieve those who suffer from the disability of wearing surgical boots and other appliances from
912
the onus of paying for the repair of them or of making a contribution towards the cost of repairing them. The saving would be trivial and the hardship caused would be great. I invite your Lordships to do away with subsection (3) of Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1 line 6, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Of course, even if this Amendment were accepted, it would still be possible, under the 1946 Act, to make a charge for replacement or repair due to lack of care on the part of the patient. I would, however, point out that under this Bill any replacement needed owing to a defect would be free of charge. In the case of replacement required by reason of neglect on the part of the patient, I can see no harm in the person responsible for the neglect of an appliance paying for his negligence. There is the further case of an appliance wearing out through sheer old age. If we remove this charge, in effect it would mean that only the first appliance would be paid for; the rest would be supplied free. I do not really think that that is logical. As regards the question of a charge for the repair of surgical boots, I do not feel that it can be said that this is any greater hardship or is likely to entail anything but slightly greater cost than the ordinary person has to meet when he has to pay for the repair of ordinary boots. Ordinary boots and shoes need repair from time to time, and the cost of repairs to-day is not by any means cheap. In view of what I have said, I am afraid that the noble Lord's Amendment cannot be accepted.
VISCOUNT HALL: May I put one point to the noble Earl? Let us assume that an artificial limb has been supplied to a person, and that that artificial limb is absolutely essential to enable him continue his employment. Let us further assume that he has not the means to pay for replacement or indeed for repair. Will the consequence of that be that the man will not be able to have replacement or repair of something which is so essential, so absolutely necessary to him?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Certainly not. On the general point, I am sorry I have not the actual figures, but of

913
course, if the person's circumstances are such that he could not afford to pay he could get the money from the National Assistance Board.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
9.9 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved to leave out subsection (3) and to insert:
"(3) No charge shall be made under this section or the next following section if after investigation it is found that the cost of the Health Service can be reduced by an amount equal to that estimated to be raised by such charges as are referred to in section one and section two of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment may on the face of it seem somewhat difficult to follow. But it answers the points which have been made repeatedly by the Government as to what alternative there is to the charges which they have so successfully insisted—in Division, or otherwise—throughout the debate this afternoon should be imposed on our people. That is the purpose of this Amendment, but before dealing with it I want to recall a little history. I want to recall what was prornised during the war to our people who were fighting, to those who were working in the factories and workshops, and to those in Civil Defence. The promises to which I refer were made by the Government of which the present Prime Minister was then Prime Minister. This is what was promised. I take it from a document issued in 1944 on the subject of a National Health Service. Here is a summary of what was promised:

"1. To ensure that everybody in this country, irrespective of means, age, sex or occupation, shall have equal opportunity to benefit from the best and most up-to-date medical and allied services available.

"2. To provide, therefore, for all who want it, a comprehensive service covering every branch of medical and allied activity, from the care of minor ailments to major medicine and surgery; to include the care of mental as well as physical health, and all specialist services for tuberculosis, cancer, infectious diseases, maternity, fracture and orthopædic treatment, and others; to include all normal general services—the family doctor, midwife and nurse, the care of the teeth and the eyes, the day-to-day care of the child; and to include all necessary drugs and medicines and a wide range of appliances.

"3. To divorce the care of health from questions of personal means or other factors irrelevant to it; to provide the service free of charge—apart from certain possible charges in respect of appliances; and to encourage a new
914
attitude to health—the easier obtaining of advice early, the promotion of good health rather than only the treatment of bad."

That was what was promised to the men and women of this country who were fighting at home and abroad. The Labour Party implemented that promise—I agree with the assistance of other Parties—by putting the National Health Service Act on the Statute Book. It is no good noble Lords opposite saying that they are not involved in that promise. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, who has been stonewalling us this afternoon, said on a previous occasion:
"Having begun with the positive plan for wiser feeding which deals with the general mass of the people, I then consider the exceptional people whose bodies fail to function normally, and who require medical advice and assistance. That knowledge is available; we have to make the medical service into a health service, rather than a sickness service, and I believe the system of Health Insurance outlined in the Government's White Paper indicates the proper way for the State to come to the help of the individual in misfortune."
The noble Lord is committed up to the hilt to the White Paper issued by the Coalition Government, with Mr. Winston Churchill as Prime Minister. I make it clear that, in building up our Health Service in this country, the Party to which I am proud to belong has no claim over and above any other Party, except that it put the coping stone on what had been done by other Parties since the beginning of the present century. I recall what an honoured member of this House, who was Prime Minister in the First World War, said: that a society is judged by the minimum physical and mental and moral health it prescribes for its citizens. I ask your Lordships to notice the words, "prescribes for its citizens."
With that background, let us be clear about what we are saying to the Government in this Amendment. We admit—and it has been admitted repeatedly from these Benches—that as a result of the war and of having to grapple with the problem of rearmament and the balance of payments, disagreeable things have had to be done and would have had to be done by any Government. What I suggest in this Amendment is that before we break into the National Health Service by making those who are suffering contribute in the way laid down in this Bill, we should see what economies can be effected by departmental efforts. There are ways of saving in this Service which

915
the Department well know, which I need not particularise, and which may effect a saving without penalising the sick. This Amendment asks the Government to postpone the operation of these charges until they have had an opportunity of surveying the whole layout of the Health Service to find where economies can be made, to see where we could save without imposing upon people when they require medical treatment the indignities which are imposed by this Bill. I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment, which I move and recommend to the House.
Amendment moved—
Page 2 line 6, leave out subsection (3), and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Burden.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment has been the peg for an interesting speech by the noble Lord, but I cannot think that he can expect such a provision as this to find its place in an Act of Parliament. See what it commits the Government to—this or any other Government, because this will find its place permanently in the Act of Parliament if the Amendment is accepted. The proposed new subsection says:
"No charge shall be made under this section or the next following section if after investigation it is found that the cost of the Health Service can be reduced by an amount equal to that estimated to be raised by such charges as are referred to in section one and section two of this Act."
Who is to investigate? Does the noble Lord imagine that there has not been full investigation already before these charges were imposed? Of course this has been the matter of closest scrutiny by the Department, and it is perfectly impossible to suppose that in this Bill we can insert a provision which will mortgage the future. How can he impose on this of any other Government the obligation to see whether, after investigation—by whom and in what circumstances, Heaven knows!—because it is found that the cost of the Health Service can be reduced by such and such an amount, it is really necessary to impose further charges? No such provision was ever found in an Act of Parliament before, and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I cannot possibly consent to accept it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble and learned Lord says that the closest investigation has been given to every clause of this Bill and its details laid
916
before the Government. What is the reason therefore that we cannot be told what the savings are? I have repeatedly asked this question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Viscount has misunderstood me. What I said was that the proper Minister has investigated every possible way of making economies. He will not be able to make economies. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, is referring to when he says, "If the cost of the Health Service can be reduced by an amount equal to that estimated to be raised by such charges." What I meant was that all possible sources of economy have been investigated, and we have not been able to find them.
LORD BURDEN: I take it, then, from what the noble and learned Lord has said, that, apart from the economies and savings which will be effected under the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act, it is not anticipated that there will be any further saving on the National Health Service.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Nobody can possibly foretell the future. All I am saying is that up to date we have made all possible inquiries and have not found any such economies as will enable us to put any other provision in the Bill.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am afraid that I did not make myself clear. I was not dealing with my noble friend's Amendment, but with an obiter dictum of the Lord Chancellor, in which he said that the closest possible investigations had been made of all possible economies. If that is so, I can conceive the drafting committee of the Ministry saying: "What shall we save on surgical boots? Is it worth while putting in dentures?" and so on. That must have been laid before the Ministers when the Bill was being drafted. The only people who must not know what the economy is are the public or this House. I repeat the point only because evidence has accumulated as the Committee stage has proceeded that these facts are known, but not to be revealed, because, as I think, they will prove unfortunate for the Bill. That only came from what the Lord Chancellor said. I shall reserve the other points I have until the question is put that the clause stands part. I have some questions to put about regulations and

917
how they are made. I merely make this point, and I should be glad to get an answer. When I asked before what the reason was, all I received was a rather strong, I will not say tart, reply from the noble Lord. He simply said: "We will not do it." I was then asking what the financial reason was. If we cannot know, we cannot know. But the public will want to know how much is being saved by a man walking about in a surgical boot which needs repairing. This Bill is exciting almost more interest than any other Bill that has been before Parliament for a long time.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: The noble Viscount was good enough to say that he was not addressing himself to the Amendment of his noble friend. I should like to address myself to what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said. If my memory serves me aright, when I introduced a Motion dealing with the Health Service the noble Lord, Lord Burden, to whose speech I listened with interest, said then that, with his long experience of hospitals, he could positively assure me—
LORD BURDEN: I did?
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I thought so.
LORD BURDEN: No.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I have not the copy of Hansard before me, and I accept the noble Lord's statement. But I have a strong recollection that noble Lords on the opposite side who have experience of hospital management assured me that every conceivable economy had already been exercised. I think Hansard will show that. May I also, with respect, point out to the noble Lord that both the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his two predecessors have endeavoured to impose a ceiling on this Service of £400,000,000. I do not wish to repaint a picture I have painted before, but already that amount has been exceeded. As the Service improves and new drugs are invented, the cost is ever rising. It reaches a point where some step must be taken. That was a principle which was recognised by the predecessor of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I assure noble Lords that the only possible form of economy that I can see—and I have talked to those who
918
use the Service in a big way, and to those in humble circumstances—is to instil some sense of responsibility into the more extravagant patients.
LORD BURDEN: Neither the Party to which I belong nor its Chancellors have ever fixed a permanent ceiling.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: They tried to.
LORD BURDEN: They have dealt with the position as it was necessary to deal with it on each Budget.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: They tried again and again. Every Chancellor has tried to fix a ceiling, but none has succeeded. That is the truth.
LORD BURDEN: The noble Viscount is misrepresenting my point. I said that no Chancellor of the Labour Party has fixed a permanent ceiling. I wish that would he firmly in people's minds when they talk and misrepresent the attitude of my Party in this matter. My second point is this. The present Government have been working very rapidly within the six months or so in which they have been in office if they are able to say that in a Service spending £400,000,000 or over there is no passible field for economy. I do not like to particularise that in a way in which it ought to be particularised. What we say on this side is that we accept the need for the most rigid economy and the need for sacrifices; but, first of all, see whether you can make those economies in a way which will not impair the Service. It is because we regard the charges which are imposed in this Bill as mean, squalid and despicable that we have fought it all the way along the line.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must say a few worth in answer to the noble Lord who has just spoken and made a very eloquent series of remarks. I was not clear as to what he said. Is he in favour of any ceiling for a Health Service? I should like the noble Lord to answer that question.
LORD BURDEN: I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is not my responsibility to answer that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As he made such tremendous praise of his own Party, I am entitled to ask whether he or his Party are in favour of a ceiling.
LORD BURDEN: I have already said, with as much emphasis as I command, that the Labour Party fixed a ceiling according to the circumstances of the year, but they have never yet fixed a permanent ceiling. That is the important point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: What I was going to say was that that is exactly what we are doing at this moment: we are fixing a ceiling in accordance with the circumstances of the year. If circumstances changed and our financial position became better, does anyone doubt that necessary and unpleasant economies would be reversed? The noble Lord also said: "Why have there been no investigations?"
LORD BURDEN: I did not say that. What I said was that you have worked very rapidly to have been able, in the brief time that you have been in office, to say that in a Service of £400,000,000 there is no ground at all for economy.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. But the Amendment to which he has put his name says:
"No charge shall be made under this section or the next following section if after investigation it is found.…"
The implication of that is that there has not been an investigation.
LORD BURDEN: No, it is not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly it is; it cannot bear any other meaning. The noble Lord also implied that there were very large economies to be made in other spheres, as he said, without impairing the efficiency of the Service. Why did not his Party do it? They were in power for six years. If there are these spheres in which unnecessary extravagance has taken place, they are seriously to blame. He cannot blame this Government if now it is found necessary to make economies.
LORD BURDEN: I do not want to keep on interrupting the noble Marquess, but I would assure him that if he takes the opportunity of turning to the files of the Ministry of Health—my assurance is from people who were in the Ministry and responsible—he will see that very important steps were taken to effect economies in the Service, and those steps are bearing fruit at the present time. But
920
all the steps taken have not borne the fruit which would enable this Service to be carried on without these charges.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That does not answer my question. I said: Where was there avoidable extravagance? It appears that there was.
LORD BURDEN: I did not say that. The noble Marquess has a trick of putting words into other people's mouths in his controversial methods. I never said that there was extravagance.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I listened to the noble Lord with great patience, but he interrupts me after every sentence. However, I am quite happy about that. He did say there were spheres in which economies were made. If that is so, there must have been avoidable expenditure, and I think that his Party were very much at fault not to put that matter right at the proper time. In the situation in which our country is placed at the present time some economies are necessary, and I can show the noble Lord that very careful inquiries were made to see if any other economies could be made which could cause less hardship than these; but, on the whole, we found that this was the inevitable way of doing it. The noble Lord may not agree, but that was the result of inquiries which we made. I can assure him, therefore, that the investigation for which his own Amendment calls has been made. It was after and following on that investigation, that the present Bill was introduced. The noble Lord may not agree with the steps we are taking but, at the same time, I assure him that what he seeks to achieve by his Amendment has already been accomplished.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
9.32 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: Like other noble Lords, I spent a happy six or seven hours listening to the discussion of this clause. Perhaps the House will allow me to offer a few observations about its general character. If I speak rather plainly, I am sure noble Lords will acquit me of any desire to suggest they are hard-hearted. I am sure they are just as soft-hearted as we are, but I am afraid

921
the softness extends a little further throughout their anatomy: there is a lack of clear headedness on the Benches opposite. One point has emerged from these discussions—that the sole argument for this clause (the argument used by the Lord Chancellor) is the need for economy. Nobody, I think, will challenge that, and nobody has seriously suggested that this will improve the Health Service. I do not think that that argument has been submitted from the other side. But there is a much more disputable point. The noble Lords opposite claim that the quality and quantity of the Health Service will not be reduced. We on this side question that, but that is their argument—that there will be still the same provision of service in spite of these regrettable cuts. So it all boils down to an economic argument, because clearly something is happening on the Health Front.
What is the economic argument for the clause? It has been referred to by the noble Lords opposite almost as something sacred, something perhaps of a mystery, too deep to discuss in public. Nobody has explained this argument. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, it was not explained the other day. The noble Marquess did advance one particular argument but, like myself, he was speaking "off the handle" and I daresay neither of us said exactly all we meant. Certainly the noble Marquess brought forward one argument when he used a rather peculiar expression on the Second Reading. He said:
"… we are dependent on them"—
that is, the foreigners—"
for our very existence. Our existence depends on whether these foreigners will allow their money to stay here, will send more money here, and will close the dollar gap. It depends upon them"—
that is still the foreigners—
"whether we have a decent standard of living here at all."
I do not want to pin the noble Marquess down to words, but there is an argument of a kind. Surely the noble Lords opposite and the noble Marquess on reflection are not going to say that this deplorable Bill is rendered justifiable because of the attitude the foreigners apply to it? I am sure the noble Marquess will agree that if the clause is unjust and ineffective in other respects, it is not rendered just and
922
effective because of the particular feeling of affection that foreigners may entertain for it. So, with great respect to the noble Marquess, I brush that argument rather lightly aside.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, on the Second Reading—and generally it has been the tenor of the argument to-day—claimed that we have to impose these unfortunate charges (and nobody on the opposite side likes them, I quite appreciate that) because of the economic situation. That is what the noble Earl said the other day and it has been stated again this afternoon. I did not take down the exact words, but the noble Marquess assured us that if the economic situation improved this clause would be scrapped and that these charges would, in fact, be removed. So it all boils down to the economic situation and presumably to the external balance of trade. Are there any noble Lords on the other side of the House who, if I may say so without impertinence, trooped in such a docile fashion into the Division Lobby all the afternoon, who are prepared to get up after I have finished and explain the economic argument that has proved so convincing to their heads and has overcome the impulses of their hearts? Before this clause is finished with this afternoon, I feel that we must have some explanation why they have suppressed their nobler feelings in the cause of a hard economic realism.
Well, what is the argument? We are told that there would still be the same provision of medical services, the same number of surgical boot; and good abdominal belts, that everything, would be the same in the medical sphere—no better, no worse—but that there would apparently be some transfer of income. In future, the sick will pay, whereas previously they have gone scot free when they were sick. As I understand it that is the only change that is going to take place. I do not know who is going to reply In me—perhaps nobody is. This may go by default: it has done hitherto. I wonder whether any noble Lord will explain how that particular transfer of income inside the community is going to help the trade balance. We all speak plainly to one another in this House. Nobody has even attempted to give us a reason or an explanation as to how this munificent process they have in mind will

923
take place. How can it possibly take place?
We could carry on a long economic argument about that matter. It has been very much simplified by the Budget. Before the Budget you could argue this matter one way or another. I argued it one way in the House, somebody else argued it the other way; but now we know, since Mr. Butler's Budget, that there is to be no cut in the general consumption of the country this year. That is a very important fact. I will not begin to pursue what the position was when we were in power, but in this year, in Mr. Butler's view (and I am not arguing tonight whether it is right or wrong; he has more information and ability than I have) there should be no cut in general consumption. Yet there is to be this special penalisation of the sick. I ask the noble Lords opposite how they justify singling out the sick for these special penalties. In the absence of any economic justification, I say that this is a rotten clause, and I hope that the House will divide against it.
LORD TEVIOT: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him this question? What was the incentive which induced the late Government to begin cuts on the Health Service and the dental service?
LORD PAKENHAM: The position at the time of the late Government was very much more inflationary than it is to-day. I am not going to carry on with this at length, although I am quite prepared to do so. In this particular year it is evident from Mr. Butler's statement that he does not regard the position as inflationary to the extent it was previously. That is the short answer.
LORD TEVIOT: The noble Lord has not answered my question. My question was: What was behind the idea of the cuts which the late Government proposed? After all, they had been in power for eighteen months. They had three years to run, and if their policy was so much better than ours, why did they not go on and carry it out?
LORD PAKENHAM: The short answer to the noble Lord on the medical side is that it was thought desirable to remedy
924
certain abuses. That argument has not been pressed this afternoon (I call the House to witness that) in my hearing, and I have been here most of the time. The case is based solely on economics, and in the circumstances I look to noble Lords opposite to provide some economic justification for something which, in my opinion, has no justification at all.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: With respect to the noble Lord, I did say that unless some charges were imposed and patients were disciplined in that way, it would be impossible to keep the cost of the Health Service within reasonable limits. I have always taken the view that it is necessary to discipline patients by making charges, much as I dislike the principle.
LORD PAKENHAM: But that has not been the case for the Government—that it is necessary to discipline patients. If that is the case I should be very much surprised.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am only expressing my own view.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am surprised to hear the noble Viscount saying that. I have heard the fiercest defence of the Bill coming from the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President. The Lord President said: "I am keeping my eye on the £20,000,000," and the Lord Chancellor reproved me severely for suggesting any other motive. I think that what my noble friend Lord Pakenham has said was fully justified.
9.44 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not propose to enter into a long economic debate with the noble Lord. He said, and says every time he speaks I think, that no economic case has been made out by noble Lords on this side of the House. I am afraid that is because he does not listen. He has heard speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and he has heard speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Brand, one of the most experienced of economists in this country. He does not listen to him. The noble Lord is here, and I hope he will reply to what Lord Pakenham has said. I will certainly give way to him. I am not going to expound economics in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Brand. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, always

925
takes the attitude that he knows and that nobody else does. So far as I know, he has never been in any bank or City office. He sat all the time in Oxford, and although he has a good academic knowledge he really has very little more.
I can only tell him—this is the point I am making, and the point I made the other day—that when you are trying to create a sense of confidence in the country in my view it is impossible entirely to divorce internal expenditure from external expenditure. The way you manage your internal affairs is bound to have a profound effect upon the nations with whom you have to deal. We all know that in our private lives. I know you cannot draw an exact analogy between the life of a private individual and the life of a nation, but there is a certain analogy to be drawn. We all know perfectly well that a man who lives up to the very limit of his income, and over his income, and thinks it does not matter how much he overdraws, gradually loses the confidence of his fellow man and ultimately suffers serious detriment. It is the same with the nation, and there is no doubt at all that the attitude which has been adopted in this country—I do not want to make a Party point; perhaps many Governments are responsible—is that of saying "What we ought to have we must have, whatever the economic expenditure involved."
I have here a speech made on March 26 of this year by Lord Shepherd, and replying to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster he said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 175, Col. 973):
"I think the noble Viscount was accurate in also saying that costs will continue to rise until the full needs of the nation have been met."
Then he went on to say:
"… then, undoubtedly, the cost will rise until the Service performs the task we expect of it."
I do not dissent in the least from what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said about the object which we seek to achieve. We all have the same object in view. But I do say that the cost cannot rise above a certain point without seriously damaging the credit of the country. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, may not agree with me, but that is my view, and I think that the policy which the present Government are pursuing—an unattractive, painful and
926
extremely unpopular policy—is better calculated to restore our name in the councils of the world than the policy adopted by his Party when they were in power.
LORD BRAND: As my name has been mentioned, perhaps I may be allowed to say one word in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. My attitude, I am afraid, is totally different from his. I regard the burden of taxation in this country as the most important and most difficult problem and as the matter that weighs on this country more than anything else. I am not in the secrets of the Government, and I cannot say whether the £20,000,000 saved by the Bill under discussion is the best way to save money or not. I look on any £20,000,000 of taxation saved as great importance. If the Budget expenditure is lessened by £20,000,000, then either you can reduce taxation by £20,000,000 or you need not increase it by the same amount.
As regards the free Health Service and these particular charges, I had a calculation made in my office the other day as to what proportion of the taxation to meet the cost of the free Health Service is paid by taxpayers of this country with incomes from £500 downwards—not upwards. The calculation resulted in a figure of £132,000,000 a year as being the taxation paid by those income taxpayers with £500 a year and less. I should think it would be better that the Opposition should give some sympathy sometimes to the taxpayers, as well as to other members of the population. I made a speech a day or two ago in Edinburgh, which one or two of your Lordships may have read, in which I made the statement that in my view the taxation in this country is so severe that there are now no personal savings at all. In fact, the personal savings in the country are minus, and I regard this fact as a highly serious matter for the future of the country and for the industry of this country, and for our keeping our place in the world. I do not see where sufficient capital for private industry is to come from. For these reasons and many others, I support any measure which will result in a reduction of taxation in this country, since I consider that the present burden of taxation will, in the long run, be found intolerable. This position can

927
be remedied only either by the Government itself or by the force of economic circumstances, in the most unpleasant way of further inflation.
EARL JOWITT: May I ask the noble Lord a question? I do not understand this matter. Of course taxation is an evil, but the noble Lord would obviously not save taxation by cutting, shall I say, education. There must be some wasteful features in education, but he would not want to do that. He would weigh up in each case the gains which would come from the reduction in taxation against the losses which would accrue from cutting the social services. Does the noble Lord accept that?
LORD BRAND: I believe that when I first spoke in this House I said that I was against the free health services because they involved a taxation of £400,000,000 a year. Some noble Lord on the opposite side said "But we have free education; why should we not have also free health and free food?" I said "Well if you like to have a system where the whole of your income is taken from you by the Government and part of it returned to you in the form of free food, free health, and so on, you can have it; but in my opinion it would be a disastrous form of government: in fact, practically the Russian form." The cost of the free Health Service is partly responsible, among all other taxes, for instance, for the tax on undistributed profits, for taxes which ultimately diminish the power of our industry to prosper; and on our industry all social services and everything else depend. I see that I interest the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—he is apparently very pleased with my speech. I am very glad of it. But I say that all taxes together hit the productive element in the community so hard that the foundation of all the social services will be endangered by the consequences.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that we are getting somewhat far from the question, "That Clause 1 shall stand part of this Bill." We are getting into a big economic debate. We were all delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, make his speech: many parts of it I recognised from Second Reading. But is not the Second Reading really the
928
time and proper place for a discussion such as this?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: As everyone is a judge of matters of order in this House—that is the rule—may I make a modest contribution? The reason that all this is being discussed at such length is that this Bill is such a shameful document and the Government have done their best to conceal it. When it was taken in the other place it was not debated at all—the guillotine was applied. We know that no Amendments are going to be accepted. We have been told that there is to be no Report stage, except by the generous grace and favour of an arrangement made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. These reasons alone, in my view, justify completely the wider debate—apart from the fact that Clause 1 is really the taxing clause, which is the gist of the whole Bill. Therefore I think that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is misjudging the point of view, and I make my contribution in the opposite sense.
EARL JOWITT: I should have thought that this discussion was plainly in order. Everyone dislikes this Bill, including the Government, but they say that in the interests of economy it is necessary. Therefore, surely, we are entitled to a discussion on the economic side. I am astounded to hear a noble Lord of the experience of Lord Llewellin say that this discussion is out of order.
9.55 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: There are just one or two brief points that I should like to make, as my name has been mentioned. The first is this. It is assumed that this Bill, when it has become an Act, will save this country £9,000,000 a year. But is that a fact? Is it not nearer the truth that this Bill merely transfers the expenditure upon sickness from the broad back of a fairly healthy community to the weakened frames of the sick and lame? Noble Lords opposite have repeatedly said to-day that they do not wish people to go to the doctor less often; they all agree that people's teeth should be attended to as regularly as possible. Nothing will be done by this Bill—according to their speeches—which will reduce the health of the nation. Well,

929
if that be the case, the expenditure is to continue But it is, as I have already said, an expenditure laid on the sick and the lame and not on the broad back of the community.
I wish to touch upon one point which the noble Lord, Lord Brand, made. I am a simple man in matters of economics, but there are certain things that I hear from time to time which I clearly understand. One is that taxation and the expenditure from taxation are not necessarily an evil. Taxation is not necessarily an uneconomic thing, and it is not necessarily a loss to the nation. On the contrary, it may pay dividends. If the noble Lord, Lord Brand, were to say to me that a good deal of the expenditure of the Government of this country is wasteful I might agree with him, and I might join in the search for some remedy. But when he tells me, as he seems to have done to-night, that taxation is an evil and must be reduced, then I do not agree.
LORD BRAND: I said too great taxation—not taxation itself.
LORD SHEPHERD: The question of what is too great taxation is a matter which we shall have to decide in some other way and not in a debate on a sum of £9,000,000.
There is one other point. We are told that this sum of £9,000,000, small as it is, it will be a welcome relief which will assist the Government in balancing their accounts, and will contribute to the strength of the nation. I think that is the argument. But in the Budget to which this is a companion document the Government have decided to relieve direct taxation by no less than £180,000,000. Now, the Government did not do that because they thought the nation was going towards bankruptcy. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer it was done because, in Mr. Butler's words:
"I consider that we can well afford the £l80,000,000 which these reliefs will cost in the current year."
So, in a year when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is expressing the view that relief of taxation to the extent of £180,000,000 is within our ability to afford, the Government are asking us to increase the burden by a transfer of £9,000,000 from the broad
930
backs of the community to the weakened frames of the lame and the suffering.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I apologise for continuing the debate but it is the only opportunity we have. I want now to draw attention to a totally different matter, namely, the question of the regulations to be made under this Bill, because we are not at all clear as to what they are and how they are to be enforced. The only two references that I can find to regulations in this Bill are in subsection (2) of Clause 1, and an enlargement of the scope of the regulations in subsection (6) of Clause 7. My noble friend Lord Listowel moved an Amendment which permitted remission to be made in the case of old people who were living in hostels provided by local authorities. In his reply, the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, I understood, made two suggestions: either that it was already covered—I may be doing him wrong; If so, I am sure he will correct me—or that he could do it by regulation.
LORD WOOLTON: I did not say "by regulation." I am sorry the noble Viscount did not hear me aright. I deliberately said not. It was his noble friend who suggested that it might be done by regulation. I made no comment upon it. This is the second time I have made this particular speech.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then how is it to be done if not by regulation? Is it in the Bill?—because I understood the noble Lord to say that he accepted the principle of the Amendment and that it was possible to do it. When my learned friend said "By regulation?" I understood the noble Lord to assent, but apparently he did not assent. How is it to be done?
LORD WOOLTON: It might be by agreement.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: With whom?
LORD WOOLTON: Without being in the Bill.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Agreement with whom? Is this not Parliament? Where are these private agreements where public money is transferred from one pocket to another?
LORD WOOLTON: I deliberately said—I am sorry to repeat myself; we are all getting most tired—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Not at all.
LORD WOOLTON: Well, I am. I congratulate the noble Viscount on his stamina. I deliberately said that there were discussions taking place at the present time between the Minister and the local authorities, and that it would be on that basis that agreements might be made.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am sorry that the noble Lord is tired. But we are only just finishing Clause 1. There are nine clauses, and I think we can all say that the first stage of the Committee discussion on this Bill has been, in our own phrase, what we may call a profitable afternoon.
LORD WOOLTON: All I said was that I was tired of repeating myself, of making the same speech twice over.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am glad to hear that, because we are never tired of hearing the same speech over and over again by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. But what I want to know is: if he is going to do it by agreement, is it some extra-legal agreement, or how will it be done? Because when my noble friend referred to regulations, naturally one's eye was sharpened to see what could be done under those regulations. If the Lord President says that this arrangement about the old people in hostels will be made, that in fact at present the question is being discussed. I want to know whether a conclusion will be arrived at before this Bill becomes law? I see that the noble Lord is reading his paper, but we are supposed to be legislating. We are passing a Bill now, on the sole Committee stage discussion that is open to us. The Bill will later go to Third Reading and, in the meantime, we are told, an important Amendment is going to be accepted. Then, somehow, there is to be agreement between the Government and the local authorities—the noble Lord seems to think that he evades his responsibility to Parliament properly by saying that this is a matter for discussion between the two authorities. It is not satisfactory and is not a proper exercise of Parliamentary control. If that is going to happen, I should like to know what is covered by the words—that is why I
932
raise this point on whether the clause shall stand part—in subsection (2):
"… and regulations may provide for the remission or repayment of any charge payable thereunder in such other cases as may be prescribed."
Could regulations be made giving remissions in the special cases which we have asked for in our Amendments? If that is so, it raises a very interesting point. I think it is a question that it is reasonable to put. I would beg the noble Lord if he would be so kind, or the noble Marquess who is leading the House, to tell us exactly what is the scope of the power as permitted to the Government in those words on page 2 of the Bill?
LORD WOOLTON: The answer to the last question is that regulations on charges for drugs from hospitals will be made under the Bill and will be subject to a Negative Resolution of both Houses.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Of both Houses, of course—yes.
LORD WOOLTON: Referring to the question raised by, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the answer is that regulations on the charges for doctors' prescriptions will be made under the Act of 1946—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I know that.
LORD WOOLTON: —as amended by the Act of 1949. Therefore, the Act already exists. It is one of your Acts and they will be subject, of course, similarly to a Resolution of both Houses.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then I understand that the answer to my question is that, as regards hospital prescriptions, the Government already have power to remit or repay the charge to people for whom we have been pleading in our Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As I understand it, the charges for drugs from hospitals to which the noble Viscount is at present referring will be made under this Bill and will be subject to Negative Resolution, the ordinary procedure.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes, the remission and repayment—that is so. The noble Marquess has been speaking about the last paragraph of subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill—that is to say, that they could be remitted so far as hospital charges are concerned. I do not know

933
whether regulations would be required for the old Act of 1949, but these charges could be remitted under the existing powers of the Act. If that is so, I think we might I have been told that when we were discussing the cases of these various diseases.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May we be quite clear about this matter, because it is of considerable importance? The fact is, of course, that the power to impose the charges for prescriptions which will be paid by these old people is a power existing in the 1949 Act and does not come in this Bill at all. They are powers which we did not apply and which noble Lords will apply in other cases. Is there
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
10.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Exemption of expectant and nursing mothers from charges for pharmaceutical services.
". No charge shall be made under subsection (3) of section thirty-eight of the National Health Service Act, 1946, or under subsection (3) of section forty of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which
also in that Act power to remit or repay charges of this kind?—because that is the point we are on. Under what power is the noble Lord going to remit or repay charges on prescriptions, made out for old people for whom local authorities are responsible?
LORD WOOLTON: I understand that it is under the 1949 Act.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Whether the said clause shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS

Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Buckmaster, V.

Hampton, L.

Davidson, V.

Hindlip, L.

Woolton, L. (L. President.)

Falmouth, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Furness, V.

Leathers, L.

Hudson, V.

Llewellin, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Margesson, V.

Merthyr, L.

Salisbury, M.

Monsell, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swinton, V.

Palmer, L

Albemarle, E.

Remnant, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Aberdare, L.

Rochdale, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Rockley, L.

Dundonald, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Saltoun, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Audley, L.

Sandford, L.

Howe, E.

Blackford, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brand, L.

Teviot, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Teynham, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Clanwilliam, L.(E. Clanwilliam.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Selkirk, E.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Waleran, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Yarborough, E.

Gifford, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Chorley, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Greenhill, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Stansgate, V

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Milner of Leeds, L.

Henderson, L.

Nathan, L.

Ammon, L.

Kenswood, L.

Ogmore, L.

Archibald, L.

Kershaw, L.

Pakenham, L.

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.) [Teller.]

Lawson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Burden, L. [Teller.]

provide for the making and recovery of charges in respect of pharmaceutical services) in respect of any pharmaceutical services provided for any woman who is an expectant mother or who, within the previous twelve months, has borne a child, except of the supply to such a woman of any article of a kind for which a local I health authority has, at the time when the article is supplied, a power to make and recover a charge under section twenty-two of the principal Act."
The noble Earl said: The night is getting late and I do not intend to weary the Committee by repeating the argu-

935
ments which I have used at an earlier stage of the discussions on this Bill. The object of this Amendment is to exempt from charges for medicine and drugs those expectant and nursing mothers who get their supplies through general practitioners as distinct from those who get them through the hospitals, which are a class with which I dealt earlier on, in another Amendment. I shall not repeat the arguments because they are exactly the same as I used before. I think that this is a class of person who deserves separate treatment, and I very much hope that the Government will view the claims of these people with a good deal of sympathy and kindness. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am afraid that I am unable to accede to the noble Earl's request to accept this Amendment. One main reason why I cannot do so is that which I think was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton—that reproducing one's species is not a disease. It may be that some of the species produced may be regarded by some future generation as a disease but, normally and generally, this process of reproduction is not a disease. As the noble Lord said earlier, we poor males, however august we may be in certain parts of this House, do not know of the difficulties. But it is not considered that these ladies can be classed as special cases suffering from hardship and therefore I am unable to accept the noble Earl's Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Does that mean that under regulations made under subsection (2) it will be impossible to remit charges on these people?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am not going to be drawn by the noble Viscount any further to-night.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Earl has used the phrase "not going to be drawn." That is what Ministers are for. That is why they come here; that is what is called Parliament. They come here in order to explain to the public what their legislation means. I am perfectly certain that the Deputy Leader of the House would not use an expression
936
of that kind. He would have told us plainly whether remission in this particular case is covered by the last three lines of Clause 1 (2). It is a perfectly simple and, I am sure, quite legitimate question.
On Question, Amendment negatived
10.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given notice that he would move after Clause 1 to insert the following new clause:
Exemption of certain persons in welfare homes from charges for pharmaceutical services
". No charge shall be made under subsection (3) of section thirty-eight of the National Health Service Act, 1946. or under subsection (3) of section forty of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which provide for the making and recovery of charges in respect of pharmaceutical services) in respect of any pharmaceutical services provided for any person for whom residential accommodation is being provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act. 1948, and who is not paying the standard rate fixed for that accommodation under section twenty-two of that Act."
The noble Earl said: This is another application of the principle which was embodied in the Amendment I moved at an earlier stage of the Bill. This Amendment applies the principle of exemption to old people who go for their medicine or drugs on the instructions of a general practitioner. The former Amendment applied to old people who went to a hospital. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, made quite a long statement when I moved my first Amendment on this subject, and I am looking forward to what he has to say on the Report stage. I shall not say anything more by way of argument in support of this Amendment. I should like, by leave of the Committee, to refrain from moving it in view of the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, on my previous Amendment.
Clause 2:
Charges for dental treatment.
2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a charge of the amount authorised by this section may be made and recovered, in such manner as may be prescribed, in respect of any services provided as part of the general dental services under Part IV of the principal Act, not being—

(a) the supply or replacement of appliances described in the Schedule to the National Health Service Act, 1951;

(b) the repair of appliances other than prescribed appliances;

937

(c) the arresting of bleeding; or

(d) the clinical examination of a patient and any report thereon.

(2) The amount of the charge payable under this section in respect of services provided in pursuance of any contract or arrangement shall be the current authorised fee for all services so provided in respect of which a charge is payable under this section, or one pound, whichever is the less; but where any services in respect of which a charge is payable under the National Health Service Act, 1951, are provided in pursuance of the contract or arrangement, the charges payable under this section and under that Act in respect of all services provided in pursuance of the contract or arrangement shall not exceed four pounds five shillings in the aggregate.
10.25 p.m.
Lord MILNER OF LEEDS Lord MILNER OF LEEDS moved, in subsection (1) after "made" to insert "before the first day of April, 1954." The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment is really to limit the operation of the Bill. As your Lordships know, the operation of the previous Act was limited to April, 1954. Under the provisions of the present Bill, in this clause,
"a charge of the amount authorised by this section"—
I am reading now from page 2, line 10—
"may be made and recovered, in such manner as may be prescribed…"
I am proposing to insert the words "before the first day of April, 1954," so that the line will read:
"… a charge of the amount authorised by this section may be made before the first day of April, 1954…"
That is the date up to which the original Bill ran. It seems to me that this is a reasonable Amendment. I do, however, provide by the following Amendment on the Marshalled List that:
"if at any time before the first day of April, 1954, an Address is presented to Her Majesty by each House of Parliament praying that this section be continued in force for a period of one year from the time at which it would otherwise expire, Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that this section shall continue in force for that further period."
So it is made possible for these provisions to operate not only up to 1954, as provided for by the original Act, but, on an Order in Council made by Her Majesty, for a further year. It seems to me that that time should be sufficient. We have been given to understand by the noble Marquess to-night that if conditions improve not only these provisions but
938
other provisions also will be done away with and that there will be, in fact, a free Health Service. I do not know, but it seems to me unlikely that conditions will improve during the period the present Government are in power, and, in any event, 1954 is not a very long way ahead. Having regard to the extra year provided for in the following Amendment, I hope the Government will accept this one. If they do not do so, it seems to me that that will be evidence of very little confidence on their part in their ability to improve the position of affairs generally before 1954. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, after ("made") insert ("before the first day of April, 1954").—(Lord Milner of Leeds.)
10.28 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT SWINTON): The noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has supplied several reasons for rejecting it. In fact, I did not in the course of his speech apprehend any significant reason why it should be accepted. I should not accept all the premises on which he based his argument, that nothing good could come out of this Government and that the situation could not improve. Happily, the situation has greatly improved since noble Lords opposite vacated their position. The situation has clearly improved. What the noble Lord is seeking to do is to insert something on the basis of the 1951 Act—which, of course, was the Act under which his Government imposed, and quite rightly imposed, tile charges which for many hours to-night noble Lords who I thought supported the Government in those clays have been objecting to. But we have to remember that when the Socialist Government invited Parliament to impose these charges in 1951 the situation was far less serious than that which we encountered when we came into office. It is true that my noble friend, the Leader of the House, has said that we take power in this Bill to reduce or abandon these charges if conditions improve.
That seems to me to be quite right, and it would be entirely inconsistent with it to adopt the noble Lord's proposal, which is not that if conditions improve (as I trust

939
they will) we shall reduce or abandon these charges, but that if conditions have not improved sufficiently we shall then, having abandoned these charges, perhaps having raised false hopes in the breasts of the people, do what I do not like doing by Order in Council, and extend the period of the operation of the section. I am sure it would be said by the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition that the right way to impose charges is not by Order in Council but by legislation. Surely the sensible thing to do is to adhere to the provisions in this Bill which assimilate the Act of 1951, and, by this Bill, which will presently be an Act of Parliament, take powers to abandon or reduce both, if we find in future that circumstances permit. Therefore, I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, in subsection (2), after "shall be," to insert "ten per cent. of." The noble Lord said: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I take the next two Amendments together, as they are complementary. I am not going to say, as the noble Viscount suggested, that no good can come out of this Government, because here is an opportunity for them to do some good. I am not going to interfere in any way with the make-up of the Bill. All this Amendment asks is that some modification shall be made in the interests of those who can least afford these expenses. Attention to the teeth is something more than extraction and dentures, and this subsection concerns what we might call the conservation of the teeth of our young people. It would be an economy if charges were lessened in order that there should not be any deterioration in the teeth of our young people through their being unable to obtain the necessary attention to keep their teeth in good condition. Up to the age of sixteen years they get free attention, and after that they are called up for National Service, but in the intervening time their teeth do not have the attention they might have had during a period when it is most necessary. When they come back from the Forces and enter university or apprenticeship, they are not likely to have much money in hand to pay this increased amount for dental treatment. That is why I move this Amendment, which proposes that there should
940
be a reduction to 10 per cent. in the charges and, in the following Amendment, that the charges should not exceed £2 5s.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 22, after ("be") insert ("ten per cent. of").—(Lord Ammon.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Once again I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this Amendment. It is not expected that the full charge in many cases will be up to the £1 limit, and if the charge is reduced to 10 per cent. this would prove to be a more or less wrecking Amendment, because the saving would be nil. On this ground I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am moved by my noble friend to draw attention to a most objectionable feature of this Bill. To a large extent we may call this a taxing Bill. It was not founded on a Money Resolution in another place but it required a Money Resolution. As your Lordships know, we in this House are not entitled to impose a charge. Any Amendment we may make would have to be put in italics in the Order Paper of another place and Mr. Speaker would have to call the attention of another place to the Amendment and a special entry would have to be made in the Journal. In general, I support my noble friend's suggestion. I am surprised that the Government have not made any comment on what this type of thing is forcing on the Constitution. In another place they guillotine what seems to be a taxing Bill and force it through the House, so that, if it is to be amended, we are forced to put in Amendments which are privilege Amendments—a thing that in my judgment should be avoided at all costs. They are tending to increase the financial powers of this House. I draw attention to this because it might arise in other cases. The noble Earl has made his usual reply and I suppose we must accept it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
10.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: I should like to say a few words on Clause 2. Here I particularly wish to call in aid the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, in support of my contention that charges for dental treatment ought not to be made in this

941
Bill. When I have read this extract from the Report of the Committee over which the noble Lord presided, the noble Lord should vote with this Party on the question of whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill. This is what the Committee said:
"The greatest single step forward which in our view could be made at the present juncture is the acceptance of the principle of a comprehensive service which, while perhaps not wholly adequate, will be equally available to all who demand it and which will be paid for by the community as a whole."
The Report went on to say:
"We want to divorce dental health care from question, of means and thus begin to build up demand. Then can come the wider and longer process of increasing enlightenment about dental health."
During the war the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and his eminent Committee proposed that there should be a free dental service, the cost of which should be met by the community as a whole. In this Bill Clause 2 provides for a charge up to the sum of £1 on persons who would otherwise have been entitled to a free service. I submit that here again all these charges are deterrents. Whether intended or not, they will have the effect of prevailing upon people who require dental treatment not to take it until their condition is so bad that perhaps it cannot be remedied, or so bad that certainly their £1 will be well spent in going to the dentist. That is not desirable, either from a personal or from a national point of view. The imposition of a charge of up to £1 will be a great hardship on many thousands of people. The last thing we in this House ought to do is approve of payments in respect of dental treatment, which in some instances have been free for many years. I hope the House will not pass this clause.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hope the noble Lord's Party will pay due regard to the strictures that he has passed on Mr. Gaitskell and other members of the Government who were responsible for imposing charges under the Act of 1951. They are hardly usefully addressed to us on this Bill, on the question of principle. The argument that people will let their teeth go and will never go to the dentist is most carefully met by the provision we have made in the Bill that inspection shall be free. That seems to me to knock the bottom out of the noble Lord's argument. There is also provision for treatment for those of younger years.
EARL JOWITT: Before we part with this clause, I want to say this. We have had an interesting discussion this afternoon, a discussion which has brought us practically nothing. Of course, it is within the power of noble Lords to use their majority and turn us down in every single respect, but if this goes on, discussions of this sort in this House in these circumstances are pretty well useless. At a time when everybody is looking at this House and wondering if it performs any useful function or not, I cannot help thinking that that is regrettable, because I believe in this House and want it to go on. In the old clays when I was sitting on the Bench opposite, noble Lords now in the Government had a huge majority against me. I had to be very conciliatory, and in every case I had to see what I could afford to give away. I quite agree that the circumstances to-day make it completely unnecessary for noble Lords opposite to be conciliatory, or to consider what they have to give away, or to give away anything. They can simply steamroller us and heat us on every single Amendment, all through every discussion. If this goes on, the discussions in this House become more or less useless. Therefore I would urge your Lordships, before we leave this clause, to approach the matter in this way. Here we have an important Bill which was not discussed in the other place, and we have had an interesting discussion on the Bill, as I have said. We are greatly indebted to noble Lords for the information given to us, but I may say that we are indebted to them for very little else—and I regret that. I hope that when we come to the next Amendment the Government will be able to give us something which will make our discussions worth while.
LORD SALTOUN: I was sorry to hear the noble and learned Earl who leads the Opposition make that speech. I spent many weary days in the House on Bills of the last Government. He said that we had a majority, and that he had to use extreme forbearance to conciliate. But on many occasions after a Bill was passed the noble and learned Earl thanked us for the improvements we had made to the Bill.
EARL JOWITT: I am not disputing that. I would do it now. I do not dispute that your Lordships improved Bills, as I hope that we also may do.
LORD SALTOUN: I would remind the noble and learned Earl of one incident which shows how flexible and entirely non-Party our opposition was. I think it was on the occasion of our discussions on the National Insurance Bill. The friendly societies were to be put back in the Bill that afternoon, and the noble and learned Viscount (as he then was) rose and made a speech. It was a matter on which I had strong opinions, which were not those of my Party, and I agreed with the then Government. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, made a speech—not one of his great speeches in which he magnified a weak point to make it appear a strong one, but a short, simple and direct speech. I saw my leader, the noble Marquess, look round and realise that the whole of his Party had melted away, convinced by the noble Earl's reasons. The noble Marquess will probably bear me out. We did not divide. That was very much the spirit in which our Opposition was carried on, and I do not think it is a proper reward for that spirit to say that sort of thing now.
EARL JOWITT: The noble Lord has completely failed to understand everything that I have said. It is late in the evening, I know, and sometimes even the clearest brains get a little woolly. If he will forgive me for saying so, he has completely failed to understand what I said. I have often said in the past, and I say it to-day, that I think the character of the Opposition in this House when the Labour Government were in office was most useful and helpful. I thanked them then, and I thank them now. I do not say that it was always non-Party; that would be a ridiculous over-statement, as there was a good deal of Party in it. But, apart from that fact, they gave us great help in improving our Bills. I have not suggested anything to the contrary. All I said was that I went out of my way to try to be conciliatory to them, so that the two minds met. All I suggested in what I said to-night was that I hope the present Government, now that the situation is reversed, will go out of their way to be conciliatory, so that minds may meet, and we in our turn will try to make helpful and useful suggestions. But if the Government are not going to meet us at all and if all our suggestions are to be turned down flat in the present circumstances, because the Government have a
944
great majority here, then I feel that discussions in this House will be rather useless. The noble Lord has completely misunderstood every word I said, and if he reads his own speech to-morrow I think he will realise it.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Before this clause is passed, I should like to ask the noble Marquess what are the concessions that we have received. He generously drew our attention to the fact that, as no Amendments have been accepted, there will be no Report stage, but he made a further suggestion which I did not quite understand. If he could explain that clearly it might result in curtailing our debate now, although I for one should never agree that it was useless.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have explained the situation about three times to the noble Viscount, but if he would like to have it again he is entitled to his pleasure. I felt that I must tell your Lordships about this difficulty of the Report stage; otherwise, if something should be postponed to the Report stage, or it were agreed that there should be consultation before the Report stage, and it turned out that there would not be a Report stage, we should have "double-crossed" the Opposition, which I did not want to do. I understand that when we move "that the Report be now received" I shall on that occasion he able to make a statement. This is a rather difficult matter, because that is a most unusual procedure and one which is not usually adopted. The Lord Chairman will report the Bill to the House without amendment, and the normal thing would be that I should then move" that the Report be now received. "But I shall not do that; that Motion will not be moved to-night, but at a later date, when we resume the discussion on this Bill. I understand that when I move "that the Report be now received" there will be an opportunity for a debate. As your Lordships can see, I find this unusual procedure rather difficult to follow. The Bill will appear on the Paper for Consideration on Report, and on that the Bill can be reconsidered on Report; Amendments can be moved, and noble Lords can put down what Amendments they wish. In effect, it creates a Report stage which would not normally be there; we are recreating a Report stage to enable noble Lords to have an opportunity of

945
further consideration of the Bill. In the meantime, as I promised, I will transmit to my right honourable friend the Minister of Health what has been said to-day on what I call the "omnibus Amendment," and. I hope to be able to report on that occasion the result of my inquiries. The Amendment will then be put down again by the Opposition on the Report stage, and I or my noble friend Lord Woolton will speak on it. I think that is now clear. It is a very unusual procedure, and we are adopting it on this occasion only to get out of the difficulty which would otherwise arise.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I thank the noble Marquess. I think he will admit that the question was justified, because it was not quite clear what would happen. I should like to thank him for the generous way in which he drew our attention to the fact that there would not be a Report stage. I think we owe something to him for his generous treatment of the House, and for giving us this opportunity of further discussing the matter.
Clause 2 agreed to.
10.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, After Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
Exemption of expectant and nursing mothers front charges for dentures
". No charge shall be made under section one of the National Health Service Act, 1951 (which authorises the making and recovery of charges in respect of certain dental and optical appliances) in respect of the supply of a denture to a woman who, at the date of the contract or arrangement for the provision of the dental services in connection with which the denture was supplied, was an expectant mother or had borne a child within the previous twelve months,"
The noble Earl said: I cannot help feeling slightly aggrieved that before he had had the chance of listening to the argument I desire to put forward on this Amendment, the noble Marquess has just said that, the Bill having been reported, without amendment, he intended to move "that the Report be now received." My grievance is all the more keen because I regard this as being an extremely moderate and sensible Amendment. Noble Lords opposite have, up to now, not accepted any Amendments, and the only concession they have made—for which we are grateful—is about exempting old people who do not pay the standard rate in, homes maintained by local authorities but that is to be done administra-
946
tively and nothing will appear in the Bill. Here I should hope there might be an opportunity for some concession which might go into the Bill.
The object of this Amendment is to exempt from the charge that can be made under the Act of 1951 nursing or expectant mothers who require dentures. If this Amendment were accepted it would put those people, in respect of dentures, in exactly the same position as they would be under this Bill in respect of dental treatment, because under Clause 2 (4) of this Bill expectant and nursing mothers are specifically exempted from the charge that will be made for dental treatment. Subsection (4) says:
"No charge shall be made under this section in respect of the services … provided for any person who, on the date of the contract or arrangement for the services …
(b) is an expectant mother or has borne a child within the previous twelve months."
So an expectant mother who goes to a dentist to have a cavity mended or to have an extraction will not pay any charge, whereas any other person who goes to a dentist for other purposes will have to pay a charge. It seems rather illogical, in view of what the Government seek to do under the Bill, that these people should, nevertheless, have to pay for dentures. It looks as though, if an expectant mother wants a tooth extracted or subtracted, it is done for nothing, whereas if she wants teeth added she will have to pay for them. I cannot help thinking that that is rather an illogical situation, quite apart from the importance of the care of the teeth from the point of view of the expectant mother and her child.
The other point in this is an administrative one. There is an extraordinary anomaly here. If an expectant mother goes to see a visiting dentist at a maternity centre run by the local authority, the dentist can provide the denture free of charge. That is not affected by the 1951 Act. On the outer hand, if the same person goes to a dentist under the Health Service and asks for a denture, she will have to pay up to the limit prescribed in this Bill. That is surely an anomaly which must be put right, whatever the Government decide to do. I should like to hear what the noble Lord who replies may have to say on that point, apart from the wider and more important issue that I have already raised. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am afraid that I cannot ask the Committee to accept this Amendment. I will not rest simply on saying what I think indeed is true—that subtraction and addition are not exactly the same thing. I could not quite follow the argument that the extraction of your teeth was the same thing as being supplied with a complete set of dentures. I think the short answer to the noble Earl is this. Under the Act of 1951, there were no exemptions. Much as one would like to make exemptions here, the principle of no exemption in these cases was an essential feature of the Act of 1951, and I am afraid that we must carry on with it. But there is a way in which help can be given here and I understand that nursing and expectant mothers are entitled to dentures without charge under the priority services run by the local authorities.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That is exactly the point I made.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: These services are not as fully developed as we would wish to see them. I think one result of the present Bill will be an expansion of the priority services run by the local authorities, both for expectant mothers and children.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Evasion of charges.
6. If any person for the purpose of evading the payment of any charge under the National Health Service Acts or this Act, or of reducing the amount of any such charge—

(a) knowingly makes any false statement or false representation; or

(b) produces or furnishes, or causes or knowingly allows to be produced or furnished, any document or information which he knows to be false in a material particular,

he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both; and whether or not he is convicted of an offence under this section the charge, or as the case may be the balance of the charge, may be recovered from him as a simple contract debt by the person by whom the cost of the service in question was defrayed.
10.58 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS LORD MILNER OF LEEDS moved to omit all words from "exceeding" down to and including "both" and to insert "twenty pounds." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to reduce the penalty for evasion of the payment of any charge under the National Health Service Act to what I think is a more reasonable figure and one more appropriate to the offence. We have always understood that, in matters of this sort, penalties should be made to fit the crime, and here the penalty laid down in the Bill would appear to be grossly excessive. I am fully aware that it may be said that this is only the maximum, and that it will never be enforced; but it is surely excessive to provide for a penalty of a fine of £100 or three months' imprisonment, or both, for what at the most can be a very small offence. Indeed, it seems very difficult to conceive of what the offences can be under this clause. There may be a misrepresentation by a man that he is under twenty-one, in the case of dentures, or under sixteen in the case of prescriptions, or something of that sort. But what can he obtain? A few prescriptions, maybe a denture or something of that sort. The penalty is grossly excessive.
I think I am right in saying that the maximum penalty under the National Insurance Act is not so much as, and certainly does not exceed, the penalty laid down by this Bill. It is not the case here that a person can obtain hundreds of pounds by misrepresentation, and it is not a case of misrepresentation to a medical man. This is not a penalty for an applicant who goes to a medical man and represents that he has some complaint or other which entitles him to an appliance, or to a prescription or anything else. This is a penalty for a false representation made for the purposes of evading payment of charges prescribed. The only instance that occurs to me (and I shall he happy to learn whether the Lord Chancellor, if he is to reply, can give any further instances) is where an effort might be made to obtain exemption from charges laid down in this Bill on some misrepresentation that the person came within these various exemption clauses. There are, however, few of those. The amount involved must be trivial, and I submit that the fine of £20 would be adequate to cover any offence which might be committed under this section. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 24, leave out from ("exceeding") to ("and") in line 25, and insert ("twenty pounds").—(Loral Milner of Leeds.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I had a little spare time while the debate was going on, and I took the opportunity of reading from the 1951 Statutes, and I came upon the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Act, 1951, introduced by the late Labour Government. If your Lordships would follow the words in the Bill before us I will read from this Act:
"If any person, for the purpose of obtaining any allowance or payment under this Act, whether for himself or some other person—

(a) knowingly makes any false statement or false representation; or

(b) produces or furnishes, or causes or knowingly allows to be produced or furnished, any document or information which he knows to be false in a material particular;

he shall he liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment."
Of course there are, as the noble Lord said, maximum penalties. I would not follow every precedent set by the late Government, but in this one the present Government seem to be following pretty faithfully the words to meet very similar circumstances under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: That is a different offence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend, Lord Llewellin, has in some measure taken the words out of my mouth. I can supplement what he has said from two other Acts passed in recent years by the Socialist Government in which exactly the same form has been followed. For instance, in the National Assistance Act, 1948, Section 52 (1) provides substantially the same penalty, in substantially the same words: that in the event of anybody knowingly making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining benefit under Part II or Part III of the Act he shall be liable to a fine of up to £100 or three months' imprisonment, or both. In another case—not quite the pari materia with this Act—the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950, the same penalty is applied to persons making false statements with a view to obtaining benefits under the Amendment. That Act, of course, relates to damage caused to dwelling houses by subsidence. It really
950
has become substantially the common form adopted by the Socialists to impose a penalty of £100 or three months imprisonment (as a maximum, of course) for attempts which I think are particularly mean, to get benefit out of this welfare legislation. I would suggest to the House that it is a particularly mean kind of crime to try to get benefit, by false statements, to which you are not entitled. Of course, this is a maximum penalty, and the maximum would be imposed only in the ease of real gravity.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: The noble and learned Lord has not compared the offences, which is the essential thing. He has given a case under the National Assistance Act of misrepresentation to obtain a payment. That payment might be £10 over a period of years it might be a benefit of £100 or it may be £1,000. The Lord Chancellor has not told us what the evasion may be under this particular Bill and what amount is involved. Similarly, he has spoken about the Coal-Mining Act, 1950. There again, there is a penalty of £100 and three months imprisonment for making false statements to obtain payment. As I indicated, those payments may be a very large sum indeed, but there is no large sum involved in the Bill at present before the House. I invite the Lord Chancellor to indicate where the evasion of payment might involve such a sum as might be involved under the National Assistance Act or the Coal-Mining Act. If he can produce any evidence of that I should be happy to reconsider the proposal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In all cases like this, it is a mean attempt to obtain money by false pretences.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not suppose that anyone who is not a lawyer has any right to speak, but what appears to me to be the case is that some lazy draftsman has a handy paragraph which he "pops in" anywhere as suitable for any offence. For example, a woman may be going to have a baby, and she is told: "You are making a fraudulent statement. You are like coal-mining people or something else." To say that the penalty has been imposed for a whole gamut of offences, and that therefore it is the standard penalty, and if any new offence is committed it is the suitable penalty to impose, seems to me to be without any sort of weight to laymen.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suppose the noble Viscount has not yet realised that it is a maximum.
LORD GREENHILL: Is not the real question whether there is any relation between the offence committed and the penalty to be imposed?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Would the noble Lord say that the penalty of hanging might be put in because it is only a maximum and would not be imposed in every case?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 agreed to.
11.8 p.m.
Clause 7 [Supplementary and consequential provisions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
EARL JOWITT: I wish to ask a question as to the meaning of subsection (6). I do not understand what it does. Will the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, explain to me in simple language what is the object of this subsection. It reads:
"Regulations made under the principal Act or this Act providing for the making and recovery of charges in respect of any services may provide for the reduction of the sums which would otherwise be payable by a Regional Hospital Board, Hospital Management Committee, Board of Management, Board of Governors or Executive Council to persons by whom those services are provided by the amount of the charges authorised by the regulations in respect of those services."
I am bound to say that, those words convey absolutely nothing to my very limited intelligence, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell us, in simple language, what is the effect of that clause.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The effect is to ensure that the charges are right and proper.
EARL JOWITT: What charges are they? I do not understand what this is doing at all. Would the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, find out? Does anyone know? Surely somebody knows the answer to this question? I invite anybody who can find out to get up and tell us what the subsection is all about. To me, it is absolutely unintelligible.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Do any of these authorities, by any chance, pay any of the doctors or anybody else? Who will collect these charges? I do not know—I
952
am just as much in ignorance as the noble and learned Earl, but I assume that some monetary transaction goes through these bodies. If so, it will be a good thing to find out what has happened, because it may be that some regulations will have to be made in order to ensure that they do not reimburse people who have already taken a shilling from a patient.
LORD WOOLTON: May I reply to the question of the noble and learned Earl? It has taken me a little time to understand the language, but it really seems so simple. I am advised that it is to enable the chemist's remuneration to be reduced by the shilling that he gets from the patient. Perhaps the noble Earl did not gather that.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
11.13 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before the adjournment of the House, I should like to inform you that it has been agreed to that the business shall be as follows. To-morrow, Wednesday, we shall take the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Cork, as First Order after Questions. Then we shall take the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on Transport Policy and continue the debate until about 7.30 p.m., as may be convenient to your Lordships. We shall then adjourn the discussion until the next day, Thursday, when we shall meet at 2.30 p.m. The first business will be the Second Reading of the Empire Settlement Bill and after that we shall resume the debate on Transport Policy. The other orders of the day will be discharged and taken on Tuesday of the following week after the Report and Third Reading of the National Health Service Bill.

PRESTON CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eleven o'clock.