Sitting of 8 May 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITION

  Nuclear Weapon Tests
  Mr. Brockway: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I desire to present a Petition signed by 2,500 citizens of Slough and collected by Alderman Mary Morgan and Mrs. Merrills and their colleagues of the women's section of the Labour Party there.
  It is presented to the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled and
  Sheweth:
  That many millions now living and millions yet to be born are menaced by nuclear weapons, and particularly by the hydrogen bomb; and that hydrogen bomb tests involve dangers which scientists are unable to estimate.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Government of the United Kingdom should not proceed with the hydrogen bomb test planned for Christmas Island, and should initiate negotiations with all Governments to ban all nuclear weapons, and that all nuclear weapon tests should be stopped whilst these international negotiations proceed.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EAST AFRICA

    East African Forces (Administration)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the appropriate resolutions transferring the administrative functions of the East African forces to the East African High Commission will be submitted to the Legislatures of the three territories concerned.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): It is not now the intention that the East Africa High Commission should be responsible for the administration of the East African forces.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that statement will be welcomed by African representatives in those three Parliaments who have the fear that the Governments are not democratically representative of the population and also the fear of powers passing into the hands of the Commission, which may be regarded as a precedent for Federation in the future? Does the right hon. Gentleman now give us an assurance that the plans previously announced have been dropped?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not quite sure that the hon. Gentleman has got this story absolutely correct. The Uganda Legislature did not like the idea of the civilian agency which was to run certain administrative aspects of the forces being under the High Commission. It did not oppose centralised administration, and I am now discussing with the Governments how the objective can otherwise be achieved.

    Uganda Legislative Council (Elections)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what discussions he has had with the European, African and Asian members of the Uganda Legislative Council regarding the wishes of the Representative Members to have elections in the Protectorate during 1957.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to his Question on 3rd April, I have had no discussions, but discussions are continuing in Uganda.
    Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the fact that all the representative members of all communities in Uganda are agreed that elections should be held in the Protectorate, will not the Secretary of State agree to meet them?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That was not the information brought to me by the letter. It related to the fact that if something happened in Buganda, it should happen throughout the Protectorate. The key to the problem is progress with the Buganda review, which is now being renewed.

  THE SEYCHELLES

    Principal Auditor's Report
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will request the principal auditor of the accounts of the Seychelles to submit a special report on the progress made in rectifying the faults and abuses revealed in his last annual Report; and if he will publish this report.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): An informed judgment on these matters can be formed from the annual Reports, and I am satisfied that the production of a special report would not be worth while.
    Mr. Swingler: Has the Under-Secretary of State read this Report, which is the last annual Report, produced in February, and is he aware that it reproduces almost exactly the same story as the previous annual Report— a story of incompetence, negligence and fraud? Cannot something be done to end these shocking abuses in the Seychelles, and will not the hon. Gentleman have a special inquiry made as to why the steps advocated by the auditor in annual Report after annual Report are never taken?
    Mr. Profumo: I must immediately repudiate the charge of fraud. I am satisfied that progress is being made, and my right hon. Friend has every confidence in the ability of the present Administration.
    Mr. Callaghan: Would it not be a good idea for testing out the possibility of sending a small all-party delegation to those islands to find out the facts in order to prevent these sort of allegations being made and denied without any conclusion ever being reached?
    Mr. Profumo: I think that is a much wider question, but I have denied the allegation made by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Swingler: The Under-Secretary of State said that he refuted the charge of fraud. Would he turn his attention to page 4 of the auditor's official Report, paragraph 28, published in February, in which he said, in relation to the Public Assistance Welfare Department of the Government:
    "The absence of such checks permitted the perpetration of fraud for some time in the
    948
    Public Assistance and Welfare Department where payments of poor relief were apparently made to certain persons who were subsequently discovered to have died."
    Mr. Profumo: I was speaking about the present position, and I am satisfied that progress is being made in the matter. I have nothing to add to what I have said.

    Books and Journals (Imports)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will publish a list of the books and journals, importation of which is banned by the Government of the Seychelles.
    Mr. Profumo: There are none, Sir.
    Mr. Swingler: Would the Under-Secretary turn his attention to the possibility of getting imported into the Seychelles some simple text books advocating honest and efficient administration and simple economics, and would somebody in the Colonial Office kindly read the official reports on the Seychelles of the last five years revealing this shocking position and the need to do something to improve the administration?
    Mr. Speaker: That is another question. The hon. Gentleman is now suggesting the importation of books, whereas his Question seemed to object to their import being stopped.

  KENYA

    Achieng Oneko (Detention)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when Achieng Oneko, who was acquitted of charges of being associated with the organisation of Mau Mau on appeal to the Supreme Court in Kenya in 1953 and who has been imprisoned since that time, will be released.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Achieng Oneko is not imprisoned, but is detained because the Governor is satisfied that control over him is necessary in order to maintain public order. When the Governor is satisfied that his detention is no longer necessary he will be released.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Does not the Colonial Secretary agree that it is a shocking state of affairs? This man was acquitted over two years ago of all charges made against

    949
    him during an extremely long trial in which Jomo Kenyatta was one of the accused, and in view of the fact that the appeal judge referred in his summing-up to the good character of this man, is it not time that he was released from detention?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that this was gone into by the Advisory Committee, which recommended his continued detention.
    Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    African Employees (Employment Ordinance)
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many complaints of desertion by African employees under the provisions of the Kenya Employment Ordinance, Chapter 109, Section 60 (1), have been made to the Kenya Police in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and whether he will make a statement of policy on the future of this statutory provision to enforce civil contracts by means of criminal sanctions.
    Mr. Profumo: As the Answer contains figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Benn: Is it not a fact that, under the provisions of this Ordinance, an ordinary worker who is absent from work can be charged and brought before a police court on a charge of desertion and be sentenced by that court, and is it really desirable that legal sanctions should be used to underpin the low wage structure in Kenya? Is the Minister really satisfied with this position?
    Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Gentleman reads my Answer, he will see that the Kenya Government are about to introduce amending legisation to repeal this section.
    Mr. Benn: As the Minister was perfectly able to give that reply in response to my Question without pretending that a number of figures prevented him from doing so, I should be grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would give some Ruling as to the circumstances under which a Minister can give what, I suspect, was a slightly
    950
    misleading Answer in reply to my Question?
    Mr. Speaker: I think that the Minister said that there were figures in the Answer and therefore he would circulate them. That is quite common.
    Following are the figures:
    The numbers of sworn complaints were as follows:

    1952

    1,642

    1953

    1,320

    1954

    1,173

    1955

    1,750

    1956

    1,730

    In only a relatively small percentage of cases were legal proceedings taken, due to the difficulty of tracing deserters. Under amending legislation which the Kenya Government is about to introduce, Section 60 of the Employment Ordinance will be repealed.

    Rural Labour (Land)
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the rejection by the Government of Kenya of the proposal made by the Royal Commission on East Africa, chapter 15, "African labour", paragraph 67, that land should be acquired for African village dwellings; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Profumo: Although the Kenya Government listed the various reasons why they could not accept this proposal in the form recommended by the Royal Commission, they also indicated the lines on which they are themselves investigating the present system of rural labour, which all are agreed is unsatisfactory. The Rural Wages Report, which is still being studied, is likely to bear considerably on the whole problem.
    Mr. Benn: I am very grateful to the Minister for not circulating that reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but will he please answer the Question, which was whether the Government of this country would make a statement on policy, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission said that it regarded the present system as most unsatisfactory and suggested that it should be abolished? The Government of Kenya did not accept that view. I am asking the Minister for his view on the squatter situation in Kenya.
    Mr. Profumo: I think that the hon. Gentleman and I are both keen to see the squatter system gradually disappear and be replaced by something more efficient.

    Embu Labour Camp (Injured Detainees)
    Lord Balnielasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the riot which occurred in the Embu Labour Camp in Kenya on 26th April.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On 24th April, 80 intractable Mau Mau adherents who had been rejected from other camps in the area and were awaiting transfer from Thiba detention camp in Embu District refused to obey orders to move out of their compounds. Thirty of these were detainees who had refused to co-operate in rehabilitation, and they had established their ascendancy over the rest. After warnings and repeated orders had been ignored, the prison staff had to move the detainees out by force. During the move nine detainees received injuries for which they were treated at the dispensary, and four others were admitted to hospital. None, however, was seriously injured and the four detained in hospital have been discharged. All those involved have now been dispersed to other camps, where they appear to be responding to rehabilitation.
    Lord Balniel: In view of the recent mass outbreak from Langate Prison, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this process of diluting the worst Mau Mau offenders with those already in the process of rehabilitation is proceeding at the right pace? Can he give an assurance that no pressure is being brought to bear on the Kenya Government to accelerate the pace beyond what they regard as desirable?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can certainly give that assurance. We all knew that when the Kenya Government introduced the dilution technique it was bound to be followed by an increased security risk. No pressure of any kind is being imposed.
    Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentle. man aware that the surprising thing is not how much trouble there has been, but how little?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir.

    Constitution
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to call a conference of the three elected groups in the Kenya Legislative Council to discuss the demand of the African members for 15 additional African seats.
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will initiate discussions between representatives of the three races in Kenya on the revision of the Lyttelton constitution.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: An initiative on my part on the lines of that suggested by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) would hardly be consistent with the pledges given by my predecessor in paragraph 10 of Cmd. Paper 9103 of 1954. But the Kenya Government have made it clear that they are ready to do everything possible to facilitate all forms of discussion between the groups. Progress seems to depend on the readiness of all groups to enter such discussions without insisting on prior conditions.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that owing to the small number of African seats in the Kenya Legislative Council, the African elected representatives have an impossible task in trying adequately to represent their constituents? Which of the racial groups are refusing to take part in these perfectly voluntary discussions to try to meet the situation? Is it true, from what the right hon. Gentleman says, that only the Europeans are refusing?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir, most certainly not. I have made it quite clear that I am prepared at any time, as are the Government of Kenya, to consider any proposals put forward if they have the consent of all the races. I have noticed with regret the attitude hitherto taken by the African elected members. I very much hope that they will see fit to change their minds. I do not have that meagre view of their talent which the hon. Lady apparently has in thinking that the relatively few that they are in number means that any representations must be ineffective.
    Mr. Robinson: Does not the Secretary of State think that the present situation

    953
    ought not to be allowed to drag on? Will he not reconsider his view and initiate a conference under the chairmanship, if necessary, of somebody from outside the Colony? The right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility in this matter, and if one of the racial groups is refusing to cooperate, it is up to him to do something about it.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir, I see no reason for outside intervention in this matter. I am fully aware of our responsibilities and am also aware that last year, under the leadership of the Governor, who assisted in the discussions, there were agreed changes without any intervention on my part. If the people of Kenya are to be led forward in increasing measure to running their own affairs in the multi-racial society that is, and will remain, Kenya, it is much better that they should be left to work this out themselves.
    Major Wall: Is it not quite clear that the existing allocation of seats in the Kenya Legislature is the only one that can command agreement at present between all three races?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman is pledged by his predecessor not to make changes until 1960, but 1960 will come. In the meantime, will he consider this suggestion? When I was Colonial Secretary, representatives of all the communities in Kenya agreed to sit in conference to find whether they could, by agreement, decide upon a constitutional future, and accepted the view that they would be helped by the appointment of a constitutional adviser by Her Majesty's Government. May not the time come— and very quickly— when some method of that kind might be the best way to handle the situation in Kenya?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course, if the various races got together, no one would be more pleased than I, but some of these supplementary questions seem to suggest that it is the Europeans or Asians who are making things difficult. The truth is that the African representative members have said that they are prepared to meet the Governor and his official advisers, but only those groups, and only then if the Government first decide that
    954
    they are under-represented at present in the Legislative Council. What I must insist upon is that if there are to be any changes before 1960, they must be agreed between all the races.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the difficulties is that if the African members obtain two or more additional representatives the Europeans expect the same? Does he not think that unfair in that the Africans can never become more equal with the other side and will never, comparatively speaking, advance?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There will be no stability in Kenya or anywhere else if agreements arrived at are broken, and the agreement arrived at is that there shall be no change, except by agreement, before 1960, and no amount of questioning in Parliament or agitation outside will shift me from that.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Tanganyika has set a very good example in this direction? Will he not advise the Government of Tanganyika that he, at any rate, approves the action that they have taken and suggest that the Governor of Kenya might follow in their steps?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am delighted to get that rather tardy recognition of the wisdom of the Government of Tanganyika, but there is no greater mistake than to assume that conditions are similar even in territories which are fairly contiguous.

    Rural Wages and Social Security (Reports)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to publish the Report on agricultural wages in Kenya.
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to publish the Report on social security in Kenya.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid that I cannot as yet add to the replies which I gave on 13th March to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).
    Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we have been waiting

    955
    for a very long time for both Reports, and that both deal with matters of fundamental importance in Kenya? Further, is he aware that a member of the Kenya Legislative Council himself said that the Report on security in old age might itself die of old age before it was published?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is precisely because they are of such importance that the Reports are being given such careful consideration. I can assure the hon. Lady that there is no dragging of feet here; it is really the serious study of the Reports which alone is holding up publication of them. I trust that it will not be long delayed.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the Secretary of State assure us that we shall not need to wait as long for the Report on agricultural wages in Kenya as we did for the nutrition Report from Kenya?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am afraid I do not carry the relevant dates in my head.

  CYPRUS

    Lord Radcliffe's Report
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he intends to invite the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus to send representatives to London to discuss the implementation of a new constitution based on Lord Radcliffe's Report.
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, when it is proposed to open negotiations with Archbishop Makarios regarding the future of Cyprus.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are always ready to receive views on the Radcliffe constitutional proposals. If there are indications of a general desire on the part of representative Greek and Turkish Cypriots to discuss them in a constructive spirit, we shall be in a better position to consider the timing of such an invitation.
    Mr. Callaghan: How does the Colonial Secretary propose to find out what are their views unless he invites them? Would it not be sensible for the Government themselves to take the initiative, as the implementation of the Report is a declared part of their objective, and invite both communities to London?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that we are quite ready to receive any comments which anyone may care to make on the Radcliffe proposals.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask whether the United Nations did not ask that this Government should begin negotiations with the representatives of the Cypriot people, and, in view of that fact, will the right hon. Gentleman say how long Archbishop Makarios is to remain in Greece without initiative being taken for such negotiations, particularly in view of the fact that he is taking a reasonable attitude and is proposing that there should be a United Nations mandate previous to self-determination?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The view of the N.A.T.O. Secretary-General was that the U.N. Resolution was best met by the suggestion of N.A.T.O. good offices in the international field. Her Majesty's Government immediately accepted that, and such acceptance still remains
    Mr. Callaghan: Surely the Colonial Secretary realises the difference between inviting comments on the constitution and inviting people to London to negotiate about its future? Will he please answer my Question: What is the objection now, as this is stated Government policy, to the Government taking the initiative, as they are the only people who can do this, and inviting these people here in order that the future of the people of Cyprus can be discussed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have already answered that.

    Parliamentary Mission
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will arrange for a Parliamentary mission to visit Cyprus.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have this suggestion well in mind and will consider when such a visit might most usefully be arranged.
    Mr. Robinson: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he not agree that the previous objection raised, that the Governor could not hold himself responsible for the safety of such a delegation, no longer holds good. and does he not

    957
    think that now is the moment when such a mission could most usefully perform its task?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Due to the activities of the Governor and the security forces, tension is, of course, remarkably reduced, but none the less, through our action in releasing Archbishop Makarios— which I believe was correct— the tension between the Greek and Turkish communities might possibly at some time flare up. I have to bear that in mind also in recommending whether the time is opportune or not. I have it very much in mind.

  CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

    Overseas Civil Service Officers
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent, arising from his recent discussions regarding the future of the Protectorates in Central Africa, he proposes over a period to withdraw from Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia members of the overseas colonial service as personnel in the Federation are recruited.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is no question at all of my withdrawing officers of H.M. Overseas Civil Service from Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland. I expect those officers to continue to serve there for an indefinite period to come. It is not contemplated that the eventual emergence of locally based Civil Services in those territories would affect the position or rights of serving officers; or that overseas recruitment will necessarily cease when locally-based services are eventually established.
    Mr. Creech Jones: What is the meaning of the paragraph in the Report of the discussions between Sir Roy Welensky and the Secretary of State? Will the staffs in these Protected Territories be the responsibility of the territorial Governments, and, through the territorial Governments, the Secretary of State, and how will the staffs of these Protectorates be regarded in the days to come?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The responsibility will for the time being remain exactly as it is. All we agreed was that we accepted in principle that eventually all the Civil Services it the Federation would be
    958
    locally based. The same is true of all other territories when they have acquired full status within the Commonwealth, and I think that it is perfectly reasonable that the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland should look towards the same future.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Does the Colonial Secretary mean, by the statement "for the time being", up to the 1960 talks?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is a good deal of work to be done in this field, and in our view the best step forward towards the objective, which I should have thought would commend itself to all sections in the House, is to get on with the examination of interchangeability, which will take some time and is not a simple matter.

  MAURITIUS

    Central Electricity Board (Contractors' Wage Rates)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies at what rate the Central Electricity Board of Mauritius pays contractors for labour; and the usual rate paid by contractors to their workmen.
    Mr. Profumo: The Central Electricity Board puts out to contract certain works such as the erection of poles for overhead lines. Contracts are based on tenders per unit of work and are not directly related to wages. Details of wages paid by contractors arc not available, but the normal wage for a contractor's labourer is about five or six shillings a day.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the Under-Secretary tell me how the rate now paid by the contractors to these workmen compares with the rate paid to them by the Central Electricity Board when they were employed directly by the Board?
    Mr. Profumo: I am afraid that I cannot give that information without notice.

  TANGANYIKA

    African National Union (Closed Branches)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what evidence of usurping judicial powers the district branches of Pangani and Handeni in the

    959
    Tanga province of the Tanganyika African National Union have been closed down.
    Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the acts prejudicial to peace, order and good government committed by the Pangani and Handeni branches of the Tanganyika African National Union which have led to the closing of these branches.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Convictions have been obtained against members of the Tanganyika African National Union in both the Handeni and Pangani districts on charges of usurping judicial authority. The decision to close the branches of the Union in these two areas was taken not only on this account but also because a most careful administrative inquiry had clearly established that they had been used to build up a general attitude of contempt of authority and to promote a spirit of anarchy.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Secretary of State say if the men who were accused were on the executive committees of these branches of the union? Who conducted the inquiry to which he has referred?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The inquiry was in the usual form. As to the officers in the Handeni district, the chairman of the Kwamsisi sub-branch was himself convicted in February for usurpation of judicial powers and false assumption of authority, although at the time of his conviction he claimed that he had ceased to be a member of T.A.N.U. In the Pangani district, three members of T.A.N.U. were, on 2nd March, 1957, convicted of usurping judicial powers. As the hon. Member knows East Africa so well, he will know what a possibly dangerous effect it would have if a widespread conviction grew that the ordinary courts were not to be resorted to but that some bogus courts set up by T.A.N.U. were in fact the judicial authorities.

    Coal Fields (Development)
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will reconsider his decision that the development of coal in Tanganyika is not at present a justifiable economic proposition, in view of the satisfactory results of steaming tests on bulk samples recently
    960
    made by East African and Nyasaland Railways.
    Mr. Profumo: The present demand for coal in East Africa, including the railway, is so small that an assured market for substantial exports would still be a prerequisite for development of the Tanganyika coal fields. On this point, no evidence has so far been produced which would lead Her Majesty's Government to change the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General in the House on 25th February.
    Mr. Irving: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there are about 280 million tons, and the tests by the Greenwich Research Station and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research show that the coal has a calorific value almost as high as the American coal imported into this country? That means that it would be of immense value to the economy locally and would also save us dollars. If we do not exploit this coal very shortly, American and other foreign capital will wish to do so.
    Mr. Profumo: I think that if the hon. Gentleman looked carefully at the capital costs which would be entailed in developing the coal, he would take another view.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is it not the case that the Paymaster-General is concerned principally with the use of coal in this country? Are there not many other countries which could find a use for this coal? In particular, could not use for it be found in other African countries? Will the Government take a more farsighted view and realise that there may be a need for the coal, and that it should be exploited as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Profumo: I was trying to make the point that wherever the coal was exported, it would have to be exported economically. In view of the capital costs, which would be tremendous, it is considered impossible to do anything further about it at the present time.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Kariba Dam Scheme (African Population Resettlement)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made by the Northern Rhodesian Government in resettling the African

    961
    tribesmen and their families who are being moved from the Zambesi valley bottom following the flooding of their lands under the Kariba Dam scheme.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: About 450 Africans, in four villages, have so far been moved and it is expected that about 16,000 will be moved in 1957–58. I have placed in the library a copy of a Report tabled by the Government of Northern Rhodesia in the Legislative Council on 25th March giving full details of the resettlement programme up to 31st December, 1957. I shall be receiving copies of similar reports which the Northern Rhodesian Government will be making to the Legislative Council and will likewise place these in the Library.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that these are very simple people, many of them in skins and many of whom have never seen a white man in their lives? Is he aware that the district commissioner is having difficulty in finding decent soil and good land in the Tonga plateau above the escarpment? Will he give his personal attention to this very important matter, as there is a lot of anxiety in the Colony?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am acutely conscious of the human implications of this problem, and I looked into the problem with care when I was in Rhodesia. I pledge myself to do what the hon. Member asks.

    African National Congress (Lundazi Petauke and Gwembe Districts)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will institute an inquiry into the banning of the North Rhodesian African National Congress from the districts of Lundazi Petauke and Gwembe to see whether changed conditions will now allow of that organisation functioning in those areas.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir; the organisation has not been banned in these districts but the native authorities concerned have made orders requiring Congress members or delegates to seek permission before entering or holding meetings in their areas.
    Mr. Johnson: Does not the Minister know that his Answer, if not "phoney" is at least slightly artificial? Is he aware
    962
    that the provincial commissioners and. the Governor must finally confirm these decisions of the native authorities? Is he not aware that, following his visit, the African leaders pledged their loyalty and co-operation to Sir Arthur Benson, the Governor? Will he use some imagination and give the Africans a chance to work out their pledges of co-operation?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am always willing to use my imagination within limits, but imagination should also apply to understanding the problems of the native authorities, on whose request these various restrictions have been imposed.
    Mr. Johnson: Will not the right hon. Gentleman confirm in this Chamber that it is the Governor and commissioners Who finally confirm the decisions, as it is not fair to shelter behind the native authorities who banned Congress leaders?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the hon. Member saw something of the native authorities when he was in Africa. If he did, he knows that they are robust authorities who make up their minds and do not need leading in this matter.

    Africans (Residential and Trading Plots)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will rescind the Order in Council of 1924 which prohibits Africans from holding title deeds for land, houses and shops in Northern Rhodesia and thus allow the Protectorate Government to introduce forthwith a Bill on these lines.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Clauses which make it difficult for an African to be removed from the land he has been assigned. These provisions, which were designed to protect Africans, are unfortunately working to their disadvantage in that Government is unable to issue leases to Africans for residential and trading plots in municipal and African township areas because the normal conditions and covenants of the ordinary form of lease could not in practice be enforced. The Governor has been in consultation with me about the difficulty and I am awaiting proposals for an amendment to the Order-in-Council to surmount it.
    Mr. Johnson: While thanking the Minister for his Answer, may I ask

    963
    whether he would agree that this is one of the best steps forward we can take to build a stable African urban society? I beg that he will place no bar in the way of finally quashing this Order-in-Council so that they can get this Bill, which they have on the stocks in Lusaka, into working order?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I said when I was out there recently, I will do all I can to accelerate it.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Leeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been sent by the Government of Northern Rhodesia to the complaints of the Governing Body of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions alleging violation of trade union freedom, and asking for re-examination of the compulsory registration of trade unions and the imposition of Press censorship at times of labour disputes.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the complaint addressed to the I.L.O. by the Northern Rhodesia T.U.C., an affiliate of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions. This complaint was referred by the I.L.O. to Her Majesty's Government in accordance with normal practice, and I am arranging for a copy of Her Majesty's Government's reply, which is detailed, to be sent to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that it is not a lot of good for the I.C.F.T.U. to try to blaze the trail of free trade unionism and get rid of the shackles of which we complain behind the Iron Curtain if this kind of thing happens in Rhodesia?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "this kind of thing". All the charges in the document, except two, were dismissed by the I.L.O., and the two which were not dismissed are the subject of a further inquiry, which we are conducting speedily. I will let the hon. Member have a copy of the information that we send to the I.L.O.

    Film Censorship
    Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Northern Rhodesia Native Film Censorship Board
    964
    prohibited the showing of "The Lavender Hill Mob" to African audiences; and if he will now reconsider the whole system of film censorship in Northern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Profumo: The Governor informs me that the film was declared unsuitable for African audiences because it contained scenes judged likely to encourage disrespect of law and order. With regard to the second part of the Question, local film censorship is a matter for the Northern Rhodesia Government, but I am bringing the hon. Member's suggestion to the Governor's notice.
    Mr. Benn: Might I congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon running a ban on "The Lavender Hill Mob", which was paralleled only by Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the only other countries in the world which took a similar view of the dangers of that film? As the film was shown in South Africa without the slightest difficulty, will the hon. Gentleman examine this absurd business of censorship, particularly as there is a new multi-racial cinema in Lusaka and the proprietor of it has complained that one of his films was banned only 24 hours before it was due to be shown? It is quite impossible to get any multi-racial system of that kind working if the Censorship Board is to exercise that sort of control.
    Mr. Profumo: There are Africans on the Film Censorship Board, and it is important to recognise that. It is also important that we should leave matters of this sort to the discretion of the people on the spot. I cannot add to what I have already said, which is that my right hon. Friend will bring the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the attention of the Governor.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what basis decisions are reached by the Northern Rhodesian African Film Censoring Board as to which British, United States or other films are considered to be suitable for African audiences.
    Mr. Profumo: The Board is required by local Film Censorship Regulations to withhold approval of any film which in its opinion depicts any matter which is contrary to public order and decency,

    965
    or the exhibition of which would for any other reason be undesirable in the public interest.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under this censorship not only films like "The Lavender Hill Mob" have been banned but so also have newsreels by Gaumont-British and Paramount? Is he suggesting that the newsreels contain matter contrary to public order and decency, or does he think that truth in the news of the world is unsuitable for African audiences? Will he not seriously look into this matter again, in view of the danger that censorship may be used to impede and perhaps close down the work of this multiracial cinema?
    Mr. Profumo: I am sure that there is no intention of that sort. I do not think that I can add anything to what I have already said in answer to an hon. Member earlier, that this matter will be considered.
    Sir L. Plummer: In view of the recent defection from the Government, would the hon. Gentleman consider recommending to the Board that the film "Kind Hearts and Coronets" is unsuitable for African exhibition?
    Mr. Profumo: I found it very suitable.

  MALTA

    Constitution
    Major Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the Prime Minister of Malta's speech on 1st May, he will make a further statement regarding future constitutional relations with Malta.
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the present position of the negotiations with the Government of Malta regarding the conditions of the integration of Malta with the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the public official statement made in Malta by Mr. Mintoff on May Day, he will now make a statement on the negotiations for integration and especially on the question of grants for education in Malta.
    Mr. Owenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what issues are holding up the entry of Malta as a unit of British Parliamentary Government; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The two Governments have so far been unable to reach agreement on the principles governing the economic arrangements under the integration proposal, but exchanges of views between them are continuing. I am not able meanwhile to make any further statement.
    Major Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether agreement has been reached between Her Majesty's Government and th Vatican in regard to religious minorities?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No formal agreement has yet been reached, but I do not believe it will prove difficult to do so when the time seems opportune.
    Mr. Brockway: Is it not the case that the financial agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Malta for this year assumes increased employment rather than decreased employment? In view of that, ought not some discussions to have taken place with the Maltese Government about dismissals and plans for alternative employment? Is it not the case that under the arrangement the Maltese will have to pay as high taxes as people in this country? Would it not be fair that the social services and education for the Maltese people should be equally high?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In regard to the second part of that supplementary question, I cannot answer in anticipation of the general statement I shall make when, as I hope, agreement is reached. With reference to redundancy in the dockyard and elsewhere, that is another matter. Her Majesty's Government are conscious of the spirit behind the June, 1955, declaration, which exists whether or not integration proposals come forward.
    Mr. Teeling: Is there not disquiet because most of the information about what we are discussing with Malta comes from Mr. Mintoff? Is it not possible for my right hon. Friend to be a little more forthcoming? Is he aware that in The Times today we are told that the Archbishop of Malta has been in touch

    967
    with the Vatican and the Vatican is in touch with the right hon. Gentleman? Does that not make it slightly untrue to say— as my right hon. Friend said in his Answer to me last week, now contradicted by the Archbishop of Malta— that there are no discussions going on with the Archbishop, since my right hon. Friend knows full well that the Archbishop and the Vatican are working together in this matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir; my hon. Friend will. I hope, on reflection, not repeat the statement that I said something to him last week which was not true. I said that there had not been discussions between the Archbishop and myself or the Archbishop and Her Majesty's Government. That is absolutely true and there is no reason to doubt what I said. When the time is opportune there will, of course, be discussions with the Metropolitan Archbishop of Malta, whose high standing in the island is well known and well deserved. In regard to the other suggestion of my hon. Friend, the usual charge is that information coming out of Malta comes mostly from Opposition sources. It is not my practice to make comments in the middle of negotiations.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it not the case that the public speeches of Mr. Mintoff which have been reported have indicated only that he thought integration was still the most desirable solution and that negotiations should be pursued to that end? I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman on this, but is the present position that the Government now propose to communicate some proposals to Malta for further consideration?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should prefer not to interpret speeches made by Prime Ministers in other parts of the Commonwealth. I have quite enough to do in making my own speeches and answering the misinterpretations to which they sometimes give rise. As to the other part of the Question, the Government are proposing to send their views to the Maltese Government very shortly.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are some sections in the country who believe that if Mr. Mintoff's brash demands are carried too far it may become economically and politically advisable to base the
    968
    Mediterranean Fleet in this country, as can be seen is possible from the recent activities of the American Sixth Fleet?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I frequently, and I hope successfully, point out to Mr. Mintoff, I have my political difficulties as well.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES

    Malnutrition
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what surveys have been made as to the extent of malnutrition in the dependent territories; and what systematic plan is being developed to check its spread and finally to eradicate it.
    Mr. Profumo: In addition to the normal work of medical departments in this field, extensive surveys have been made in Nigeria, Uganda and St. Kitts, and surveys of particular areas or groups of the population have been made in many territories, notably in British Guiana, Fiji and other South Pacific territories, Jamaica, the Gambia, Nyasaland and the Federation of Malaya. Eradication of malnutrition involves research into its causes, which are various, and is bound up with the economic and social progress of the territories. I am sure that the problem is much in the mind of every Government.
    Mr. Rankin: The Minister of State has referred to the surveys in Nigeria and St. Kitts. Why is it so difficult for Members of this House to get these reports? Is it the case that their availability to Members of Parliament is within the discretion of the Governors concerned? Is it not the case that, as I pointed out last Wednesday, there are only two territories in the whole of the dependent Empire where we have fully-trained nutrition officers; and in view of the extent of malnutrition in the dependent territories, is that not a scandal? Will not the Minister consider seconding an officer from his Department to take special charge of this matter in order to organise it along better lines than presently obtain?
    Mr. Profumo: A great deal is being done in this direction, which, as the hon. Member, who takes a very close interest in the matter, realises, is an extremely difficult problem. I will certainly look

    969
    into the question of the reports to which the hon. Member has referred. I know of no reason why they should not be available to hon. Members.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that the malnutrition report for Uganda refers to the lack of protein content of food in the Protectorate, and that despite that, the Administration in Uganda continue to export to the Congo fish which should be consumed in Uganda?
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot answer that question in detail, but I can tell the House that there has been a general trend of improvement in dietary standards.

    Mining Policy (Legislative Action)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many colonial Governments have taken legislative action in accordance with the principles enumerated in the White Paper on Colonial Mining Policy, Colonial No. 206.
    Mr. Profumo: The White Paper purported to cover the whole field of mining policy including many ancillary issues of fiscal and social policy. The main suggestion for legislative action was for the vesting of mineral rights in the Crown.
    Since the White Paper was issued seven Colonial Governments have enacted legislation in pursuance of this suggestion.
    Sir L. Plummer: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to impress upon those who have not adopted this recommendation that they should put it into operation now. so that the mineral rights of the territories shall be preserved?
    Mr. Profumo: I will certainly consider that suggestion.

  HONG KONG

    Dogs, Cats and Puppies (Sale for Human Consumption)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the widespread practice of selling dogs, cats and puppies in public markets in Hong Kong for human consumption, and of the conditions under which sale takes place and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Profumo: The practice is illegal in Hong Kong, and the law is effectively enforced in the urban areas. In some rural areas in the new territories, where the practice is traditional and is not opposed by the villagers, the law is evaded by sales outside the public markets. In these areas the Hong Kong Government are tackling the problem through education.
    Mr. Rankin: What is the police force for? Is it not its function to enforce the law in the new territories? Is it not the case that the police in Hong Kong are conniving at the sale of these animals? I am not interfering in the Chinaman's desire to eat dog, but let it be done only if it is legal.
    Mr. Profumo: It is illegal, but prevention is a difficult matter. If somebody takes a dog, cat or puppy outside the markets, it is extremely difficult to prove whether it was taken there as a pet, as a watchdog or for some honourable gentleman to eat.

  SIERRA LEONE

    Geological Survey (Co-operation with Companies)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what assistance has been given by the Government of Sierra Leone in the way of geological surveys to British Titan Products Limited and Columbia Southern Chemicals.
    Mr. Profumo: The local Geological Survey has given the companies access to geological reports, maps and aerial photographs relating to their investigations.
    Sir L. Plummer: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the geological service is sufficiently staffed and equipped to be able to co-operate efficiently with the two companies?
    Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir. I have no reason to think that it is not.

  SOMALILAND

    Oil Leases (Compensation)
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far the United States oil companies, Conoco

    971
    Somal Limited and Standard Vacuum Oil Company, now negotiating for oil leases with the Government of Somaliland, are indicating their willingness to compensate Somaliland farmers and others whose livelihoods may be adversely affected by their operations.
    Mr. Profumo: Both companies have indicated their willingness to pay compensation to the occupiers of land.

  NIGERIA

    Slave Dealing and Child Stealing
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies. in view of the official reports of 52 cases of slave dealing and 91 true cases of child stealing in Nigeria in 1955–56, what consultations have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Federation and Eastern Region, respectively, in respect of child stealing and slave dealing, particularly with regard to action that could be taken in the area adjacent to Fernando Po; and what are the latest reports he has received on this matter.
    Mr. Profumo: There have been no formal consultations between the United Kingdom and Nigerian Governments but I have seen the report to which the hon. Member refers, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Nigerian authorities are fully alive to the seriousness of these offences. The police investigate all cases of persons reported missing, and the activities of both the police and welfare offices in Calabar— the area which the hon. Member may have in mind— have been particularly successful.
    Mr. Sorensen: While I appreciate the nature of the reply, and while I am sure everything is being done, may I ask whether the matter is likely to be discussed at the forthcoming Nigerian Conference? It is a matter of very great importance. In view of the transference of responsibility from this country to the Federal Government, it is obviously a matter which should particularly concern the other Government.
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think that the subject is down for formal discussion, but my right hon. Friend and I will certainly take the opportunity of having a word about it during the conference.

    Industrialisation (Coal Output)
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals have been made by the United Kingdom or Nigerian Government to develop industry in Nigeria and the Cameroons on the basis of the recent increased output of coal.
    Mr. Profumo: Both the Federal and Regional Governments of Nigeria pursue a policy of industrialisation. This has resulted in an increasing internal demand for coal which, with exports, is more than keeping pace with the increasing output of coal.

    Oil (Production)
    Mr. Sydney Irvingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent commercial production of petroleum is planned in Nigeria; and how far the Nigerian Government will participate in the exploitation and use of the oil recently discovered.
    Mr. Profumo: Plans for commercial production cannot be prepared until the results are known of production tests which the oil companies hope to begin in the latter half of this year. It is also not yet possible to say whether any oil produced can be used locally.
    It is not the present intention that any of the Nigerian Governments should actually participate in any exploitation that takes place but they would of course benefit by way of royalties and taxation.
    Mr. Irving: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has already been announced in the Federal House of Representatives that Shell/B.P. is proposing to start production at a rate of 325,000 tons a year in January? Does he not think it is urgent that the local Government should be brought into participation in the matter?
    Mr. Profumo: I have not the information which the hon. Member has.

    Mr. Gogo Chu Nzeribe (Passport)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he has refused to issue a passport to Mr. Gogo Chu Nzeribe, of Nigeria, to attend the

    973
    Commonwealth and Colonial Conference of Labour Parties.
    Mr. Profumo: I am asking the Governor-General about this, as the issue of passports to Nigerians is a matter for the Federal Government, and I will write to the hon. Member when I have his reply.
    Mr. Swingler: I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply, but will he not give very sympathetic attention to this case, and will he make it clear that it is not a part of the policy of the Colonial Secretary to exercise political discrimination in the issuing of passports in Colonial Territories? This gentleman has been chosen as a representative of a recognised trade union body in Nigeria. Would the hon. Gentleman, therefore, exert some sympathetic pressure on the Governor-General to allow this gentleman to come to the conference?
    Mr. Profumo: I understand that the passport was not just withdrawn when this man was invited to come to the United Kingdom; it had been withdrawn for some time. But I think we had better await the Governor-General's reply.

  ADEN COLONY AND PROTECTORATE

    Situation
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reports he has received in respect of political agitation in and near Aden; and what Yemeni representations have been made concerning the future of Aden.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Both in the Colony and Protectorate there is increasing interest in constitutional development and the future status of the area. Attempts have been made by Egyptian and Soviet propaganda and by Yemeni propaganda and subversion to direct this interest into anti-Western paths. There exist, however, moderates as well as extremists among the politically-minded in the area. On the second part of the Question, the Yemen Government have made clear by various means that they do not intend at present to abandon claims to large parts of Aden territory, based apparently on rule by the Yemeni Imams for a period of under a century which ended in 1728.

    British Colonial Officers
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of discontent in respect of salaries and cost-of-living adjustments affecting British colonial officers in Aden; what action is being taken to ensure equitable treatment of these officers; and what long-term consideration is being given to their future position.
    Mr. Profumo: A review of salaries has recently been carried out in both the Colony and the Protectorate. The proposals made have been implemented for the Colony and those for the Protectorate staffs are at present under urgent consideration. The Aden Government have recently been informed by officers through their associations that they are dissatisfied with some of the terms of the revision and are considering these representations.
    Mr. Sorensen: Do I take it from the hon. Gentleman's reply that it is recognised that there is discontent among some branches of the Service, and that their very justifiable claims will be sympathetically reconsidered?
    Mr. Profumo: I think that when the hon. Gentleman reads my Answer he will be satisfied.

  AIR TROOPING AND MILITARY AIR TRANSPORT
  Mr. de Freitasasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the growing public concern at the number of fatal accidents to transport aircraft operated by the Royal Air Force and by private firms on Air Ministry charter; and whether he will consider appointing a committee drawn from outside the Royal Air Force, the Civil Service and the aviation industry to inquire into the present policy on military air transport and air trooping.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  Since air trooping started in 1951, well over half a million passengers have been carried. In that time, there have been six accidents to aircraft on charter to the Air Ministry which have involved death

  975
  or injury to passengers. During the same period, both the fatal and the major accident rates in Transport Command have been low.
  While my right hon. Friend naturally shares the hon. Member's concern at recent accidents, he does not consider that a committee of inquiry is called for.
  Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that it is not only my concern but the concern of the whole country that there has recently been a series of accidents which have been very tragic? In view of the criticisms which have been made in this House and in the country during the last eighteen months, is it not time that the Government really looked at this matter most thoroughly and, if necessary, by means of some independent inquiry?
  Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air intends to deal with air trooping in the debate on the Air Estimates tomorrow, and he looks forward to a full discussion and to obtaining the views of the House on that occasion. That is why I would rather not go further today.
  Air Commodore Harvey: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, at any rate in recent years, in the case of practically all these unfortunate accidents the cause has been known afterwards?
  Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; there is, of course, the particular inquiry into the recent crash, and I have with me the accounts of all the other incidents which involved death, which, I agree with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), are a cause of great anxiety, not only to the House but also to Her Majesty's Government. In each case there has been established a definite cause for the accident as a result of the inquiry which has been held.
  Mr. Beswiek: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even though the accident causes have been known in all cases, the causes themselves have given rise to anxiety? Has he been informed that the Airways Corporations are not permitted to do this work, that Transport Command, as a matter of policy, is prevented from doing this work, and that the private companies to whom the Government have turned have themselves said that
  976
  the terms on which the charters are allocated are not sufficient to enable them to do the work adequately? In those circumstances, as no one is satisfied, is it not time that someone other than the Secretary of State for Air looked into the business?
  Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman had better listen to the report which my right hon. Friend is to give tomorrow on the question of transport by air, because he realises that this matter is coming to a head.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's replies that the Secretary of State for Air will keep an open mind on the question of a committee of inquiry until after the debate on the Air Estimates?
  Mr. Butler: I think that any sensible Minister, in dealing with these Estimates, will keep an open mind. I will certainly speak to my right hon. Friend in that sense.

  SINGAPORE

    Constitution
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on recent developments in connection with the proposed constitution for Singapore.
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what decisions have been reached in the negotiations with Mr. Lim Yew Hock, the Chief Minister, on the subject of self-government in Singapore; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I refer the hon. Members to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) on 17th April. Since then, the proposed new constitution has received the unanimous support of all political parties in the Legislative Assembly of Singapore.
    Mr. Robinson: Would the Secretary of State say whether, in view of the unfavourable reception of the "subversives" clause, he is prepared to reconsider that?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In my view, that clause is an essential necessity in order to get the Constitution off to a good start. I very much hope that Singapore Ministers and those others who have

    977
    found it repugnant will come round to this view. I have been encouraged in that by some of the Press comments on the clause.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Base, Mombasa
    Lord Balnielasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what expansion will be needed of naval base and port facilities at Mombasa, as a result of the decision to join up the East Indies and Far East Stations of the Royal Navy to station a carrier force in the Indian Ocean.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames): There are no plans at present for the further development of Mombasa as a naval base.
    Lord Balniel: In view of the fact that there are no plans for expanding Mombasa, will my hon. Friend consider the position of the dormant naval stores at Mombasa, with a view to handing them over to the city?
    Mr. Soames: I will certainly examine the question raised by my hon. Friend.

    Fishery Protection Vessels
    Lady Tweedsmuirasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many fishery protection vessels are available; and from which British ports they operate.
    Mr. Soames: Eight, of which six are ocean-going. Ships of the squadron do not operate from any particular port, but move about Northern European waters, including the Arctic Ocean, fuelling and provisioning from the most convenient ports in the areas where patrols are required. The selection of these areas depends upon the movements of the fishing fleets.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that these vessels are always brought into operation as quickly as is necessary, taking into account the long delay which occurred before H.M.S. "Bramble" was sent off to the Norwegian coast?
    Mr. Soames: I cannot agree that there was a long delay. We were asked by
    978
    the Ministry of Agriculture on 16th April whether we would send a ship. We said that our plan was for H.M.S. "Bramble" to sail on the 17th, which would enable her to reach the fishing grounds on the 19th. We asked if that met the Ministry's requirements, and the reply was that it did. We are, of course, in these cases, agents, so to speak, for the Ministry of Agriculture, and we have had no complaints from the Ministry as to the speed with which naval vessels have reached the scene.
    Mr. Woodburn: Has consideration been given to the use of helicopters with these fishery protection vessels, which would extend the range of their protection very greatly and be much more economic by avoiding the building of extra fishery cruisers?
    Mr. Soames: We use ocean-going minesweepers for this task and they have no facilities for flying helicopters off or on.
    Dame Irene Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman think there are sufficient of these patrol vessels available to do the duties which fall to them?
    Mr. Soames: Yes, I think so.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: As to the fitness of these ships for the purpose, can the Minister state the age and type of each of them, and what crews they carry, especially having regard to the delay in the case of H.M.S. "Bramble"?
    Mr. Soames: That is a wider question than the one on the Order Paper.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: As these incidents between Russian and British vessels took place over a long period of time, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary has to wait for a request from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before dispatching these ships? Could not they be sent to the area on the initiative of his own Department?
    Mr. Soames: Normally, there are fishing protection vessels in the vicinity of these fishing fleets, but if there is a special incident which requires the intervention of one of Her Majesty's vessels, the Ministry of Agricultural, Fisheries and Food receives information of it from the fishing fleet and requests us to send a vessel specially for the purpose.

EXPORT OF LIVE CATTLE (REPORT OF COMMITTEE)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the Report of the Balfour Committee on the export of cattle to the Continent for slaughter, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have very carefully considered.
The Committee concluded that save to a very limited extent the alternative of a carcase trade is not practicable and that the journey to the Continent is not a sufficient reason for prohibiting the trade in live animals. The Committee said, however, that it had been concerned by evidence that cattle are sometimes sent on long train journeys after arrival on the Continent. Its main recommendation was designed to ensure that internal transit after disembarkation would be over relatively short distances and that satisfactory arrangements would be made for accommodating, handling and slaughtering the animals.
We fear that it would be difficult to adopt the Committee's suggestion that the trade should be allowed only to small countries or territories, but we propose, as a matter of urgency, to consult the authorities of the countries concerned with a view to securing mutually acceptable arrangements for mitigating the conditions that, in recent months, have given rise to public criticism.
The Committee made a number of recommendations designed to increase the protection afforded to cattle before they leave this country. We shall continue the veterinary inspection of all cattle being exported for slaughter on the Continent, which has been in operation since 26th February this year under the permissive powers conferred by the Exported Cattle Protection Order, 1957. This will ensure that no unfit cattle are allowed to be exported, and we propose to make this inspection a statutory requirement, as recommended by the Committee.
We also propose to discuss as soon as possible with the interests concerned the
980
recommendations relating to strengthening the conditions applicable to the rest period before export.
The Committee recommended one or two amendments to the regulations governing the carriage of animals by sea. Some rather technical points are involved and, here again, we propose to consult the interests concerned as a matter of urgency.
We are drawing to the attention of British Railways the Committee's recommendations which concern them.
Finally, the Committee made one or two general recommendations of a longterm nature, including the suggestion that the disbudding of calves and the use of the electric goad, instead of the drover's stick, should be encouraged. We are in sympathy with these recommendations, which we propose to bring to the notice of the interests primarily concerned.
We should like to thank sincerely Lord Balfour of Burleigh and his Committee for the expeditious manner in which it carried out the task which was entrusted to it at very short notice.
Mr. T. Williams: I welcome the positive steps which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take. Before dealing with the Continental authorities about long journeys from one country to another and other such extremely difficult matters, will he tell us what is likely to be done about paragraph 10 of the Report, relating to our slaughterhouses being well below the standard required by the American Veterinary Corps? As the right hon. Gentleman happens to be the prime person concerned with Recommendation 21, relating to the dehorning or disbudding of calves, will he take positive steps in that matter by paying a differential price for disbudded calves under the calf subsidy?
Mr. Amory: On the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman about slaughterhouses, I think that some people have read the implications of the evidence given to the Committee rather more widely than perhaps was justified. In fact, several of our slaughterhouses have been approved by the American authorities, but, as it happens, no meat from those slaughterhouses has yet been exported to the Continent.
I am hoping shortly to issue new draft regulations laying down fresh standards

981
for hygiene and for the avoidance of cruelty of any kind in our slaughterhouses. Those regulations will not bear the force of law until it has been possible to find time in our Parliamentary programme for legislation to implement them, but they will be a guide to those who are improving and developing new slaughterhouses.
I believe that, in general, the dehorning of cattle is an extremely sensible thing, and I am anxious to encourage it. I will consider the point which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Williams: During the discussions and activities on this point, will the right hon. Gentleman press British Railways very hard, since, according to this Report, the chances are that there is much more cruelty during railway transport in this country than on the Continent?
Mr. Amory: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that, on the whole, British Railways come extremely well out of this Report and that the evidence is that they take a great deal of trouble to see that there is no avoidable discomfort to animals during transit. But there is the question particularly of the size of our wagons and the method of charging. I will have consultations with British Railways on both those points. I believe that we shall find them extremely anxious to be helpful so far as they can.
Sir T. Moore: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's promises about early action. But will he bear in mind that many people in this country will find the result of the Committee disappointing and that, in fact, they will not be satisfied until there is a complete prohibition of this trade? At the same time, I think that the majority of our people will be prepared to wait and see in order to ensure that the promises given by my right hon. Friend bear good fruit.
Mr. Amory: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I would ask anyone who is not satisfied with the Report— if such people there be— to read it very carefully and to remember that the members of this Committee are people not only of wide experience, but of great personal humanity.
Mr. Short: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is far more
982
humane and a much better economic proposition to slaughter animals here and then to export the canned meat? Will he consult the President of the Board of Trade about some particulars which I have sent to the right hon. Gentleman, showing the considerable difficulties placed in the way of a Tyneside firm of canned meat exporters by the German authorities?
Mr. Amory: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. The general trend of substituting trade in carcase meat for the trade in live cattle is one to be encouraged in every possible way. I will have consultations with my right hon. Friend on the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Paget: On the question of the animals on which the beef subsidy has been paid, was it the intention that the subsidy should be made available to the European housewife rather than the British housewife? Secondly, how do we stand regarding our trade agreements with the Continent when we export subsidised animals?
Mr. Amory: Animals on which subsidy has been paid are a small proportion of the trade. These animals are predominantly unsubsidised animals. In so far as they are subsidised, we must remember that our subsidy is not a specific export subsidy. It is a general subsidy to encourage efficient production. The animals which are exported are those providing meat of a type our consumers are not interested in buying at present. One has to remember those considerations in assessing this problem.
Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend note that the action which he has already taken has removed a good deal of public anxiety, particularly in towns like Reading, which is a transit centre of this trade, and that he will have full support for any further measures he may taken effectively at home to overcome cruelty and mishandling of cattle? Would it not be practicable to make provision in any export licence for the cattle that when they have got to the Continent they should be slaughtered within, say, eight hours of landing?
Mr. Amory: What my hon. Friend has suggested may turn out to be a possible line of action, but I think it is appropriate that we should consult the authorities in

983
the countries concerned before we decide what is the most sensible action we could take to achieve the object we all have in mind.
Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great distress has been caused to people by reports of calves being sent long distances and being slaughtered without having had one drink? It causes great distress to people to think that these calves do not receive humane treatment even in our country, and that they are taken long distances, sometimes from Scotland into England, and that some are slaughtered without having had a drink or one meal. Surely something should be done to relieve the anxiety that that kind of cruelty takes place.
Mr. Amory: In so far as those calves travel on the railways, of course they would be subject to the present regulations. The railways do make provision for regular drinking. In so far as they are conveyed in lorries, control is far harder.
Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even since the publication of this Report there really is still very great anxiety indeed, particularly in East Anglia, although I have no doubt it exists in other parts of the country as well? It is really a little difficult to understand from the statement that my right hon. Friend has made today that this anxiety will be diminished very much.
The main cause of the anxiety, I think, Ls the question of watering. Would it not be possible to come to a very definite arrangement with the countries on the other side of the Channel, and to make certain that it is carried out on this side of the Channel, too, to solve this one question of watering, which, I think. is probably more important than any other? As for the size of British trucks. could not fewer animals be put in them at a time?
Mr. Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is strong feeling legitimately on this subject. I should like to assure him that I am very serious when I say that my colleagues and I are determined to do everything we possibly can to remove all the defects the Committee has brought to light in its Report.
984
I agree with my hon. Friend that watering is the most important single defect. I would hope that the consultations which we are to have urgently with the foreign countries concerned will get over that defect, at any rate.
As for the transit of animals here at home, I believe that we have got over that difficulty now. If there is any defect remaining there I should be very glad if it were brought to my notice, since in this country it would be wholly under our control.
Mr. Champion: So that a stigma should not be cast upon this balanced Report, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise, in his negotiations with other countries, that it was not intended to be discriminatory against countries, but was concerned with the long distances travelled? That was the whole point of the Report. We are extremely anxious about that and hope that the Minister will be very careful in what he does to ensure that there is not a continuation of long-distance travel after disembarkation on the other side.
Mr. Amory: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that if we can get over the difficulty of the long journeys on the other side the whole problem will become manageable. I was grateful to the Committee for highlighting that aspect of the problem.
I would take this opportunity of thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) for their work on the Committee. I was very glad that we had two Members of this House on that Committee. I know that they both went to great personal inconvenience to do their work upon it, including making some very hurried trills. I was most grateful to the whole Committee for the expeditious manner in which it accomplished its work.
Lady Tweedsmuir: When he has his conversations with the continental authorities, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the difficulties there have been already in the enforcement of some existing regulations, and also the fact that many of these cattle, by the time they reach the Continent, have already had long sea journeys, for instance, from

985
Scotland to Germany, with no rest period? What is my right hon. Friend's view of the suggestion that there should be a filter price to eliminate low-quality cattle?
Mr. Amory: It is very relevant to consider that any journey which takes place on the other side of the water is on top of journeys made in the United Kingdom and upon the sea, and I will certainly bear that in mind.
As to the filter price, we have felt that there is no solution to be found along those lines. It is true that it provided a solution in the case of the horse traffic, but the problem here is rather different. The price of the cattle changes substantially and quite rapidly, and there are many different grades of cattle, whereas with the horses it was possible simply to draw a line between valuable horses for breeding on the one side and horses for slaughter on the other. The question of drawing the line among the cattle is not so simple.
Mr. Hastings: Would the right hon. Gentleman make a further statement to the House when he has carried out the necessary consultations with continental transport and other authorities? Will he also note that in the Report not only is the question of watering these animals dealt with, but that the question of feeding them with the proper fodder comes in as well? Will he give attention to that and make the necessary regulations accordingly?
Mr. Amory: Yes, Sir, I will pay attention to both the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Knowing the interest that the House has taken in this matter, I will gladly make a further statement when the consultations have taken place.

BOROUGH OF HORNSEY (NEW WRIT)
Mr. Bowles: On a point of order. I should like to ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Sir David Gammans, the Member for Hornsey, died on 8th February this year, and nearly three months have elapsed without the Government's having moved the issue of a Writ to fill the vacancy. It is clear from the Press, I think, that Sir David's widow has been adopted as the prospective Conservative Parliamentary candidate. We know that at about that time the Government had a bad time in by-elections. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Oh, yes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order"]. This is a point of order.
We know that the Government had a bad time in by-elections at about that time, and no doubt the delay in issuing the Writ had something to do with lulling their supporters. I would ask you this question, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I dare say that hon. Members opposite do not like this. Will you, Mr. Speaker, allow a constituency to be disfranchised for a quarter of a year to lull Government supporters, or do you propose to issue your Warrant?
I would draw your attention, Sir, to the fourteenth edition of Erskine May, which says:
" When vacancies occur by death, by elevation to the peerage, or by the acceptance of office, the law provides for the issue of writs during a recess, due to a prorogation or adjournment, without the immediate authority of the House, in order that a representative may be chosen without loss of time, by the place which is deprived of its Member."
I ask whether you will issue your Warrant after the House adjourns tonight, during the adjournment of the House between now and tomorrow afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: I have never considered it to be within my powers to issue a Writ off my own motion while the House is sitting, and in that period I include the interval at night when we are not sitting between two sitting days. It has always been my idea that the House instructs me to issue my Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown by passing a Resolution to that effect, and I do not think that I can assist the hon. Member in

987
the matter. In answer to his last question, I do not propose to issue any Warrant in the small hours of tonight or tomorrow morning.
Mr. Bowles: This is only the fourteenth edition of Erskine May. What does the expression "during the adjournment" mean? It distinguishes it from the Prorogation and from the Recess. Perhaps you will give us your advice, Mr. Speaker. I have relatives living in Hornsey who are anxious to change their minds and vote against the Government. If, Mr. Speaker, you cannot see your way to give a Ruling in my favour tomorrow afternoon, and the Government do not do anything before the Whitsuntide Recess, will you give an undertaking that you will issue your Warrant during the Whitsuntide Recess?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has asked me a question which is purely hypothetical and to which, therefore, I must decline to give an answer. The ordinary meaning of "adjournment" and of "recess" respectively in the passage from Erskine May which the hon. Member has quoted is that "adjournment" means an Adjournment like the long Summer Adjournment.
Mr. Bowles: That is the Recess.
Mr. Speaker: Or perhaps the Adjournment at Christmas, or at Easter in certain circumstances, and "recess" means the interval between two Sessions of Parliament when the House has been prorogued.
Mr. Bowles: That is the Prorogation.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Butler— the Business Motion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings of the Committee on National Health Service Contributions [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).— [Mr. R. A.Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.54 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Both in the debate on the social services on 19th March and again in the Ways and Means Resolution prefacing this Bill, I have referred to the Government's proposals which form the contents of the Bill to which I am asking the House today to give a Second Reading. During the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution, both my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I emphasised that the object of the Bill was two-fold. The first relates to the proportion of the cost of the National Health Service which is to be financed by a direct contribution from all insured persons. This contribution is not new. The Bill merely seeks to bring into line with current costs and earnings something established in 1946 and which formed part of the National Health Service Act, 1946.
  The second object, which is new, is to establish a separate Health Service contribution, as opposed to the present method whereby the contribution forms part of the National Insurance contribution. I propose to discuss briefly each of these objects before dealing with the contents of the Clauses. I am not sure to what extent it will be in order to debate today the total expenditure on the National Health Service, but on a recent occasion I have informed the House that the total cost of the National Health Service for Great Britain rose from about £ 450 million in 1949–50 to an estimated expenditure of £ 690 million for the current year, 1957–58.
  Although much of this increase is, of course, due to the increase in earnings and prices, there has been a substantial increase in real terms. If the current year's estimate of £ 690 million is adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price Index since 1949–50, the figure comes to £ 515 million, representing an increase of about 15 per cent., or £ 65 million during the period. That is an increase in real terms.

  989
  I mention this in case any hon. Member today falls into what would be the error of suggesting that there has been a reduction in the real expenditure on the Health Service in recent years.
  Mr. A. Blenkinsop(Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): The right hon. Gentleman will agree that even that does not take account of the increase in population and matters of that kind to which the Guillebaud Committee gave attention.
  Mr. Vosper: I accept that, but I hope that the hon. Member will take the point that in real terms there has been an increase and not a decrease in the period in question. Moreover, I hope that he will accept that though he and many hon. Members, including myself, claim that much more needs to be done, it is undeniable that during this period there has been an advance in almost every branch of the Service.
  As you, Mr. Speaker, will probably tell me, the Bill, however, is not concerned with the total finance provided, but with the method of financing the Service. Of the total estimated cost of £ 690 million for this year, about £ 550 million, under present arrangements, would have fallen on the Exchequer, compared with £ 345 million in 1949–50. That figure would have represented 80 per cent. of the total cost, and compares with the 72 per cent. which it was estimated, in the original calculations made in 1946, would fall upon the Exchequer. The Government, therefore, have decided that this heavy and growing burden is more than the taxpayer can reasonably be expected to bear.
  It would seem to me obvious that no Government can allow any particular service to impose a completely unlimited annual charge on the Exchequer. Indeed, the party opposite, when it formed the Government, as late as April, 1951. affirmed its intention at that time of working to a ceiling of £400 million. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are waiting today with interest to hear what the Opposition would have done to maintain the limit it set on the proportion of the cost which could reasonably fall upon the taxpayer. Of course, I accept that it would have been possible — and this might have been the method of the party opposite— to reduce the scope of the service by removing some part of
  990
  it, perhaps the dental service, from the National Health Service. Alternatively, it would have been possible to impose further charges upon patients.
  In this Measure, the Government decided that none of these possibilities commended itself to them. They decided that the proper course was to increase the direct contribution in accordance with the rise in earnings and costs. There are at least three very good reasons for adopting this approach. In the first place, surely it is better, within limits, and consistent with past tradition, that people should be asked to contribute when well towards the cost of the burden which would fall upon them when they are sick. The idea is in no sense a new one. It was adopted by the Opposition when they introduced the National Insurance Act in 1946 and, in that Measure, provided for the existing National Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution.
  After all, the facilities of the Health Service are available to everyone on a basis of equality. It is, therefore, reasonable, in my view, that there should be a contribution from everybody during the period in which they are fit and well towards the cost of a Service which helps them when they are sick and in youth and in old age, when they do not contribute to it.
  The second reason is that the share of the total cost met from the existing National Health Service contributions is now far less than was ever contemplated. When the original National Health Service Bill was before Parliament it was expected that the contribution from the National Insurance Fund would pay for about 20 per cent of the gross cost of the Service. In 1956–57, that is last year, the contributions provided approximately 6 per cent. only of the total cost. Despite increased earnings, the contributions to the Health Service during the last ten years have remained unchanged at approximately £40 million a year.
  Although people will appear, therefore, to be making a greater monetary contribution to the cost of the Service when these new rates are in force, they will, in fact, be providing in this way only about 11½ per cent. of the total cost, a figure considerably less than the 20 per cent. estimated before the Service started.

  991
  Even after the increase in contribution, the proportion of the cost falling on the Exchequer will be greater than was envisaged in 1946.
  My third reason is that incomes have been steadily increasing since the present National Health Service elements were fixed. Average earnings today are approximately twice what they were in 1946. For these three reasons there is nothing new, or, to my mind, particularly immoral, in the first object of this Bill, that is, to double the contribution.
  At the same time, it seemed wise— and this is the second object of the Bill — to take the opportunity to do everything possible to remove the frequent misunderstandings that either all or none of the National Health Service is financed by weekly contributions. In fact, when this Measure is enacted about three-quarters of the cost will still be found by the taxpayer and the remainder from contributions, from charges, from rates and from superannuation contributions— I repeat, about three-quarters will be the share found by the taxpayer,
  Hitherto, the contributory element towards the cost of the Health Service has had no separate existence from the insurance contribution and the money has been paid over in the form of a lump sum from the National Insurance Fund. This Measure will rid the National Insurance Fund of responsibility towards the Health Service. Although, for reasons which I shall explain later, the health contribution will be collected by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance on behalf of the Secretary of State and myself, it will be regarded as a separate contribution, and we shall do everything possible at the appropriate time to make it clear to the public that a proportion, but only a proportion-11½ per cent.— of the cost of the Health Service will be financed by weekly contributions; and the stamp itself will indicate separately the health contribution. I will say a word about this in due course.
  I now turn to the contents of the Clauses themselves. Clause 1 of the Bill provides that as from the appointed day every person who pays, or is liable to pay, contributions under the National Insurance Acts, whether an insured person or an employer, shall be liable to
  992
  pay contributions towards the cost of the National Health Service. These contributions are to be known as "National Health Service contributions" and the new rates are set out in the First Schedule to the Bill.
  This Clause gives effect to an important basic principle in determining liability for the payment of the new contribution. As I said earlier, the intention of the Government is that those who might need the Health Service when they are ill should contribute to it when they are well. Moreover, on administrative grounds it is essential that the Health Service contribution should be collected with the National Insurance contribution. Duplication of the collection machinery would incur tremendous expense and would be quite unjustified.
  The same criteria for liability have, therefore, been adopted as applied to the existing weekly payment towards the cost of the National Health Service which is included in the National Insurance contribution, namely— and this is important— that payment of the one contribution is directly dependent upon payment of the other. At present, whenever the National Insurance contribution is paid, whether by persons who are statutorily required to pay such a contribution or by persons who are not liable to pay contributions but who may do so if they wish, a Health Service contribution is also collected. The same principle will apply throughout to the new increased Health Service contribution.
  The existing National Health Service elements— those paid at present in the weekly National Insurance contribution — are as follow: for a man 10d.; for a woman 8d.; and for a juvenile 6d. In the case of employed persons, 1½d. of this money is regarded as payable by the employer. Under subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 of the Bill, together with the First Schedule, the weekly Health Service contributions will become, for a man, 1s. 8d.; for a woman, 4d.; and for a juvenile, 1s., with 3½d. of these amounts payable by the employer in the case of employed persons.
  Broadly, therefore, the National Health Service contributions have been doubled with, however, an adjustment between the employers' and employees' shares to ensure that, for administrative convenience, halfpennies do not occur in

  993
  the combined employers' and employees' contributions. Altogether, the increased contributions will provide roughly £80 million a year compared with the present £40 million a year.
  Subesection (4) of Clause 1 provides that the Health Service contributions are to be collected by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on behalf respectively of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland towards the cost of the Health Service.
  Clause 2 deals with the effect of the new Health Service contribution upon insurance rates, and under this Clause payments hitherto made out of the National Insurance Fund in respect of the cost of the Health Service will cease. These payments amount to about £40 million in a full year. The new, reduced National Insurance rates of contribution are set out in the Third Schedule to the Bill.
  Clause 3 makes the necessary provisions for ensuring that the Health Service contributions and the National Insurance contributions are collected together as one combined contribution, and that the appropriate provisions of the National Insurance Acts, and the regulations made under those Acts, relating to collection and enforcement, apply to the combined contributions.
  As I have already mentioned, for reasons of convenience and economy it is not proposed to set up a completely separate system for collecting the Health Service contributions. The reduced National Insurance contribution and the new Health Service contribution will thus be collected together, so that where they are paid by stamp, a single stamp will continue to be used.
  The fact that the Health Service contribution is separate and distinct will, however, be made clear in the first place, and in the immediate future, by the inclusion of the overprinted words on the existing stamp "includes (rate) Health Service". Thus, on each stamp there will be an indication of the rate of the Health Service contribution. When an entirely new stamp design is introduced, words will be incorporated into the design to make it quite clear that there are separate National Insurance and National Health Service contributions.
  There are only two further points in Clause 3 which I should explain to the
  994
  House at this stage. Subsection (4) has already been forecast by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution. This subsection repeals the present rule that the Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution is allowable as a deduction from income for Income Tax purposes.
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance stated in a Written Answer given on 17th April, the Government do not consider that tax relief should be given on a contribution of this nature. If it were to be given, of course, it would have the effect that the higher the income earned, the less, in effect, would be the cost to the individual taxpayer of his contribution to the Health Service. This subsection secures that the Health Service contribution paid by the insured person, or in the case of a domestic servant, by the employer, shall no longer rank for Income Tax relief.
  It will, however, be open to employers in other cases to claim such relief where appropriate, as a business expense, and, as I said in the earlier debate, I would say to those who may be tempted to regard this Bill as a regressive Measure that this particular provision remedies what may well be considered a regressive provision which has existed since 1946.
  The other remaining point on Clause 3 concerns subsection (7), which deals with the masters and crews of foreign-going ships. A reduced rate of National Insurance contribution, including a reduced Health Service element of ½d. instead of 1½d., is at present payable by the employer in respect of such persons domiciled in the United Kingdom because of the wages and the health services he is by Statute required to provide for seafarers during periods of incapacity abroad. Quite rightly, I think, is the intention under the Bill to continue to provide by regulation for a reduced National Health Service contribution to be paid by the employer in these cases. The contribution which we have at present in mind, and which will be brought in by regulation, will be 1½d. instead of 3½d.
  The second point about this subsection concerns the power to except from payment under paragraph (a) of subsection;(7). This power is intended to be used for employers of masters or members of

  995
  crews employed on foreign-going ships who are not domiciled in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question? He said a moment ago that the employers' contribution would rank for relief as a business expense for Income Tax purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Suppose the employer is a corporation. Presumably, as has always been the case with National Insurance payments, the employer's contribution would rank as a charge for calculating liability both to Income Tax and Profits Tax?
  Mr. Vosper: I should like to look at that point. What I said was that employers' contributions could be treated as a business expense. I was dealing earlier with employers who are employers of domestic servants and other individuals who at present claim, or are allowed to claim, the National Health Service element as a tax expense, but I will take note of the point made by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. James Griffiths: To say that it is to be allowed as a business expense is only using other words with precisely the same meaning. Employers are allowed to set it off against their Income Tax claim. Do I gather that that will apply to the employers' proportion, which is now to be 3½-d. as their contribution towards the National Health Service, so that they will be able to set it off as a business expense?
  Mr. Vosper: As I understand the position, it will in future be possible for any employer to claim business expense relief under this heading, but it will be a very limited measure, as compared with the present arrangement, which is of much wider application.
  Mr. Griffiths: May we get this point clear before we proceed? There will be a National Health Service contribution, a portion of which, to which we shall be referring later, will be paid by the employer. Hitherto, the contributor and the employer have both been allowed to set off this particular part of the contribution against Income Tax. As I understand the position, there is to be a separate Health Service contribution, and of this separate
  996
  contribution, which is to be doubled, the contributors, meaning ourselves, will be unable to set it off against Income Tax, while the employers will be allowed to do so. It means, therefore, that the contributors, including the lowest-paid contributors, will get no advantage, but that the employers will get an advantage. Is that the right interpretation of the Bill?
  Mr. Vosper: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has got it right, but it does not affect the point I was making earlier. Under the existing arrangements, the higher the income the less the contribution paid to the Health Service, and, therefore, so far as the individual is concerned, the amendment now being made in this Bill is the opposite of a regressive measure; but this matter can be discussed further at appropriate stages of the Bill. I am not trying to delude the House in any way.
  To return to the point I was making about foreign-going ships, this is dealt with in Clause 3 (7). The power to except from payment is intended to be used for employers of masters or members of crews employed on foreign-going ships who are not domiciled in the United Kingdom. The contributions paid by the employers in these cases contain at present no separately identifiable Health Service element, and these contributions are not paid into the National Insurance Fund, but are applied wholly for the purposes of the Merchant Navy Welfare Board and the Seamen's Special Fund. It is the intention to continue this provision, and the regulations under this subsection will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure.
  Clause 4, together with subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 1, contains the financial provisions. Briefly, the procedure will be that the contribution will be collected by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, who will pay the money received, less the expenses of collection, to the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. This money will strictly require to be paid into the Exchequer, but, in accordance with a direction to be given by the Treasury, will be applied as Appropriations in Aid of the National Health Service.
  The only other financial supplementary provision which may be of interest to the

  997
  House is contained in Clause 4 (4). At present, payments are made to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man in respect of National Insurance contributions, including, of course, the existing Health Service elements, attributable to members of Her Majesty's Forces treated as belonging to those two countries, and also in respect of seamen employed on foreign-going ships whose homes are in Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. This subsection will ensure that the Minister of Health pays over the Health Service contributions in respect of the same categories of persons.
  Clause 5 of the Bill enables the Government of Northern Ireland to pass legislation for purposes similar to that contained in this Bill. Under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Northern Ireland Parliament is precluded from legislating in respect of the Crown, and is subject to certain other restrictions, and these two Clauses enable it to pass legislation for all purposes.
  I hope that I have made clear to the House both the objects of the Bill and the contents of its Clauses. Perhaps I should say that my arguments apply with equal force to Scotland as they do to England and Wales. I have no doubt at all that arguments will be advanced to the effect that the increased charge will bear heavily on those least able to bear it, but two considerations should be borne in mind.
  First, no one who is not already liable to contribute to the Health Service via the National Insurance Fund will be compelled to contribute as a result of this Bill. The existing exemptions and optional classes will continue to apply. For those who do contribute, I would again remind the House that the new weekly contribution of, shall we say, 1s. 4½d. which an employed man will make under this Bill, will impose no more of a burden on him than did the 8½d. under the original Measure.
  I realise, of course, that for a great many people an extra 8d. a week is not easy to find, but I would point out to those who speak for them and to those people themselves that three-quarters of the cost of the Health Service— more than was originally envisaged— will still be found out of general taxation. Those categories which do contribute will find that for their contributions they will be
  998
  getting extremely good value for their money in the Health Service.
  I am convinced, therefore, that this Measure, which, I can say, has been received with general approval— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As far as I have been able to judge from my own correspondence and comments in the general Press, it has been received as a sensible Measure with general approval, and is desirable, not merely in the interests of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but because it is in the interest of the National Health Service that there should be a contribution of this nature; and, for that reason, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
  4.20 p.m.
  Miss Margaret Herbison: Last week, when the Minister of Health said that he would speak on this Bill today, I wondered why he was the Minister chosen for the purpose. Having listened to his speech, I am wondering even more why he was chosen. The Bill does not in any way deal with the national health of our people, of which the Minister of Health is supposed to be in charge.
  It would have been much better if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, had introduced the Bill, because it is purely and simply a financial Measure. Indeed, instead of having a separate Bill brought before us today, it would have been very much better if these provisions had been in the Bill that we discussed yesterday, because in the Finance Bill the provisions would have been in their proper environment. The extra charge, which the Minister tells us will bring in £40 million a year, would then have been seen in its true light as a regressive poll tax —
  Mr. Douglas Glover: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Herbison: Not at the moment. I have only just begun.
  The extra charge would have been seen in its true light as a regressive poll tax if it had been placed in the Finance Bill side by side with the provisions giving £34 million to Surtax payers. I am certain that the people will compare the extra £40 million to be collected in contributions, some from people who can ill afford another ½d., with the £34 million which

  999
  the Chancellor felt he could afford to give to the Surtax payers. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Glover).
  Mr. Glover: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I think that we ought to get the facts clear. The original contribution was brought in in the National Health Service Act, 1946. If it was logical then to bring it in in part of that Act —
  Mr. J. Griffiths: It was not brought in in that Act.
  Mr. Glover: The contribution was brought in then but not in the Finance Bill of that year, and the present Government are doing exactly the same thing now.
  Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts correct before he makes an intervention. In the National Health Service Act, 1946, relating to England and Wales and the Act relating to Scotland there was no provision for a contribution. The contribution was dealt with under the National Insurance Act, 1946. If this alteration had been dealt with under a National Insurance Bill it would not have been the Minister of Health who was introducing it today.
  The increase means that the adult male worker will now have to pay 7s. 5d. a week as a combined contribution. In 1948, his contribution was 5s. Id. It means that since 1948 there has been an increase of 51 per cent. in the contributions from the workers, and the Tory Government are responsible for 46 per cent. of that 51 per cent.
  Mr. Richard Fort: Will the hon. Lady. to balance the picture, give the increases in benefits which have resulted from increased contributions on the insurance side?
  Miss Herbison: At present, I am dealing with what the increased contribution will mean to certain wage earners. If the hon. Gentleman will wait a minute or two and let me develop my case he may find his point answered.
  We particularly oppose the increase in the contribution because of the effect that it will have on the lower-paid wage earners and their families. The increased contribution is only one of many measures which have been taken by the Government. The Government have made what
  1000
  I can only call a ruthless attack over the years on the standard of living of the people, and particularly on the standard of living of the lowest-paid wage earners. These measures include the increase in the price of school meals, the latest increase in the prices of welfare foods, particularly for children, and the almost complete removal of the general food subsidies.
  All those subsidies benefited, in one form or another, most the families of the lowest-paid wage earners, and what the Government have done by those measures has harmed most just those families. The Government's actions make a complete mockery of the speech of the Leader of the Government when he spoke at Election time at North Berwick and told the nation that if the Conservative Party was returned to power there would be no cuts in food subsidies or interference with the National Health Service. A similar statement was made by Lord Woolton.
  Another matter which has borne very heavily upon the lowest wage earners has been the rise in the cost of living. The E of October, 1951, was worth only 16s. 1d. in February this year, a drop of almost 20 per cent. in the purchasing power of the £. My indictment of the Government on this score is that that drop in purchasing power or increase in the cost of living was due not to any increase in import prices, for they have fallen, but to the deliberate policies of the Government.
  I have here some figures from the Index of Retail Prices showing increases between February, 1956, and February, 1957. Food prices have increased by 3·9 points in the twelve months, housing by 4·8 points— we have not yet had the effects of the latest housing Measures— transport by 9·7 points, and fuel and light by 6·3 points. All these figures must have a serious effect on the standard of living, particularly of the lowest-paid wage earners.
  Last week, the Minister gave figures relating both to rates and earnings; today, he used the figure which he thought better for his case, and referred only to earnings. We must look at the wage rates, because some people have only the wage rate, with no increases by way of bonuses or for overtime. The Minister said last week that the average increase

  1001
  in wage rates since 1946 was 70 per cent. In this matter, averages prove nothing. The relevant measure is the number of pounds, shillings and pence that the individual worker brings home.
  This increase of 8d., the previous increase in contributions, the increases in the cost of living, and the slashing of the social welfare services might mean little to millions of our people; and for those people I need not speak. But these very same actions of the Government spell very grave hardship for the families of the low wage earners. Every one of these charges, every step taken by the Government to increase prices and every increase in the contribution means a cut in the standard of living of the low wage earners.
  Upon the question of health, and the cost of the Health Service, if we take this 8d. arid add to it all the other things that I have mentioned, the families of the low wage earners may suffer in health because of the lower standard of living in their homes, and if they do will not that be an additional cost upon the National Health Service? Is there not really a vicious circle, which this Measure in no way helps to prevent?
  Great play has been made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury about the fact that the original intention was that the 10d. of the National Insurance Contribution should cover about 20 per cent. of the cost of the Health Service, and much has been said today on the same point. This percentage was never mentioned at any time during the passage of the National Insurance Bill, and Lord Beveridge himself does not refer to it in his long Report. Paragraph 279 of his Report says that insurance contributions should contain a payment towards the cost of health and rehabilitation schemes. A payment is referred to, but no percentage or proportion is mentioned.
  Appendix A, which is the Actuary's Report, estimated that the 10d. per week would bring in £40 million which, according to the calculations, would cover about 23 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service. Lord Beveridge had this Actuary's Report when he was considering his recommendations but, in spite of that, he made no reference at all to any fixed proportion of the cost of the Health Service being covered by the contribution.
  1002
  In one respect the Actuary was correct; the contribution gave us £40 million. But the Actuary was wrong in anticipating that £40 million would cover about 23 per cent. of the cost of the Service. He was not the only one who was wrong; many people were wrong because they did not realise how great was the need for a comprehensive Health Service, especially among the lowest wage earners. They did not realise how many of those people and their families were denied the service which they now get under the comprehensive Health Service because they did not have the finance to meet it. Paragraph 427 of the Report says:
  "Restoration of sick person to health is a duty of the State and the sick person, prior to any other consideration."
  I hope that the Minister and the Government will give as much consideration to that statement as they have given to the words of the Actuary's Report.
  In the calculation of the cost of the Health Service, has any account been taken of the saving to other funds caused by the prompt medical attention which people now receive? That ought always to be considered as a factor in relation to the cost of the Service. In the first year of the Service the 10d. per week contribution did not cover 20 per cent. of the cost; it covered only 10·3 per cent. Last year the amount of contributions represented 6·3 per cent. of the cost. If the provisions of the Bill are unamended, however, the proportion of the cost of the Service covered by contributions will be 12·6 per cent. By this action contributors alone will be paying a greater proportion of the cost than they paid when the scheme was introduced in 1948.
  I now turn to the question of charges. In 1950, the first charges were made, and it was made abundantly clear in the discussion which took place then that these charges were temporary. The Minister has said that he would be interested to know what is our policy. He ought to have known what it is even before I rose. We made it perfectly clear in our policy statement, "Challenge to Britain," that these charges would be completely abolished.
  In talking about the cost of the Service the Minister was at great pains to show that there had been a rise in real terms. I want him to re-examine the figures that he gave. His statement took no account

  1003
  whatever of two factors of the greatest importance, namely, the rise in Britain's population and the increase in the number of aged people. If these two factors are taken into account it can be seen that the rise in real terms is much lower than the figure given by the Minister today.
  Sir Keith Joseph: Can the hon. Lady say what the rise in the population has been since the date to which she referred?
  Miss Herbison: I do not have the exact figure with me, but I am sure that the hon. Member, who has an inquiring mind and who has the Digest of Statistics with him, will easily find it. I think that I have enough figures, perhaps too many, in my speech. If the hon. Member wants to develop this point, I am sure that he will be called, as he usually is in these debates.
  Today, as in previous debates, great play has been made with this question of a ceiling. It was made abundantly clear that the ceiling was not a ceiling for all time. If the economic circumstances not only in this country but elsewhere are remembered, one can clearly understand why it was said at that time that it was not a ceiling for all time.
  The charges will now give the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than 5 per cent. of the cost of the Health Service. These charges, particularly those which have been imposed by the present Government, penalise people when they are actually sick. They bear most heavily on low wage earners and, in many cases, have proved an almost intolerable burden for them and for their families. We have had a great deal of propaganda from the Government and their propagandists in the country about the great improvements which they have brought about. Indeed, one of their leaders glibly spoke about doubling the standard of living in twenty-five years.
  The British electorate is an intelligent electorate and the Tories cannot have it both ways. They cannot boast, on the one hand, of the great improvements which they have brought about and, at the same time, impose cuts in the standard of living by the miserable proposal in the Bill. The contributions and the charges together will cover almost 18 per cent. of the cost of the National Health
  1004
  Service; that is to say, a 7·3 per cent. increase will be paid through contributions and charges compared with what was paid in 1948.
  The Minister said that he would be interested to know how we would have met the increased cost. I referred at the beginning of my speech to the £40 million of these charges and the £ 34 million given to Surtax payers in tax reliefs in the Budget. The one almost balances the other and, therefore, the moral thing for the Government to have done would have been to take the money from taxation, instead of giving relief to Surtax payers. If the Minister waits for a few weeks, he will have, in very clear language, our general proposals on many of these matters.
  I want to deal with the separate Health Service contribution. The Minister dealt with it last week and did so again today. He suggested that the stamp would indicate to the public that a definite part of the contribtuion was for the Health Service and that the other part was for other benefits. He has told us that one of the reasons for definitely separating the contributions is to make it clear to the British public that only a part of the cost of the Health Service is paid from their contributions. That is a very clumsy way of making that clear. Surely the Government could have used all the other methods of publicity to make it clear. I do not accept that as a reason for a separate Health Service contribution.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I criticise the separate contribution for a much more grave reason. On this side of the House, we are very suspicious of this deliberate separation and we have very strong grounds for being suspicious. The Tory Party has always opposed the National Health Service. It voted against the Third Reading of the Measure which introduced it, and one votes against a Third Reading only if one is opposed to the principle of the Bill. The main opposition of the Tories to the Service was to its method of financing.
  The Minister of Labour, who was the previous Minister of Health, devoted the whole of his maiden speech in the House to advocating charges for the Health Service. He followed that with other speeches voicing the true feelings of the Tory Party about financing the Service. As a result of those speeches he became

  1005
  Minister of Health, and before I conclude I want to give one or two quotations from his speeches, because they are most relevant to our suspicion about the separation of this contribution. On 24th April, 1951, the Minister of Labour, now an important member of the Cabinet, said:
  " I do not under-rate the financial importance of these proposals. Indeed, as I will show in a moment, I am quite prepared to go further."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 301–2.]
  That was to go further with the charges.
  Later that year the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Of course, we on this side of the House want to see the Bill on the Statute Book, Of course, we are delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland are at last plodding down the right road. Of course, we are quite prepared, now we have them on that road, to urge them on."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1687.]
  That, again, was a clear indication that the policy of the Tories was a policy of taxation or charges on the Health Service.
  In March, 1952, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  " It remains the belief of this party, apart from economic circumstances, that there should be charges in the Health Service."
  In other words, no matter what the cost of the Health Service to the nation should be, the Tory Party would charge for it. On the same day, he said:
  "I suggest that between now and the next Budget we should study the proportion which health ought to bear to the whole of our national expenditure."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 962–66.]
  I was especially interested in that quotation, but no doubt the Minister, who has an inquiring mind, examined this question and, being surprised and disappointed by the results of the inquiry, he has made no more of the suggestion.
  The Guillebaud Committee made that inquiry and the results are there for everybody to read. What do we find? In 1948, the cost of the National Health Service was 3·57 per cent. of the national expenditure. In 1949, it rose to 3·8 per cent. In 1953–54, it fell to 3·42 per cent. In other words, in 1954 and today the proportion of the national income being devoted to the Health Service is less than that devoted to the Service when it was introduced in 1948.
  Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph rose—
  Miss Herbison: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I have already spoken for too long, but I felt that it was important to develop this matter. The hon. Member can develop it in his speech.
  On the other hand, it may be that this Bill is the result of that examination by the Minister of Health because, although a diminishing proportion of the national income is being spent on the Service, I have no doubt at all that the Tory Party wants ultimately to finance the National Health Service from contributions by the workers and charges on the people. I have no doubt about it at all, and it is the greatest fear which we have about the introduction of the Bill and the provisions contained in it. Over a number of matters this Government have done their best to mutilate the whole basis of the comprehensive National Health Service.
  We shall oppose this Bill as strongly as ever we can. We shall take it to a vote tonight because we feel that in this Measure, as in many other Measures which this Government have introduced, the Government show no trace of humanity for the children and the wives of the lowest wage earners in this country. We feel that in matters of health these people should be safeguarded by the nation. The Bill is taking away some of the safeguards. We shall vote against it and do our best in Committee to alter it.
  4.53 p.m.
  Mr. John Arbuthnot: We have heard an astonishing speech from the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). She must know perfectly well that many of the things she said were said with her tongue in her cheek. She ended by accusing the Conservative Party of wanting to see charges made for the Health Service. Of course we like to see the contributory principle in the Health Service, but who except the Socialist Party introduced charges into the Service in the first place? She accused us of being opposed to the National Health Service. She cannot have read the Estimates for the expenditure on the National Health Service for the year 1957–58, which show a substantial increase of £ 56 million, I think, over the amount spent last year.
  Dr. J. Dickson MabonNot in real costs.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes, it is higher in real costs, and more is being spent on hospitals, too. That is not the action of a party opposed to the National Health Service. The hon. Lady's speech was a speech of crocodile tears— a speech so attractively delivered that one might almost call them crocodile tears of lavender water tinged with pink. That was the impression which the speech gave.
  She referred to this as a financial Measure rather than a Measure to do with health, and she talked about the charges as being a regressive poll tax. She criticised us for separating the contributions for the National Health Service from those for National Insurance. The reason for the separation is that the contributions to the Health Service are not allowed as a deduction for tax purposes. If the hon. Lady had her way and the contributions remained unseparated, it would be far more a regressive poll tax. By separating the two— the National Insurance contribution and the Health Service contribution— my right hon. Friend has seen to it that the person who is better off and who pays Income Tax or Surtax does not have Income Tax and Surtax deducted in respect of that part of the payment which applies to the National Health Service.
  The hon. Lady also said that we were cutting the standard of living. The trouble with right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that they do not read their own Press. The hon. Lady cannot have read the advertisements, for example, of the Co-operative movement, in the Daily Herald just before Christmas, referring to the way in which the standard of living of the people was steadily improving and the way in which the Cooperative movement claimed to be contributing to that improvement.
  If this is a financial Measure, as the hon. Lady claims, what are its financial implications? Surely they are, first of all, that the proportion of the cost of the National Health Service which is being paid for by contributions is substantially less, even with this increased charge, than in 1948, when the party opposite were in power and when they introduced the charges on the Service. Under their Government the contributions were one-fifth of the cost of the National Health Service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This
  1008
  fell to one-fourteenth of the cost immediately before this Measure, and this Bill restores it merely to one-ninth. To put it another way and to take the amount being paid as a proportion of the national level of earnings, under the Socialist Party the proportion which went in social service charges was 3·6 per cent. of the national level of earnings, whereas in future, in spite of this Bill, it will be only 3·2 per cent.
  Dr. Dickson Mahon: Give the figure on the wage rates.
  Miss Herbison: It has been said that in 1948 20 per cent. of the cost was covered by the contribution. In fact, the figure was 10·3 per cent. covered by the contribution in 1948.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I am sorry that the hon. Lady has the wrong figure on the subject. The Minister gave the figure in his own speech as 20 per cent., as the hon. Lady will see if she reads my right hon. Friend's speech in HANSARD. Anybody who looks at the Bill objectively will give general support to it as a Bill which maintains the contributory principle in a reasonable proportion.
  I want to concentrate this afternoon on one problem, that of the increasing costs of the National Health Service which have made this Bill necessary, and, in particular, the increasing cost of drugs, which has been a factor in the increasing costs of the Service.
  I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend on having reached agreement with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry to protect the National Health Service against that very small minority of firms who are anxious to exploit it. I think it would be appropriate to pay tribute to the large majority of reputable firms which have constantly urged their colleagues to hasten the agreement with my right hon. Friend. The conclusion of the agreement will improve the general climate of opinion to the advantage both of the National Health Service and of the industry.
  The charge has been bandied about in some quarters against the industry that it has exploited and is exploiting the National Health Service. Notably, such charges were made by the right hon.

  1009
  Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) in recent debates. On 29th November she did so, and again on 19th March. On 29th November, the right hon. Lady said:
  " In recent years, there has been an invasion of this country by American firms. Of the total value of proprietaries prescribed under the National Health Service, it is estimated that 65 per cent. come from American firms. These American firms have concentrated on the profitable lines. These astute businessmen, recognising that the British Government have given them a blank cheque to sell here as much as they can, at any price they choose to ask, and to take their profits out of the country in dollars if they so wish, have poured all their resources into capturing this market." —[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th November, 1956; Vol. 561, c. 668–9.]
  It will be noticed that that introduction to the subject is definitely charged with a prejudice. I therefore felt it my duty, knowing that this Bill was to come before the House in the comparatively near future, to try to find out whether or not exploitation is, in fact, taking place. I believe it is only right that the other side of the case should be put. I wish to start by saying a word about the speech made by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington— I told her that I was going to refer to her speech— on 19th March and with the specific aspect of tranquillisers about which she made much play in connection with the increase in Health Service charges.
  There is much misunderstanding about the problem. Tranquillisers fall into two categories. First, there is the category which is valuable in mental hospitals for treating major psychiatric disorders, things like Reserpine or Chlorpromazene, and that type of tranquillisers. The head of the United States Psychiatric Research Department of the Veterans' Association announced at the end of December, 1956, that electric shock and insulin shock treatment for mental illness had declined by 90 per cent. in Veterans' Association hospitals where tranquillisers are used.
  At one mental hospital in this country, St. Andrew's Hospital at Thorpe, Norfolk, the medical superintendent stated in his annual report in March last that tranquillising drugs are being used rationally in that hospital with undoubted benefit. He said:
  " There has been a marked decline in leucotomy "—
  the operation of cutting the white nerve fibres in the frontal lobes of the brain.
  1010
  The Medical Superintendent of Hereford Hospital, Dorsetshire, has described the results of treating mental patients with tranquillising drugs as "amazing". He, too, stated that they were reducing the need for leucotomy. That is one category of tranquillisers. The other— and this is the one that gets most publicity in the Press is for the treatment of light, every day psychoneuroses.
  All I want to say about tranquillisers is that when they are developed I believe they may well do for mental hospitals what the latest drugs in their field have done for tuberculosis hospitals. Therefore, I think that we must be careful before we attack tranquillisers as a whole for increasing unnecessarily the cost of the National Health Service. I believe that they play a part already and will play an increasing part in reducing the general overcrowding of mental hospitals.
  I now come to a more general point —
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Cortisone.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: — and that is that the increase in price of drugs generally, which is admitted, and the increase in the use of proprietaries, must be set against the marked fall in the time that patients spend in hospitals. The quicker turnover now taking place in beds in hospitals due to modern methods has a double advantage. It not only speeds the recovery of the patient himself, but with the present shortage of hospital accommodation and nursing staff, the quicker turnover means that a larger number of serious cases can be dealt with effectively. That, I believe, is not unconnected with the new drugs which have come under a certain amount of attack.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: What about mental hospitals?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I have dealt with mental hospitals. The hon. Gentleman could not have been here.
  I now come to the problem of sales, upon which a certain amount of criticism has been levelled to the effect that undue pressure has been brought to bear on doctors in the Health Service. The first point I wish to make on the sales side is that for every drug that successfully reaches the market, there are some 300, or may be more, which fail completely to do so, and upon which the research

  1011
  carried out is entirely wasted. Therefore, the sales of the successful drug have to pay for the research that has gone into those drugs which ultimately prove not to be of general use and benefit to the public.
  When a successful new drug has been found, no one knows how long it will prove to be the best in its field. No one knows how soon somebody else— and this is a highly competitive industry — will find a competitor to it. It may be a week, a month or a year before another drug comes to take its place.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I was wondering when the hon. Gentleman was going to bring his interesting remarks into relation with the Bill on this point.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep —
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Unfortunately not.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: — because the relationship of the Bill to what I am saying is that it increases the charges for the National Health Service, and the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington made some pretty strong attacks on the pharmaceutical industry.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Not in connection with the Bill.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes, indeed— in relation to the cost of the Health Service and, consequently, charges. Having found a successful drug, one does not know how long it is going to last and how much time the manufacturer will have to recoup the cost of the research which has been put in to it. If a manufacturer fails to recoup the cost he goes bankrupt. Therefore, I suggest that it is not unreasonable that at the outset the price of a now drug should be high and should gradually decrease the longer the drug has been in use.
  In conclusion, I should like to ask the House to look at this problem from the point of view of earning foreign exchange. If we create a climate in which the pharmaceutical industry can thrive in this country plant will be set up here for the manufacture of drugs to be sold all over the world. Exports will thrive and prices will come down at home as the basis of sales broadens. If, on the
  1012
  other hand, we discourage the pharmaceutical industry from coming here and curtail the research of the industry that is here now, we shall suffer in the long run. Our industry will go bankrupt and we shall have to go to the United States for our drugs and for the "know-how". The ultimate cost in dollars and the ultimate damage to the National Health Service will be incalculable.
  I hope that, in considering the Bill, hon. Members will pause before attributing too much blame for the increased costs to the industry which has done so much to keep Britain in the forefront of scientific development.
  5.12 p.m.
  Miss Jennie Lee: It is quite clear that the Government are anxious to see this Bill on the Statute Book. They have the votes in this House to have their way. We can take it for granted that they will lose no time at all, once the Bill becomes law, in seeing that these additional charges are imposed.
  Hon. Members opposite. whose case is so bankrupt, enjoy themselves occasionally by trying to make out that there is really no difference between the two sides of the House on these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has already made quite clear that the real Tory mind believes in health charges whatever the economic situation of the country. I do not know of one hon. Member on this side who believes in health charges as a matter of principle.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Why did the Labour Party introduce them?
  Miss Lee: I have already said that we shall not have to wait any length of time once this Bill becomes law in seeing these additional charges imposed. Hon. Members opposite are very anxious to get hold of this extra £40 million which will be taken penny by penny and shilling by shilling from many poor people. The Government have passed a Budget giving £ 13 a week tax reduction to the man with £ 10,000 a year, and one cannot give £ 34 million back to the Surtax payers without getting it elsewhere. I think that is a cruel and mean business, but, alas. the Tory mind operates in that fashion.
  I ask hon. Members opposite to recall that, although the Labour Government

  1013
  passed legislation making it possible for a limited time for the 1s. prescription charge to be levied, not a single Is. was charged for any patient in this country until we had a Tory Minister of Health. What is the significance of that? The significance is simply that it is alien to our spirit to impose such charges. There were differences of opinion at the time, as everyone knows, as to whether it should be done, but it is worth while noting that so long as we had a Labour Minister of Health not one single 1s. was collected from patients.
  It was typical of the Tories when they became the Government— this is precisely what they enjoy doing— that they hastened to impose the 1s. prescription charge. More recently, they cheated in their presentation of tax burdens. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North quite clearly made part of this point when she said that there was no reason why these present provisions should not have been included in the Budget. In addition, there was no reason why the change in the prescription rates which means that people have to pay 1s. for each item should not have been included in the Budget. There is no reason why, when we are making a general survey of Great Britain, estimating its assets and needs, these various changes in taxation should not have been joined together in one operation, the adding to the prescription charges, making the cost of milk for children dearer and, at the same time, reducing the charges to Surtax payers. It is typical of the furtive way in which the Tories go about their business than they prefer to have these little Bills before and after the Budget.
  I am sure that before the end of this debate we shall have someone from the benches opposite saying that people want to pay for the Health Service; that they enjoy doing it; that it is a real pleasure to do it when one is running a home with a father, mother and three children living on £ 7 or £ 8 a week or even £ 10 or £11 a week. It may be that in bad weather everyone in the family has flu or a cold— we have most of us been through that phase this winter. Is it really suggested that it is a pleasure for mother, when budgeting on limited means, to have to go to the chemist and find the shilling needed for father's cough mixture, a shilling for the baby and so on? Very soon she may find that she has spent 10s.
  1014
  or 15s. or even more, all in a week or two.
  I am not at this moment dealing with the great tragedies, which have again and again been referred to in this House, of invalids suffering from malignant diseases. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) made a speech, which every hon. Member should know about, in a previous health debate, stating what it costs when there is an illness which goes on and on. I am dealing with the more routine experience of having someone in the house ill— maybe several ill at the same time— and having to pay all these extra shillings on prescriptions. I should have thought that the Shylocks opposite had had their pound of flesh already without today's additional imposition.
  I suppose that there will be hon. Members opposite who will say that the people of Britain do not want a free Health Service; that they want to feel they arc contributing and will enjoy having the insurance principle enlarged in the way that is now being done. We are a proud people, and it is a fallacy to think that there can be a free Health Service any more than there can be a free Defence Service. But the issue is not that. It is how we pay for it. It might be a salutary experience if we put defence on an insurance basis. After all, we need defence as well as a Health Service.
  What typical Tory logic, and what a lack of compassion this Bill reveals; a real itch always to give to those who have most and take from those who have least. Why should the Health Service be treated in this way? What is the sum that hon. Members opposite are after? It is £40 million. If any hon. Members like to come to me privately or publicly, I will tell them how they can save a great deal more than £40 million on defence alone. Or, if they prefer it, we can get together on the cost of patent drugs. I am not a natural coalitionist, but I am willing to form a coalition with the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) if he is really serious in getting sense in the drug situation. When people are ill doctors arc under a great deal of blackmail to give patent medicines. We all know the cost of patent medicines, particularly those paid for in dollars. This is one issue where there ought to be no party advantage.

  1015
  If hon. Members opposite are really eager to see the Health Service successful, cannot we stand austerely behind the serious doctors? Where there are non-patent medicines that can be given which are equally good, this problem ought not to be made a football between the political parties. We could give reassurance to the sick, sustain the doctor against pressure, save this country precious dollars and conduct our drug bill on a very much more sensible basis than at present.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Hear, hear.
  Miss Lee: I am glad that my right hon. Friend agrees with me. We are all of one mind on this. If it is desired to save money on the Health Service, it can be saved in that way. The real difficulty is that hon. Members opposite do not believe in the Health Service. They want to make people who use it feel that they are second-class citizens. One has only to go into hospitals these days to find much that is saddening to hon. Members on this side of the House. It is most improper to generalise about hospitals or doctors. Some are doing a magnificent job, sometimes against great discouragement by hon. Members opposite.
  Hon. Members: That is wicked.
  Mr. William Ross: That is quite right; it is wicked.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: It is a wicked thing to say.
  Miss Lee: It is a wicked thing that at this time of day when our Health Service should be gradually improving we find that some hospitals still cannot make a proper appointments system. There are some wonderful consultants, but there are other consultants who think the measure of their importance is the length of time they can keep patients, matrons and nurses waiting before they turn up to do the job. Does the hon. Member opposite wish to disagree?
  Sir K. Joseph: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady says, but this very difficult non-political problem, the question of discipline of professional people, has always been eschewed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Miss Lee: I think the hon. Member has not quite grasped the point I am making. If he or I pay a consultant to do a job in a hospital, that consultant must do it. I am coming to the conclusion that it might be a good thing if consultants were either entirely inside the Health Service or entirely outside the Service. What ought to be a point of honour is that the consultant who is part of this great Service should not seek to make patients feel that they are second-rate citizens, but should realise that patients also have work to do and should not be unduly delayed. It is very important that there should be a proper appointments system.
  Sir K. Joseph: While agreeing with some of the things the hon. Lady said, I am sure She would wish to make it clear that very often the lateness of consultants is due to their busyness and that it can be very rare that there is any such motive as she is imputing to a splendid profession, although she may be right in individual cases.
  Miss Lee: If there is such great busyness, we ought to rescue the over-busy and over-employed consultants, because we have splendid younger doctors coming up —
  Sir Frederick Messer: And they cannot find employment.
  Miss Lee: When people are sick, they should be treated with concern and dignity. I would like them to have extra financial help at such times, not extra financial burdens. I hope that when my right hon. Friend winds up for the Opposition he will not only reiterate that a Labour Government is pledged to an entirely free Health Service. I wish he could also say that a Labour Government will undo this Bill. I should like to go further than that. I should like to ask that our Health Service should be entirely removed from the insurance principle. It is no more disgraceful to pay for our health through the Budget than for us to pay for our defence through the Budget. That does not mean that we should get it free, but it does imply what, I think, is a very wonderful principle, that we would all pay according to our means. I do not want to press my right hon. Friend too far, but we must

  1017
  make plain that we are not engaged in a false war this afternoon.
  We are deeply concerned about this Bill. I warn hon. Members opposite that if they think it is going to save them £40 million, it is going to cost them a great deal more than £40 million. We have a restless industrial situation. Men's wives at home, handling their pay packets, are impatient with rising costs. There may be many knife-edge situations in which men have to decide what they are going to do about wages and working conditions. If they think they are being shabbily treated and this Bill is shabby— they are going to be resentful. I warn the Government that this is not a Measure to save them money. It is a Measure which is more likely to break the temper of many men and women. Hon. Members opposite may have to pay a great deal more than £40 million for their folly.
  At least we on this side of the House have clean hands. We have an absolutely clear pledge that the next Labour Government will remove all health charges. I shall do my best to try to persuade my colleagues that it would be a good thing to take away from hon. Members opposite this dangerous toy with which they are playing— insurance contributions— and to make the whole health charge payable by us as taxpayers through the Exchequer. I hope we shall make quite clear to the people of the country the depth of our opposition to this Bill. If we cannot improve the manners of hon. Members opposite during the Committee stage, let us at least make it quite plain that this is one more Tory Measure which the next Labour Government will remove from the Statute Book.
  5.27 p.m.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mahon: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) concentrated on the essential point of the Bill, which is the question of making formal and legal "for the first time"— in the words of the Minister of Health— the Health Service contribution within the National Insurance Scheme. Those are the words the right hon. Gentleman used in discussing the Financial Resolution, and they are the kernel of the Bill. The other matters we have heard of from other hon. Members, while in order— I would not presume to reflect on the Chair
  1018
  — are irrelevant to the main theme of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) argued about tranquillisers. It is almost beyond my comprehension that an argument about tranquillisers could come into this debate, but I do not think the hon. Member should get away with his argument. He misquoted, misread, or misinterpreted the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) in trying to claim that she launched a barrage of criticism against the use of all tranquillisers. It would seem very unwise— not to say inaccurate— for the hon. Member to do so.
  The hon. Gentleman concentrated his defence of tranquillisers on their use in mental hospitals and sought to imply that, somehow or other, as their use for other spheres was so minor it could be excused in view of the grand job which is done by mental hospitals. The fact is that the vast bulk of tranquillisers used in the Health Service, about which my right hon. Friend was complaining to the Minister of Health, are used in so-called light psychoneurotic cases. I do not understand the word "light" in this connection, but, accepting that for a moment, the impression was given that these drugs are used to a minor extent. Yet the Minister could tell us now that the vast majority of tranquillisers are used for that so-called category. Some time ago I asked the Minister about this. I asked if he was aware that the World Health Organisation had denounced the misuse of tranquillisers, and if he was aware that their use in the Health Service was increasing to a great extent. His answer was "Yes, Sir."
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Is the hon. Gentleman accusing his fellow practitioners of prescribing unnecessarily and wrongly?
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am drawing the attention of the hon. Member to a fallacy in his argument —
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  Mr. Ross: Why should he?
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I shall be happy to answer the hon. Member's question, if he will give me one moment to make my point.

  1019
  I am drawing his attention to a mistake in his argument, when he seemed to me to claim that my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington was making out a case against tranquillisers as such. My right hon. Friend was addressing herself to the misuse of tranquillisers. As to the question asked by the hon. Gentleman. the answer is that some doctors often prescribe one drug when, in fact, they would prefer to prescribe another. They do so because their patients insist upon it. They "blackmail" the doctor and say to him, "If you do not give me this drug, I shall go to the doctor down the road." They do not tell the doctor down the road that they have been to another doctor or for what reason they are leaving the other doctor.
  It is within my own experience as a doctor in general practice that because a certain drug was not given to one member of a family, the whole family left the doctor. In fact, in my part of the world the occupants of whole tenements will leave a doctor because false rumours have been put about. If it is not out of order to do so, I should like to refer to an occasion in general practice when I knew that a woman could not have a particular kind of drug, but I dared not tell her why. She forsook the doctor in whose practice I was an assistant and took the whole of her family with her. Because my medical employer had the good sense to realise that I was being professionally honourable, although economically unwise. he excused me for the financial loss to himself in losing the members of that family as patients.
  It is very important that doctors should be professionally honourable, but why should they be under the compulsion of having to choose between being professionally honourable and economically unwise? As we all know, the position regarding the remuneration to doctors is very critical today, and, as doctors, we should not be faced with this conflict of choice. To my mind, the sooner we doctors are in a full-time salaried service. the sooner this form of blackmail will be removed and medical men will be able to practice their profession honourably and without reproach. The over-prescribing of transquillisers at the present time is a reproach to medical men, and most of them are aware of it.
  1020
  The other argument used by the hon. Member for Dover was in relation to the tranquillisers being British products which were earning us dollars overseas. The fact is that the vast majority of the tranquillisers are provided in this country by American. firms, and that is one of our major objections. Instead of gaining dollars on the exchange, we lose them. We must try to encourage the British side of the pharmaceutical industry to provide more drugs and not rely on foreign suppliers. Surely the hon. Member for Dover is sufficiently patriotic to want more British firms to supply drugs rather than that foreign firms should come to this country?
  Mr. Arbuthnot: Regarding the firm concerned, which was attacked by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill)— it happens to be in my constituency— it has not sent a dollar back to the United States since it came to this country.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: Well, I think that we are indebted to the hon. Gentleman because now we know why he raised this question in the first place and why a matter has come into the debate which. to my mind, seemed so irrelevant to the main subject which we are discussing.
  I am surprised that the hon. Member should be willing to argue a general case upon a particularity. Has the hon. Member any figures to bolster up his general assertion and not just the particular case he mentioned? I doubt it. I should be very interested to read any article which he cares to write in the medical Press on the matter which would supply information on the subject. Or perhaps he could stimulate his friends to do so. It would be appreciated by the medical Press. This is news to me, and information which does not seem to be consistent with the presently known facts. However, I think I ought to congratulate the hon. Member for having successfully drawn me from my main argument t but I felt it right to ensure that his comments should not go unanswered.
  The central theme of the Bill is the making of the contributory principle legal, valid and formal. I sympathise with the argument about the imposition on the lower-paid workers of this increase of 8d. and I realise that it is an important part of the argument against the Bill. But

  1021
  to my mind the central argument is the question of whether this should, in the words of the Minister of Health, be made for the "first time" a formal, legal and valid contribution to National Insurance.
  As a young man who in his early 20's became interested in politics and in the great upheavals of our time, I remember that there was great conflict and argument about the way that the Labour Government, front 1945 to 1951, governed the country. They seemed to do everything wrong according to the Conservative Opposition of that time who decried them for misgoverning the country. I rarely heard a word of praise for the Labour Government from a Conservative spokesman during that period. Therefore, it is passing strange to me that the present Minister of Health should now suddenly say, in effect, "You know, gentlemen, the Labour Government were infallible in the things the) did. For example, not only was Lord Beveridge right in his original assumption, but the Labour Government were infallible in their judgment at the beginning of the scheme to use £40 million taken from the Insurance Fund for the Health Service."
  It seems ridiculous to me that we are suddenly crowned with infallibility. If this infallibility is so, apply logic. We are told that in the first year of the Health Service— remember that now we are infallible— we spent 3·5 per cent. of the national income; and therefore, because we are infallible, 3·5 per cent. of the national income is the correct amount to spend on the National Health Service. If we are infallible in regard to the contributory side, surely we are infallible with regard to the sum spent. Very well then, please give us back the correct proportion of the money. We should be spending 3·5 per cent. of the national income on the National Health Service. It should rise to a substantially higher sum than the Minister talked about. It should be well above £ 670 million.
  If we are infallible in one thing, and we are given full marks for that, surely we are entitled to claim the full consequences and logic of the other part? But no. We arc infallible only in the things that suit the Minister, and it happens to suit him to say that on the contributory principle we were right, but that on the other matter we were wrong. Did we ever
  1022
  say that the contributory principle was formal, valid and legal? No, we did not. How can I prove it? In many ways. But if we read the speech of the Minister of Health on the occasion when the Resolution was before the Ways and Means Committee we shall see that the right hon. Gentleman admits that it was "for the first time" that it would be made so. Therefore, it was not formal, legal and valid. It was informal— it was not invalid or illegal, but it was informal. It was accepted at the beginning that £40 million would be taken from the Insurance Fund; that there would be nothing about separate stamps or a proportion of the amount, but simply that £40 million would come from the Insurance Fund on the strict principle that there had not to he an unemployment rate in the country exceeding 6 per cent. or 8 per cent.—
  Miss Lee: It was 8 per cent.
  Dr. Dickson Mahon: Yes, it was 8 per cent.
  That meant that if it so happened in the years when the Labour Government were in office that there was an unemployment rate in the country exceeding 8 per cent., it would follow that we would not use the £40 million from the Fund, because the demand for benefits from the Fund would be so great that it would be put out of balance were the money taken. At least, I assume that is the argument which was used at the time. Therefore, the £40 million was not an unconditional gift. There was an understanding that it could not be used if there was a high proportion of unemployment in the country.
  The next interesting argument was about it being 20 per cent., although we now understand that if one looks at it more accurately it is, in fact, 10 per cent. of the actual cost. We hear arguments that a certain percentage should be laid down, but when the Labour Government came into power and passed these Acts, they allowed only £40 million, first of all, in a bill of £ 197 million, and £40 million the next year in relation to a bill which ran up to well over £ 200 million. The bill, ultimately, was £ 460 million in 1951–52. If a contributory principle had been adopted informally, which somehow had statistical justification, why did not the Labour Government raise the figure of £40 million in all those years? There

  1023
  were hosts of economic reasons for which they could have done so.
  I think hon. Members opposite are being very dishonest in all their propaganda, because they endorsed and supported this country's participation in the Korean war, but ever since have refused to accept the economic consequences which flowed from it. Apart from the effect on the cost of living, one of the consequences which flowed from the Korean war was that we had serious fiscal difficulties. One of the solutions which the Labour Government found, one which I have ever since regretted, was the employment of a charge on the provision of spectacles and dentures. It was a retrogressive charge which was bemoaned by many people in my party and in the country, but in which hon. Members opposite rejoiced. Their party at that time not only said that these charges were long overdue, but said that as soon as they obtained power they would impose more charges. That is one election promise which they have kept. The trouble is that very few people knew about it during the election. It was never contained in the election manifesto or the election broadsheets which they submitted to their constituents. Nevertheless, they have honoured at least that pledge.
  Let it also be remembered that in these difficulties the Labour Government said, "We shall have to economise all round, including on the National Health Service." They did not say, "We will not impose charges in respect of spectacles and dentures because it will cause a great row in our own ranks." If, as hon. Members opposite allege is true, we wanted the contributory principle and wanted to maintain these statistics, we could easily have turned round and increased the £40 million, raising the National Insurance contribution and meeting the financial difficulty that way instead. I put it to hon. Members opposite that by not doing so at that time of great crisis in the country, the Labour Government showed quite clearly that they had never accepted the contributory principle in relation to the Health Service in any more than an informal way and simply at the inauguration of the scheme.
  I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and many other of my hon. Friends— and
  1024
  I have no doubt many others in the country, and even, possibly, just one or two on the other side of the House who see the logic of our argument— in looking forward to the day when we shall not have a contributory element at all in relation to the National Health Service. Such a contributory principle is all wrong.
  Let me take the Minister's own speech today as probably the best justification for my statement. He said the idea is that we should allow those who are working to contribute to the well-being of the young and the old. That is the principle which he enunciated, and he used that statement as justification for this unjust and unfair scheme of insurance contributions. Those who are working and who, from their wages, pay our taxes, those goods of different kinds which carry taxes and which are the produce of the labour of those men, and the profits which are made by the various firms for which these men work, all these ought to carry the burden of the National Health Service.
  Socialised medicine— and we make no apology for it— rests its case entirely on the concept that the country provides the money according to its ability and that the people in need can go to that Service and obtain it without immediate cost. It is not a free Service in the strict sense that no one makes a contribution towards it and that somehow it appears like manna from Heaven, but it is a free Service in its operation; at the point at which the person needs the Service, it is completely free.
  That is the policy of the Labour Party. We may have been misled in several years, enjoined by the exigencies of events to compromise and temporise here and there, but this is the clear principle which we have enunciated and do so at this moment. At times, we may have had to look at it again in the exercise of governmental function, but it is nevertheless our clear policy and one which many of us have supported for a long time.
  The young men of the Conservative Party are enjoined by their seniors to go to the country and talk expansionism — the expansion of industry and the expansion of the standard of life. They are given this sense of buoyancy and bounce in our industrial future. But there is no

  1025
  comparable buoyancy and bounce about the social services. That is what I cannot understand. If I were a young Conservative politician, I should be terrified in case I ended up at the Ministry of Health. It would ruin me. It would ruin all my ideals and all my views of the good practice of medicine and of good health in this country.
  I advise hon. Members opposite to think again about this Bill. I put it to them that we have this expansionism in industry, but that when we come to the Health Service the attitude is restrictive. First of all, the cost has been restricted. As a proportion of the national income, the expenditure on the Service has fallen over the years. The Government appointed the Guillebaud Committee. It was in no philanthropic sense that that Committee was appointed. We have only to look at the speeches of the Minister of Health at the time to see what he hoped would happen as a result of that Committee. In fact, it did. not happen. The true facts emerged and hon. Members opposite, previously blinded by their own propaganda, at last began to see the light and to see clearly that the National Health Service had been badly raided by the Conservative Party.
  The last Minister of Health, poor soul, was a well-meaning man. What was his penance for being a Conservative? He had to introduce, no doubt much against his better nature and better judgment, a charge per item on prescriptions. This is probably one of the most vindictive pieces of social legislation which we have had in this country. Hon. Members opposite who know their constituencies will know that to be true. They know that many an old person, many a person dying of a malignancy, many who have suffered from chronic diseases, are having to pay a great deal of money in prescription charges; and this is money which they can ill afford. Hon. Members opposite will not be honest if they do not admit that to themselves. Even if there were only one such person in his constituency, the hon. Member concerned ought to be most anxious to get the charges removed from the Statute Book as quickly as possible.
  The new Minister of Health, the bright now pin, has to introduce this Bill. Of all the Acts and Regulations which have flowed from the Ministry of Health in
  1026
  the last few years, to my mind this is the most important. It does not seem so important at the moment because, in degree, it is very small, but in principle it is the undoing of the Health Service. This is the beginning of the end of the concept of a socialised service, for which many of us hoped in this country. This is the damaging blow which the Conservative Government seek to aim at the National Health Service.
  If the young men in the Conservative Party do not mean this and do not want it to happen, and if they want the Service to march together with thriving industrial and economic well-being, linked with an expanding standard of living, with the social services growing side by side, they should think again. This Bill has to, be opposed. If we cannot win tonight, we must win some other day.
  5.49 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Linstead: I regret that I have not been present throughout the whole debate; I have been serving on a Committee upstairs.
  I join issue with the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) when he sees in the Bill a restrictive move in relation to the National Health Service. It seems to me that, properly used, the new finance which the Bill will produce for the National Health Service can provide a very real enlargement of the Service. The hon. Gentleman has only to look back upon the restrictions which Chancellors of the Exchequer of his own party found themselves, obviously unwillingly, compelled to apply under the original method of financing the National Health Service. Now, for the first time, we find in the contributory system, whether we like it or not, a method of opening the door towards an enlargement of the Service. I should have thought that that was cause for gratification rather than complaint and criticism.
  The starting point of the Bill must surely be that the commitments we have to the National Health Service are such that they cannot be fitted within an imposed Budget by a Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know at the moment, for example, that some additional money will have to be found for the payment of medical practitioners; we do not know when or how, but we can see it coming. It is quite clear that the continued use of new drugs will increase

  1027
  the cost of the Health Service. We shall reap the benefit of that in the quicker turnover of patients, curing people more quickly and putting them back to productive work; but nevertheless that additional money has to be found, and cannot be found by a method of finance such as that which the Health Service has worked under hitherto
  Those of us who are closely linked with the Health Service feel about it as we feel about education.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: I cannot quite understand the point which the hon. Gentleman is making about not being able to include the cost of the Health Service within a Budget imposed— to use his words— by the Chancellor. If we can do it for defence, who not for the Health Service?
  Sir H. Linstead: I am merely saying that, in actual fact, Socialist Chancellors of the Exchequer, who must have been as anxious as anybody to give the Health Service its wines, found it necessary, one after another, to impose a ceiling. The whole history of the National Health Service since 1948 has been a history of an underfinanced Service. One must accept that as a political fact, in the financial circumstances of the country. We have been able to get by up to now because certain sections of the Service, such as the hospitals, have been living on their fat, to use a crude expression —
  Mr. Ellis Smith: And some starved.
  Sir H. Linstead: — but what they cannot do is make any further economies now. Maintenance and other charges facing hospitals quite clearly will call for increased money.
  The question which the House and my right hon. Friend have to face is this: how are these developments— not these restrictions— to be paid for? Are they to be paid for by taxation, by insurance contributions, or, to take the only other two possible ways, by payment out of the rates or by payment as people use the Service?
  We can, I think, exclude payment from the rates unless we are prepared to take the necessary major step in reorganisation and hand the hospitals back to the local authorities, with all that is implied by that. I do not believe that either side
  1028
  of the House is anxious to see any substantial extension of the system of payment for services rendered. That has been discussed already this afternoon, and it has been a matter of controversy all the way through. I rather quarrelled with the hon. Member for Greenock when he suggested that any payment by the user was a thing completely to be deplored. It is interesting to find Lord Beveridge, who was a wholehearted supporter of the National Health Service if there ever was one, specifically saying in his Report that
  " the British people are clearly ready and able to pay contributions for institutional treatment ".
  Beveridge was not putting on one side the possibility of payment for hospital treatment. Guillebaud, on the contrary, who has been criticised by the hon. Member for Greenock, examined that possibility and turned it down on the various grounds which he explained. I do not, however, believe that there would be on either sire of the House any enthusiasm for substantially increasing payments by users.
  We are left with the simple choice: is the additional money which the Service clearly needs to come out of insurance payments or from taxes? It is worth while remembering that, however it is found, ultimately it has to come out of the productive capacity of the country. It is interesting to note that, at the present time, five-sixths of the cost of the National Health Service, even if this Bill comes into operation, will be paid by taxes. The dispute, if there is a dispute, relates to one-sixth of the cost only.
  The person who has made the most authoritative and objective examination of the balance of advantage between paying for a health service out of taxes and paying for it out of insurance contributions is Lord Beveridge. It is instructive to read extracts from his Report today and see how matters struck Lord Beveridge, objectively examining this particular problem a good many years ago. He first said that it was important to bring home to the public the fact that the National Health Service had an important preventive role to play, and he made the point that:
  "People will take what they have already paid for without delay, when they need and they pay for it more directly as contributors than as taxpayers."

  1029
  Whether that is a sound argument or not, it appealed to him at the time— that it was an encouragement to people to make early use of the Service that they themselves had paid something towards it.
  Mr. Ross: Have we not sufficient experience in working the National Health Service over a number of years to be able to say whether or not that is valid? There has not been any indication that, because people have, in the main, been getting the benefit of the Service through taxation, they have been unwilling to avail themselves of it.
  Sir H. Linstead: One cannot, of course, compare the known with the unknown.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is doing that. We now have the knowledge.
  Sir H. Linstead: All that one can say, as a generalisation, is that, by and large, people do value something for which they have paid more highly than something for which they have paid nothing.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is changing his argument. He quoted Lord Beveridge, not on the question of valuing, but actually using. I am suggesting that we are now in a position to have sufficient knowledge of the working of the National Health Service to be able to say that people value the Health Service and have used it; they have used it readily, which shows that they valued it.
  Sir H. Linstead: I am at the moment quoting the opinion of Lord Beveridge as an opinion which he expressed at that time.
  Miss Herbison: In quoting that opinion, the hon. Gentleman is using it to bolster the case which he is trying to make for an extra contribution rather than taxation, because, he says, people would be more willing if they contributed. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is quite right in drawing to the hon. Gentleman's notice the fact that people do not seem to have had any hesitation in using the Service from 1948.
  Sir H. Linstead: I am gradually building up this case, and I am trying to be as objective as I can about it. One of the most objective witnesses we can quote in a matter of this kind is the man who was virtually the originator of our social
  1030
  service schemes. Lord Beveridge went on to make this interesting point:
  " One of the reasons why it is preferable to pay for disease and accident openly and directly, in the form of insurance benefits, rather than indirectly, is that this emphasises the cost and should give a stimulus to prevent."
  He then went on to discuss domiciliary treatment and the family doctor, and he said:
  " There is no obvious reason, apart from a desire to keep the insured contribution as low as possible, why insured persons should be relieved of this burden wholly, in order that they may bear it as taxpayers. If importance attaches to preserving the contributory principle for cash benefit, it attaches also to contribution for medical treatment. There appears to be a case for including part of the cost of domiciliary treatment in the insurance contribution."
  On that, as we know, he recommended, and the Socialist Government of the day accepted, the principle that there should be a transfer from the Insurance Fund of £40 million to the Ministry of Health.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I think the hon. Member would agree that Lord Beveridge did not, in fact, recommend that precise sum. He merely made the recommendation that there should be a contribution. That matter was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) in opening the debate from this side of the House.
  Sir H. Linstead: I should need to refer to the paragraph in the Beveridge Report, but Lord Beveridge said quite clearly that insured persons ought to pay 19 per cent. of the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation. That is in paragraph 287 of his Report. What sum 19 per cent. may have been at that time I cannot calculate, but he was very careful and precise about the contribution that should come out of the Insurance Fund.
  Miss Herbison: What was the number of the paragraph?
  Sir H. Linstead: My note says that it is paragraph 287. If the hon. Lady refers to it, I am sure she will find the figure of 19 per cent. as the employee's contribution and some other figure as the employer's contribution quite clearly set out in that paragraph.
  My last quotation from the Beveridge Report is an interesting one from the same paragraph. When talking about

  1031
  the division of the costs of the Service as between the State, the employer and the employee, Lord Beveridge said that nothing was sacred about the division suggested in the Report. He said:
  "It may be argued that it is dangerous to shift too many financial burdens from the citizen as consumer on to the citizen as taxpayer because that may lead to extravagances. All men know themselves as consumers but do not always realise themselves as taxpayers."
  That is a fundamental and important principle for us to bear in mind.
  In paragraph 287, Lord Beveridge concluded that insured persons ought to pay 19 per cent. of the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation. According to his calculations, £40 million out of £ 170 million, or 23·5 per cent., was to come from employees plus employers together. The present percentage, when the proposals in the Bill become law, is 12·6 per cent. I should have said that that difference between 23·5 per cent., which Lord Beveridge suggested as the reasonable percentage that the Insurance Fund should bear, and the 12·6 per cent. which is to be the percentage when the Bill comes into operation, is the substantial justification for increasing the insurance part of the cost of the Service.
  Finally, one has to remember, as has already been said, that Lord Beveridge made his recommendation on the assumption that 8·2 per cent. of the working population would be unemployed and, therefore, drawing substantially off the Insurance Fund, whereas at present, taking the latest available figures the unemployed percentage is only 1·8. Those figures alone are a substantial justification for the salutory change which the Bill proposes to bring about.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: I cannot help thinking that the Bill, providing for increased contributions for those who are subject to the National Insurance Act, is related to Clause 12 of the Finance Bill. This is the worker's contribution towards the £ 25 million which has to be met as a result of the reliefs given to those in receipt of incomes of £ 2,000 a year and upwards.
  The Bill is one of the worst for which this Government are responsible. Now I understand why the present occupant of the office of Minister of Health was
  1032
  chosen, because from time to time in the field of social insurance he has shown himself to be a radical reactionary.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend interpret that?
  Mr. Moyle: I leave that to the judgment of the House, but I cannot think of a better phrase to describe the right hon. Gentleman who now holds the position of Minister of Health.
  Mr. Vosper: Can the hon. Member elaborate that point? I am interested. it is certainly not my normal description of myself.
  Mr. Moyle: There are reactionaries and reactionaries. I would describe the right hon. Gentleman as one of the most extreme in that category. I hope he understands now why I chose that phrase to describe him.
  The Bill is typical of Tory mentality. I think I would carry the House with me in saying that there are certain obligations that the State cannot avoid. One is that it is the duty of the State to defend the country. That is the primary responsibility of the Government, whichever party is in power. Secondly, the Government must take steps from time to time to ensure that everything is done by the State to guarantee that people can work. The only way that we can get people to work for the benefit of the State is to see that they get at least three square meals a day. If they do not, they will not render the work that is necessary to maintain the economy of the country.
  Implicit in that is that if we are to maintain the working capacity of the population, we must see that their health is maintained. That is a joint duty of both the State and the individual.
  Mr. Glover: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Moyle: I am glad to hear that response. I hope that I carry the hon. Member with me to the end.
  Among those who have to work for the country are manual workers as well as those in receipt of salaries. They have to be considered, because they are the major basis of our economy. There is no question about that.
  Why do I regard the Bill as typical of Tory mentality? We are agreed that it is the obligation of the State to ensure

  1033
  that men are fed and kept in health so that they may maintain their physical working capacity, and yet the Government come along and say, "In order to keep you fit, we propose to tax you to the extent provided in the Bill by increasing your contribution". That is imposing a penalty upon the duty of the worker to do what he can, in conjunction with the State, to maintain himself in a reasonable standard of health and subsistence for working purposes. Therefore such an imposition, such a penalty, is not an economy but sheer, rank Tory stupidity.
  I thought that one of the best things which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) ever did was to avoid, when preparing the provisions of the National Health Service Act, the defects of the Education Act, 1944. I thought that he showed great judgment when he said, "I am not going to base my health service upon the local government service, I am not going to base the machinery of my service upon the voluntary hospitals. I propose to create my own machinery so that it shall be national in concept and so that it will be commensurate with the needs of the service which I envisage."
  That is what he did, and he avoided the geographical injustices implicit in the Education Act, under which the kind of education which a child receives all depends to some extent upon where the child lives. That is true, is it not? The Minister of Health knows because he was until recently Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education.
  It was part of the same good judgment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale that he insisted that the National Health Service should be free, so that no one at any time should be prevented from doing the right thing in maintaining his or her health, and should not, in fulfilling his or her duty in doing the right thing for health, be in any way penalised by having to pay a contribution. Had the Education Act been based, as was the National Health Service, on those two principles, that the service should be completely free and national, then no matter where a child lives, whether in Wales or in Scotland or in England, whether in Cornwall, Northumberland or Carmarthenshire, it would have the same
  1034
  rights and obtain the same benefits from one, and the same service.
  Here we have a Tory Government departing from those principles which are enshrined in the National Health Service Act. This Bill is rather a violation of principle and not an aid to economy, which was the view which the Minister expressed of it.
  Mr. Vosper: It is not a departure from principle. The contributory element was established in the original Measure.
  Mr. Moyle: This is the first time that a beneficiary under the National Health Service has been called upon to make a direct contribution. Of course we cannot run any service without somebody paying. Somebody has got to pay. We cannot provide for Clause 12 of the Finance Bill, which we discussed yesterday, and which proposes to give £ 25 million of relief from taxation to a certain section of the community, unless somebody pays for it. Anybody who understands the simplest principles of national finance knows that to provide that £ 25 million for a certain section of the community some other section has to pay it. As I have already said, it is the workers who are, by this Bill, called upon to pay the major part of that contribution, and of course it is a departure from principle. When this Bill is passed we shall not be able to say that the National Health Service is a free service. In referring to it as a free service I mean that a service which is financed by taxation and not by contributions.
  I cannot see why the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), who has just spoken, should accept as a good thing the fact that five-sixths of the expenses of the service should be provided by the taxpayers but should break down on that one-sixth, which he seemed to think it was necessary others should provide. Why did he say that that was necessary? In order to make the workers realise, through paying contributions, that they cannot get something for nothing. There was a very patronising ring about that remark.
  Sir H. Linstead: Although I accept that argument, the words which I used were not my words. They were the words of Lord Beveridge. The patronage came from him, if there was any.
  Mr. Moyle: Lord Beveridge is not here to be dealt with. I want to deal with the hon. Gentleman. He made himself responsible for the argument because he supported it. I would not acquit the noble Lord of a similar, patronising approach to this question. It is the kind of approach which people sometimes make who really think that their standard of morality is a little higher than somebody else's.
  I put this to the hon. Gentleman. Why is it contributions have to be imposed upon the workers to remind them that certain benefits come to them from the State and have to be paid for? Why is it necessary to do that? It is a kind of seventeenth century argument applied to twentieth century people, but we are no longer dealing with the working class of the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. We are dealing with a body of intelligent citizens who have received a measure of education, and they understand, to precisely the same degree as anybody else, whatever his rank in society, that they get nothing which is not paid for by some means or other.
  However, the worker says— and this is my point— that, taking for granted our present principles of taxation, there is a greater degree of equity in collecting the necessary revenue to run the Health Service by means of taxation than by the imposition of contributions. I say frankly that one of the greatest contributions which we have made to the Welfare State is by proving the practicability of providing a socialised medical service which is free; that is to say, free in the sense that it is based upon taxation and not upon the individual contributor who is in receipt directly of the benefits from the service.
  I regard this Bill as a reactionary Measure, one of the worst reactionary Measures we have had from this Government. I hope that when my party returns to power— and, judging by the municipal election results which we already know and by the recent by-elections, I am perfectly certain that it is an immediate prospect— one of its first aims, announced in the first Speech from the Throne, will be the restoration of the free Health Service. I hope, therefore, that the present Government will not be in office very long. The longer they are in office the more reactionary they become.
  1036
  What I cannot understand was why the Government wept those tears— but they were crocodile tears, of course— over the recent industrial unrest, for almost every legislative Measure of theirs makes it more difficult to maintain stability. Almost every Measure which they produce contributes to the rising cost of living, and the result of the increasing cost of living is to unsettle existing wage rates in such a way as to reproduce industrial unrest and industrial turmoil, which are directly attributable, in my view, to the woeful incapacity of this Government to understand how to maintain and improve in equity the economy of this country.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Fort: The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) devoted much of his speech to criticising the use of contributions to support the National Health Service, as indeed other hon. Members opposite have done. Yet, in my primarily industrial constituency, my experience has been quite the opposite. The view often expressed to me is that the weekly stamp put on the card is a contribution to the Health Service. Not so many seem to realise that it is also a contribution to insurance.
  Whatever we may say here for political purposes, that surely is our experience in the constituencies. It dates from the original Insurance Scheme of 1911, which is still sometimes called "The Lloyd George". People got used to putting stamps on their cards for sickness benefit. They still look upon the stamp as being primarily for the purpose of financing the present National Health Service. They understand that they are paying for the Service, but they think that they are now paying a great deal more for it than they paid in the past.
  The speeches of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen clearly indicated that they had in mind the possible unlimited expansion of the Health Service. It is a problem which confronted their own Government. I thought that some of the arguments of the hon. Member for Greenock, who unfortunately is not now in the Chamber, were vitiated by the fact that he made a great point about the Labour Government imposing charges

  1037
  to deal with the fiscal problems which arose out of the Korean war. I tried to interrupt the hon. Member, but his spate of eloquence was such that he would brook no interruption. My recollection was that the charges were imposed in 1949 and that the then Government, having placed the Measure on the Statute Book, never enforced it because of disagreement within their own ranks.
  Charges in the National Health Service had absolutely nothing at all to do with the Korean war, but they had plenty to do with its rapidly increasing cost, which all of us recognised within two years of the Service starting. The problem has been with us from that day to this, and both sides of the House have tried to deal with it by variations on the same theme.
  Miss Lee: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who has gone for a cup of tea, I should like to ask the hon. Member whether he was in the House when my hon. Friend made the point that the Health Service now absorbs a smaller percentage of the total national income than it did in its first years? Why, therefore, is the hon. Member making so much of its cost?
  Mr. Fort: I think that the hon. Lady will find from the Titmuss Memorandum in the Guillebaud Report that the argument was that the Service was not taking less of the national income but that it has been taking the same proportion probably since pre-war days. The hon. Member for Greenock, whom the hon. Lady is defending, was rather inaccurate in his references to the Guillebaud Report in that respect. He was also very unfair to my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Labour, whom he accused of setting up the Guillebaud Committee in order to try to axe the Health Service. That is a view which my right hon. Friend, who was then Minister of Health, repudiated with vigour and, indeed, with violence, as it was entirely untrue. The Guillebaud Committee was set up to do what it eventually did, that is to report to all of us, without prejudice and as objectively as it could, on how the Service had been working for the best part of ten years.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock is apparently unconcerned about the unlimited expansion of the Health
  1038
  Service. As far as I understood her, she took the view that all we had to do was to remove the charges, remove contributions, put up taxation and let the Service expand. She mentioned no method of preventing that unlimited expansion.
  Miss Lee: Quite wrong.
  Mr. Fort: The hon. Member for Greenock wished to see a full-time general practitioner service established. There was a strong indication in his speech, which I was not able to explore by intervention, that if there were a full-time general practitioner service, it would be possible for a Socialist Minister of Health to lay down to doctors rules and regulations about treatment and prescribing and in that way prevent the unlimited expansion which has been the difficulty with this Service from the start.
  Assuming that we are all aware of the problem of trying to keep the Service within bounds financially, what choice have we before us? The first is one of stopping certain developments and of having a Minister of Health who would say, "This we cannot do because we shall not have the money to do it". Perhaps that is what is in the minds of hon. Members opposite when they talk about a salaried service. The second is to impose charges which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said, have the great disadvantage that they arc charges on the sick. None of us wants to see those charges go further than they have gone already.
  The third choice is the one which is put before us today, that of increasing the contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) argued, in a way which compelled interest if not support on both sides of the House, in favour of the contributory method for supplying part of the cost of the Health Service. I will not go over those arguments again because they certainly seemed to me to be powerful ones. We on this side of the House want to hear from the Opposition— and perhaps the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) will reveal to us later today what he certainly failed to reveal on 16th March— what alternatives the Labour Party will put before the country other than to say, "We will withdraw all charges and all contributions and will let the Service go free and expand as it will and increase taxation to meet the cost."

  1039
  What is the Opposition's alternative? Let us hear that clearly before hon. and right hon. Members opposite vote against the proposals in the Bill
  6.30 p.m.
  Sir Frederick Messer: I listened with very great interest to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort). I could not help being struck by his constant repetition of the word "expansion." He referred to it in a way that seemed to indicate that he thought there was another alternative, which was restriction of the Service. I can see no reason why the hon. Member should use the term "expansion" other than because he believed that restriction, perhaps. would accomplish something with which he would agree.
  The first thing I want to say is not in defence of the National Health Service, but in explanation of why it may be apparently costly. I do not think anybody can disagree that the Service has proved itself a complete success. Obviously, we measure success by certain standards. and what standards could we use in connection with a service of this description? Let us look at some of the things we have done, because we have heard from many quarters that one of the reasons why the Health Service is expensive is the cost of drugs. I do not think that they represent more than one aspect, but if drugs have been responsible for making some contribution to the expense of the Service, have we got value for them?
  In 1950 or 1951, speaking from memory, there were 20,000 people in this country who died from tuberculosis. In 1952 that figure had dropped, and there were 12,000 people waiting to get into hospitals and sanatoria. The following year we were paying, by contract with Switzerland, for tubercular people to go to that country for treatment under a Government scheme.
  Since then we have been able to eliminate the waiting list, and there are now tuberculosis beds which are being devoted to other types of treatment. According to the latest figures available, there is a mortality list of 5,000 instead of 20,000. That is what we are getting for what we are paying. I think we were paying Switzerland about £400,000 under that
  1040
  contract, but now it is ended, and there is no need for us to renew it. So the National Health Service has justified itself there.
  We were able to make that attack on this disease because of expensive drugs. At one time, aureomycin and streptomycin were so expensive that only wealthy people could afford the treatment. In the early days, injections of those drugs were so expensive that the Health Service had to open certain centres for their distribution. Everybody considered that there was only one qualification required for treatment, and that was the qualification of need.
  I hope my fears will never be realised, but I see in this Bill the grave danger of a qualification for benefit that will depend upon a contribution to insurance. I cannot believe that the Government want to introduce a Bill of that description. I do not think that this Bill is introduced merely for the sake of getting £40 million. If we do, as the hon. Member for Clitheroe said we may do, expand even further, we must either have such a preventive service as to reduce the number of people requiring hospital treatment or we must have a domiciliary service.
  The real economy, of course, lies in a preventive service. It is far better to prevent a patient needing hospital treatment than pay for a patient to stay in hospital where he can be cured of his complaint. A reorganised service for patients to be treated at home might be a little more costly, but it might, at the same time, be much cheaper than treating them in hospital, where £ 20 a week is not an unusual figure for an acute case. However, until we have reorganised the Service in such a way that it would enable us to have a preventive or even a domiciliary recuperative, remedial service, there will be a need for expansion.
  We are suffering as a result of events which have prevented any kind of hospital service getting, as it should have done, the machinery essential for its proper working. Let us look at the history of the hospital service, which is the most expensive side of the Health Service. In 1929, the then Minister of Health was the late Neville Chamberlain. Whatever else might be said about him, he was a good Minister of Health. He did remarkable work in the Local Government Bill

  1041
  which transferred from boards of guardians that part of their service which was later better done by county and county borough councils. They inherited the hospital service which then required to be rebuilt. Those who have had experience of those days and of the old workhouse infirmaries will remember that they were like forts, which cost as much to pull down as to rebuild. The county boroughs took over in 1930. In 1932 the May Committee came into existence. That economic Committee stopped the spending of public money, and the county boroughs did not recover until 1935 or 1936. By 1937 we were getting ready for the next war.
  So that if this Service is costing a lot of money, it is money that ought to have been spent years ago. We would in all probability not need to spend the amount we are spending, or at least a large proportion of it, if we had been able to use the capital to rebuild the hospitals, which should have been done years ago. The waste in many of our hospitals is due to the fact that they are out of date and do not meet the needs of the situation today.
  It is a frightening figure— £ 600 million — but we forget that this is not entirely new money. If it were possible to assess the cost of dealing with the sick before the Service was introduced, we would have some basis for knowing what is the new money. Whatever the new money is, we are getting something for it. We are getting a better organised service, but the important thing is that in the minds of the people there is the knowledge that they need no other condition than the fact that they are ill and can get treatment for their sickness.
  As I see it, the evil of this Bill lies in the fact that it is largely in the nature of camouflage. New money is not being created. All that is happening in the Bill is that we are going to get a small sum of money, comparatively speaking, that otherwise would need to be raised from national taxation, and we are pretending to ourselves that, as a consequence, we are doing something to meet the cost of the Service. We are not. All that we are doing is taking money from another pocket, and, in my view, that is by no means an honest way of dealing with the situation.
  1042
  I have never been one of those who thought that we ought to justify expense, no matter what it may be, because the Service is of such importance. I think there ought to be economy. I do not think that we are justified in spending a shilling that could be spent on the health of the people in any other way than on the health of the people. If we can save in administering this Service, we should save, but the Bill does not do that. The Government themselves could not find a way of doing it, and that is why they set up the Guillebaud Committee. That Committee was headed by a man without prejudice, because he knew very little of a service like this. He was a brilliant economist.
  At the time when the Committee was set up, I questioned whether it would be able to recommend anything that would be generally accepted, because I considered that, whatever evidence the Committee received, it ought to be tested so that its value could be assessed. The Committee reported that a smaller pro. portion of the national income was being spent on the National Health Service than had been the case at the beginning. The hon. Member for Clitheroe said that that was not right, but, if we leave the Guillebaud Committee out of consideration, the Ministry of Health's own Report said so.
  Sir K. Joseph: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I am following his argument, and I hope to deal with it if I have the good fortune to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. I must protest against the constant misuse of statistics. Of course a smaller proportion of the gross national income is being devoted to the National Health Service because the gross National income has grown by so very much since those days in new resources— [Interruption.]
  Sir F. Messer: Perhaps you will permit me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to thank the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, (Sir K. Joseph) for making my case for me.
  The cost of the National Health Service has risen to the figure of £ 600 million because so many other things have risen too. It will cost more because general practitioners want a rise, and they claim they want a rise because everything has been made more expensive for them. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that if he

  1043
  goes to any management committee of any hospital group in the country, he will find that its estimates are higher because the costs have risen.
  We cannot have the cost of food rising, for instance, without it being reflected in the cost of running a hospital. After all, the time has gone by when we could say to those who are responsible for the care and maintenance of patients in hospital, "We are going to economise by putting you on rations and cutting down on what you eat." The Minister himself— let us be quite clear about this—discourages economy of that description, and we ought to be fair about this. The Minister asks for economy, but he has never asked for it in that direction.
  It would be wrong for us to attempt to make a case of that description, but we are entitled to say that it is the Government themselves who caused this rise in prices. If it is the case that these rises in prices are the result of Government policy, then, clearly, we cannot be held responsible for the figure having reached what it has. Not only has the cost of the maintenance of patients increased, but everybody's wages and salaries have risen in the hospital world, and some of those who work in the Service are not getting enough. Those of us who receive the Service literature and medical and hospital literature know of the complaint that hospitals cannot get staff of the standard they require because they cannot attract people from private industry. They cannot get catering officers, who might be able to economise, because they cannot pay them enough to attract them from private industry.
  The cost of the Service is high. I do not want to labour the point because I realise that the Bill does not deal with it, but that cost is high, not because there is any expansion that could be avoided, but because the expansion is attributable to causes over which hospital administrations have had no control. There is something to be said, as has already been said, in regard to the organisation of medical services, even in hospitals. I know hospitals which, prior to the introduction of the Service, had a very high standard of medical service which was proportionately cheaper than it is at the present time
  1044
  but, having given certain rights of freedom, we must not boggle at paying for them. There are those who can economise in the Service, in my opinion, without affecting the standard of the patients, but the Bill does not attempt to do that
  What the Bill does is for the first time to establish what I had hoped would never be established, and that is that treatment for a person who is sick will be paid for by a contribution enforced by law— a stamp on a card. Reference has been made to Mr. Lloyd George, as he then was, and the National Health Insurance Scheme, and there were many of us who thought. after a period of experience, how wrong it was that a man who put a stamp on a card could go to his panel doctor, while neither his wife nor his children could do so. The man who put a stamp on a card could get medical treatment as well as sickness benefit, but his wife could not. We thought that to be wrong, but we are now going back to the days when people will only be given medical treatment because they have a qualification other than that of need.
  6.48 p.m.
  Sir Keith Joseph: I should like to apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health for missing his opening speech and to all hon. Members whose speeches I have not heard because of a very urgent constituency matter requiring me to go to the Home Office in the middle of the debate.
  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer), whose recent pamphlet on disabled persons I was most interested to read, and I should like to take up one point which he made in his speech. He suggested correctly that the Bill now before us did not in any way try to find further finance for any desirable expansion of the National Health Service. What this Bill does, the hon. Member said, is to take money from one pocket rather than another. I could not agree with him more. In fact, if the contributions were not being raised in this way, then taxation, indirect or direct— I hope that the hon. Gentleman is following this part of my speech— would have to be invoked for the £40 million now to be raised in this way.

  1045
  The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) both told us that if their party were in power it would fill the gap by taxing those who could afford it. That is very interesting in a theoretical way, but we have evidence about the putting of further taxes on those who can afford it. In his last Budget, the Leader of the Opposition had a gap to fill, but he did not rely entirely, or even largely, on increasing Surtax or removing concessions to Surtax payers. He increased the Entertainments Duty and the petrol tax and he also increased Income Tax by 6d. in the £. If it is said that it is easy to fill these gaps by taxation by simply "putting it on the rich," surely the evidence of what the right hon. Gentleman himself did shows that it is not the only way in which the Opposition would deal with the gap.
  Miss Herbison Miss Herbison rose —
  Sir K. Joseph: I see that the hon. Lady wishes to interrupt me. She would not give way to me, but I will gladly give way to her.
  Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. When I had finished I gave way.
  Sir K. Joseph: Not to me today. That was last month.
  Miss Herbison: I gave way to so many hon. Members today, and one cannot give way all the time. The hon. Gentleman is comparing one Budget with another. but they are very different Budgets indeed. The Budget that we discussed yesterday on the Finance Bill is one in which the Chancellor found that he could give away millions of pounds to Surtax payers.
  Sir K. Joseph: I am simply telling the hon. Lady that if she says that the solution from her party's point of view is to put the full extra burden on the Surtax payers, that is not the solution which was adopted by her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he had a similar problem. The right hon. Gentleman had to spread the burden very widely.
  The hon. Lady told us that the Bill was another example of a ruthless Tory attack on the wage earners. Another hon. Member has told us that it represents the Tory aim, intent and pleasure.
  1046
  If it does represent the Tory aim, intent and pleasure, the charges imposed have limped very lamely behind the prosperity which has spread very widely among the people. It is surely a joy and pride to every hon. Member that the entire population is now demanding, quite rightly, higher standards of living, and more or less broadly and largely achieving that higher standard of living. If hon. Members opposite will read their own Daily Herald or look at the trading returns of the co-operatives or any other evidence which even they will accept, they will not be able to refute that argument.
  To turn to the National Health Service, I do not think that there is a single major resource or amenity connected with it which is not more plentifully supplied by my right hon. Friend and his colleagues now than at any time since the war. There are now more real resources for the Health Service— for example, more nurses, more beds, more doctors, more health visitors, more district nurses and more midwives. Only a few days ago my right hon. Friend gave me an answer about the increase in occupational centres for ineducable children so dramatic in its purport that I remember that the number had almost been doubled in the last five years.
  Those are real resources. As the hon. Member for Tottenham pointed out, they are yielding fruit in lower disease rates. The blessing of lower tuberculosis figures is not one that redounds to the credit of politicians. It is to the credit of scientists and doctors, but the scientists and doctors need the resources which politicians, through the people who make the resources, can allot to them.
  This is not to say 'that this happy picture is spread over the entire population. In general, however, I heard the present state of the economy very well described by a large retail distributor, who told me that today the economy is one no longer of bread but of biscuits.
  There are on the economic side two prospects with which the House has to deal. There is the short-term prospect. in which every improvement, however desirable, has to be paid for by higher taxes, higher charges, or higher contributions, or, as I believe, by a combination of those methods. There is also the longterm prospect in which the expansion that we all desire— some in one part, some in

  1047
  another— must surely depend on the expansion of the gross national product — the national resources— which has already enabled the real resources devoted to the National Health Service to rise so dramatically, as I have explained, while a lower percentage of the gross national product has been devoted to it.
  Mr. Moyle: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the main difference between us is that he is contending for a contributory Service while we are contending for a Service financed from taxation. Therefore, the point that he makes about the expansion of productivity as a prerequisite to the expansion of the National Health Service is by no means a dispute between us.
  Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but surely the immediate problem is that if we want the National Health Service to remain even at its present size we must raise £40 million now either by extra contributions or by extra taxes. It is all very well for me or for the hon. Gentleman to talk about the desirable future when a greater national product will permit lower taxes to produce a greater yield, but at the moment the difference between the two sides of the House is whether there should be contributions or not. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would have raised this £40 million by higher taxation whereas we prefer to restore the percentage contribution to what it was in the first place. The entire Bill does no more than restore the previous position.
  I hope that all hon. Members will realise that only by this desirable national expansion can we achieve improvements in all the social services. A number of my hon. Friends and I recently sent a letter to The Times in which we used a phrase to the effect that social, defence, economic and industrial policies are all facets of one organic whole. That is true of the National Health Service, as it is true of the entire industrial system.
  I want to take up the argument of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock at the point where she thought it possible to ask for improvements in the Service and at the same time to argue that the only way to finance the Service is by putting further tax burdens on that very class, whose initiative and enterprise alone
  1048
  create the wealth out of which expansion can be financed. Hon. Members opposite will, I am sure, realise that it is only profits, be they public or private, which can permit good wages, good standards of work, good security in work, and, above all, taxes out of which to pay for these amenities.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Who does the work?
  Sir K. Joseph: I must be being misunderstood. This country limps far behind both America and Russia in respect of the heavy burden that it puts on the people who make the wealth, the dynamos of mind, energy and personality in public enterprise or private enterprise who invent, administer, organise and run things. There is no party point in this; it is common to all hon. Members.
  May I now modify the rather bright impression that I have been trying to paint by recognising from my point of view that the lowest-paid wage earners and those on fixed incomes cannot be included in this comparatively sanguine picture? As the hon. Lady said, we cannot deal with them by averages. I was interested to read a survey conducted by the Salford and Sunderland local authorities, which showed that far from all people knowing their rights, as some of us are apt to think, there appear to be large sections of the population, particularly among the old, who are not yet in full exercise of their rights. I hope very much that those excellent institutions, the old people's welfare committees all over the country, will note that there is much still to be done to point out, particularly to old people, that there are Government institutions available for their help which they may not be fully using.
  Mr. Tom Brown: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the result of the survey made by the medical officer for Sunderland. He has quoted only extracts from it. Will he be good enough to quote the whole of it and the relation of the cost of food to old people in the present economic situation?
  Sir K. Joseph: I was interested in a reply of the Minister of Pensions, who pointed out that fully one-third of the people whose cases were ventilated in the Sunderland report were entitled to assistance— supplementary pensions, if they asked for them. I hope that they will now

  1049
  ask for them, or have already been put in touch with the proper authorities.
  I was referring to the condition of those who receive the lowest wages, and there seems to be no difference between me and any hon. Member opposite. The answer is that this contribution merely restores the previous position, and that everybody must hope that wages will continue to rise, provided that productivity rises. Surely everyone in the country wants the highest wages combined with the highest productivity.
  About the Health Service as a whole no one can be entirely happy, because we are all aware of a number of gaps. I have a list of items, but every hon. Member has his own preference. We all know that there is much to be done, as outlined in the McNair Report, to make sure that in the next decade there are sufficient dentists, even more than now. It has been a great comfort to see how dentists spend 50 per cent. of their time dealing with priority cases, that is maternity cases and children. Those cases are given free treatment, so there is no question of charges affecting these priority people.
  There is much to be done in the dental service. Many of us hope that there will come a time when chiropody will be given proper attention. Here we must rely on more taxation, more contributions, more charges, or expansion of the national income. We cannot just say that we must have these things. They must be paid for. There are those who say that more should be spent on mental health and research and I should like to plead for more expenditure on those, when the time comes.
  We should give more time to the whole question of domiciliary visits. I realise that the Younghusband Committee is sitting and should be giving much attention to this. Health visitors, who are extremely highly trained people, often with five years' training as nurses or sisters, are trying to do two completely contradictory jobs. At one and the same time they are meant to try to cover an enormous case-load of families and simultaneously to concentrate on the health of the mother and child, and they cannot do both. We either have to get a situation where health visitors have selected case-loads, that is families who need them most, or only mothers and
  1050
  children, or have many more health visitors.
  I was interested last week, when I happened to be in France, to have the chance, by the courtesy of the authorities there, of spending a day seeing how the French health visitors' service works. There they have what is called the assistante polyvalente instead of our assistante spécialisée. Instead of having as health visitors experts with five years' training, they have social workers with one year's training who do the visiting and who call in the experts as necessary. I am sure that the Younghusband Committee will look at the comparison. The rather shaming circumstance is that although the French health service falls far below ours in almost every other factor, they have about 15,000 social visitors in operation against our 8,000, which includes district nurses and midwives— though this is an unfair comparison because the French have some district nurses and midwives also. In this one example the French authorities go further than ours, but they need to do so, because their housing and other amenities are far below our standards.
  Next, there should be more focus on preventive medicine. Here I was very interested to read a speech which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made to the Royal Society of Health last week, when he said:
  " There is still plenty of educating to be done as shown by deaths from diphtheria which occur among unimmunised children. In the fact that only three out of 20 children first attending school have healthy teeth. The number of burning and scalding accidents among young children in the home shows no sign of diminishing."
  I recognise that the Press, televison and magazines have done a great deal to improve the knowledge of the mass of the people, but education is an economic way of spending money.
  Another thing on which we should spend money is industrial medicine; and the Government's record in larger legislation like clean air and the provision of housing is very closely relevant to the policy of maintaining health rather than curing illness. What I am leading up to, in discussing preventive medicine, is that I want to venture into the most dangerous of all topics, a discussion of the family doctor.

  1051
  I should like to give my diffident praise to the B.M.A. for its bigness in recognising a change of circumstances and in now agreeing to co-operate with the Royal Commission. It seems to me that at the very heart of preventive medicine must be the family doctor. If the family doctor is to do what we know he can do, and what I am sure he wants to do, we must spend money to get shorter lists. It seems to me that that is possibly the trend for which we should work.
  My approach is to give doctors shorter lists while keeping the same standard of living. There should be in return some sort of bargain by which doctors guarantee, by their own internal discipline, to ensure a very high standard among themselves. I have in mind the system in America whereby doctors undertake that they will spend so much time a year in post-graduate study, in clinical assistantships and things of that sort. That is essential— and I know that it is almost impossible to generalise about general practice.
  There are as many practices as there are towns. There is a great gulf between a rural practice and an urban practice, between a practice in a city like Bournemouth, where the age level is high, and a practice in a city like Cambridge, where the age level is lower, between a seaside town and a northern industrial city. We cannot generalise about the profession, but the burden on a doctor in an area of heavy morbidity must surely require that one day there will be shorter lists in the areas where health is harder to keep, compared with areas where health is relatively easy to keep.
  Meanwhile I hope that my right hon. Friend is encouraged by the success of Tory incentives in the great growth of group practices, which enable a combination of men and women to maintain, for the benefit of the public, a standard higher than each one would be able to achieve on his harried own. There are a number of things which we hope that in due course the general practitioner and the family doctor will undertake to maintain, if shorter lists are one day granted. He should have a high standard of ancillary services, of medical records, and of premises, and a high standard of skill by means of post-graduate or clinical assistance work, research, a certain
  1052
  amount of specialisation, which group practice permits, and good use of pathological and X-ray services when they are available in local hospitals.
  Above all, what is needed in good family and preventive medicine is time, and that is what only shorter lists can provide. If the family doctor is to return to his key position in preventive medicine, then we shall only be able to judge the human effectiveness, combined with economy, of the Health Service by having better statistics than are now available.
  I know that the Ministry issues excellent reports, with full tables at the back, each year, but all that that enables most of us to do is simply to measure one year's performance against that of another. We can never measure against bogey; we have no yardstick— no absolute. It is like a business as it would be if it had only cost analysis and no work study or method study. I hope that the Minister or perhaps a voluntary body will consider carrying out some study in this matter in order to see whether it is possible to measure health or morbidity, or to measure the relevant costs of keeping people in their homes or in hospitals, as was recently attempted by the Nuffield Trust.
  I believe that the College of General Practitioners is already carrying out some such survey. I was personally disappointed that the idea of a social service staff college which I ventured to produce in a recent debate dropped as flat as any idea could, but it has at least led to the suggestion— which I believe is being taken up— that there should be a social service quarterly journal in which these statistics and subjects could be canvassed by those who are interested. Only if we have better statistics will the Minister be able to judge whether the improved family doctor, whom I hope one day will be possible, is having any effect on reducing the burden on hospitals.
  It is only proper that any hon. Member who suggests further expenditure should try to suggest economies. This is the hardest of all things in the case of the National Health Service. The only suggestion that I have to make is that my right hon. Friend should treat very seriously the method which industry has found invaluable, namely, work study, organisation and methods research, and all those techniques by which industry,

  1053
  both private and public, is constantly seeking to cut out wasteful uses either of machinery or human resources, so as to ease the burden of human effort and to cheapen costs.
  As I have said, all who wish to till in the gaps in what we all recognise is a wonderful Service must look primarily to an increase and to the expansion of our national resources, which has been so remarkably achieved and sustained under a Tory Government. To whichever party we may belong I am sure that we all want that increase in national resources— and I am sure that a fair share of those resources will go to the National Health Service.
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. T. W. Jones: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I thought that it provided me with a glorious opportunity to bring to the notice of the Minister and the House a problem which has worried me and also many of my colleagues who represent North Wales constituencies— the problem of inadequate hospital services. If the people of North Wales are to pay these outrageous increased contributions, they are entitled to far better and more efficient hospital services. Although the medical and nursing staffs of Merioneth, Caernarvonshire and Anglesey achieve excellent work under the most difficult circumstances, much more can be done to improve the facilities available. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) gave the House particulars of the position with regard to Bangor Hospital about four or five years ago. I do not know whether there has been an improvement there in the meantime.
  In order to illustrate the position, I will concentrate my remarks upon one small hospital, which is typical of others in North Wales and is situated in Towyn, in Merioneth. I know that the Minister very often visits Merioneth for his holidays, and as the author of the Bill that is about the nearest that he will get to heaven. However, he knows the district very well, and he will know the town of Towyn. The problem in Merioneth is a geographical one, and because of this it is very difficult to organise a comprehensive medical service for its people. The transport of patients is obviously a very costly business, and it entails much
  1054
  hardship and strain. At Towyn there is a first-class little hospital, which is one of the busiest and best run in the area. I understand that in 1956 the total attendance was no less than 1,875.
  I want specially to refer the Minister to the consultative clinics associated with that hospital and that area. All the people who attend orthopaedic clinics have to go to Dolgelley; chest cases have to go to Machynlleth, and all special X-ray cases, such as those connected with barium meals, enemas, gall bladder and kidney X-rays, have to go to Aberystwyth. They all have to go from Towyn to other hospitals for those purposes. Towyn Hospital comes under the jurisdiction of the Mid-Wales Hospital Management Board, and in addition to the comparatively small central hospital of Aberystwyth there are four small peripheral hospitals, including that at Towyn.
  Towyn Hospital is the only one in Merionethshire, and it has the least number of good roads and is the farthest from any centre. It is thirty-two miles from this hospital to Aberystwyth and when the River Dovey is flooded patients have to travel a further thirteen miles. In spite of the fact that Towyn is the most inaccessible of all the hospitals and has by far the biggest turnover of patiens, it has the worst services. All the other hospitals that I have mentioned have a radiography service, which practically obviates any need for patients to travel from those hospitals for any form of X. ray examination, and they have regular orthopaedic clinics, which are conveniently placed. The problem arises only in the area of Towyn.
  The number of patients attending Aberystwyth from Towyn Hospital in 1955 for special X-rays was 226; the number who had to go to the chest clinic at Machynlleth was 599, and those who had to go to the orthopaedic clinic at Dolgelley numbered 200. This is because there is no accommodation at Towyn for X-ray instruments. The X-ray instruments are available but there is no accommodation for them. I want to impress upon the Minister the importance of providing this accommodation.
  All over the Continent, in countries which were far worse hit than we were during the war, hospitals are being built. Here we are going backwards. The Bill is a true reflection of the minds of those

  1055
  hon. Members opposite who have never believed in the National Health Service. Let us be frank about this: the Conservative Party has never believed in the National Health Service.
  Mr. David Llewellyn: Would the hon. Member say how many new hospitals were built in Wales under the Labour Government?
  Mr. Jones: I would remind the hon. Member that it was the Labour Government which introduced the National Health Service Act.
  Mr. Llewellyn: That does not answer the question.
  Mr. Jones: I repeat that I bring this charge against the Government and the entire Tory Party that they have never believed in the National Health Service and have done all in their power in the last five years to destroy it.
  Mr. Llewellyn: Before the hon. Member sits down, may I ask whether he has included the starting of the building of new hospitals?
  Mr. Jones: I have no further comment to make, provided the Minister of Health has noted the problem which I have brought to the notice of the House.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Glover: I will not follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones), who spoke so engagingly about Towyn, which I remember as a very pleasant place for a holiday, and also about Aberdovey, for I should like to bring the debate back to the Bill before the House, which concerns National Health Service contributions.
  Although I found the hon. Member's speech interesting, I did not think it had very much to do with the Bill. That comment can also be applied to many other speeches made, from both sides of the House, during the debate. I think the reason is that all who have taken part in the debate are very interested in the welfare of the Health Service. The accusation made by the hon. Member for Merioneth that hon. Members on this side of the House have had a desire to wreck the Health Service is the most untrue and unjust accusation he could
  1056
  make. Without a shadow of doubt, the Health Service today £ for £ is very much more efficient, and the public are getting better value for money, than was the case five years ago.
  Let me come back to the Bill. Personally, I welcome it warmly. I listened to the speeches of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), and I have a great deal of sympathy with their point of view, but my point of view and my approach to the problem is different from theirs.
  This is only a problem of the method of payment. We are not dealing with the Services themselves. As I see it, it is the responsibility of a Government in their planning and thinking for the State to try to produce the best sort of State in which the people will live. One of the great arguments of those who have transgressed the narrow limits of the Bill has concerned the day when increased resources will be available for the Service. They have said that when this day comes, this and that shall be done. I believe that a Government have the responsibility so to organise their affairs that those increased resources are available earlier.
  If all the benefits of our Welfare State are paid for directly out of taxation, that inevitably means that the burden of taxation is so heavy that it begins to act as a direct disincentive. I will try to make my reasoning clear. The average level of earnings of male workers today is £ 12 a week, or £ 600 a year. If that is the average, a large proportion must be earning over £ 12 a week.
  Mr. Tom Brown: And a lot must be earning less.
  Mr. Glover: Even for those who are earning less, under the present system of taxation in this country, taking into account direct and indirect taxes, hardly a single person in employment is not paying in taxation about the contribution which is involved in the National Health Service. Consider the position of a man working in a steel works or in an engineering shop, who is moving into the highest Income Tax bracket. I have discussed this matter with the men themselves. Taxation begins to act as a big disincentive. Previously they may never have paid tax at the highest rate. If

  1057
  increased earnings incur a penalty of 8s. 6d. in the £ for them, taxation begins to act as a strong disincentive to increased productivity.
  The whole of the country's problems will be solved satisfactorily only by increased productivity per man-hour, per man-year and per machine. Any system which we can evolve which will help to remove the taxation disincentive at that marginal earnings figure will bring the required increased productivity earlier.
  I was very impressed by the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), although it does not agree with my thinking. In my view, it is important that a substantial amount of the social security benefits which we receive should be received as a result of a direct social security payment — in other words, as a contribution paid by means of a stamp week by week for that benefit.
  In this respect, I was very impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), who cited Lord Beveridge. Lord Beveridge's thinking was that responsibility should be engendered by a contribution through a stamp. If that were his thinking at a time when he was working in the concept of 8 per cent. of the people unemployed, how much more wise would that thinking be today after we have had ten years of running the economy with less than 2 per cent. unemployed the whole time?
  It seems to me that a great deal of our thinking on this problem is conditioned by the pre-war picture of 2½ to 3 million people out of work. I do not blame anybody whose thinking is so conditioned, but, in fact, we are running a full employment economy, and most of us hope that we shall continue to run a full employment economy.
  The future of the country depends on how our productivity increases within a full employment economy. If, by providing that all these social service benefits are paid for by taxation, we create a load of direct taxation which is a direct disincentive to prevent the man on the workshop floor from increasing productivity, we shall be making a mistake. With such a load of taxation, a man's higher earnings will incur an increasing burden of tax. If we create such circum-
  1058
  stances, then we as a Government and a nation will not be producing the atmosphere which will overcome our problems by helping to increase productivity. I believe that in the Bill the Government have taken a modest, but wise, step in making this contribution a statutory obligation.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer). If I thought that the idea behind the Bill was that the man would benefit, but that his wife and children would not, nothing would persuade me to vote for it. But that is not the case. That was a "red herring" which the hon. Member, who is so wise and who made such an excellent speech, should not have attempted to draw across the trail. There is no question of making benefit conditional upon payment. Those who are in full work will be putting the stamp on the card, and upon the stamp will be clearly laid down how much is the contribution for the very big benefits they are entitled to receive as of right under the National Health Service. I do not think there is anything wrong about that.
  In what I thought was a very good speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) said that in talking to many people he had found the view widely held that most of the money paid each week was for the Health Service. Of course, all hon. Members know that, up to now, the contribution for the Health Service has been under 1s., but many people do not know that. I have heard people criticising the Health Service and saying, "This is what we get for 6s. 8d. a week." But they do not pay that amount; they pay only 1s. for the Health Service. Because that fact is not realised there is not that sense of responsibility towards the Health Service which should be shown by the nation collectively.
  I have advanced the reasons why I support the Bill. I believe that it represents a step forward which, although it is not a big step, will help rather than hinder that productivity on which the future of the nation depends. I believe that the Government are wise to introduce the Bill and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on its presentation.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Brown: I should be happy if hon. Members opposite would refrain from talking about the need for increased productivity every time they try to justify an increase in the charges which have to be paid by working people. We have heard it so often that we are becoming a little tired of it. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Glover) often quotes the importance of increased productivity. Not only are hon. Members on these benches aware of that, but we have seen the work of the people who increase our productivity and who, as a result, are entitled to a share of what they produce and our increased productivity. The hon. Member for Ormskirk is right to state the reasons why he supports this Measure, and we on this side of the House are justified in criticising it.
  I wish to advance some criticisms and tell the Government what I think about this Bill. The British people possess many characteristics. There is no race on earth which possesses so many outstanding characteristics. I am happy to say that one is that they arc prepared to pay provided that they obtain value for their money. Long before the introduction of the National Health Service, which began to operate in 1948. the workers were paying to protect themselves in the form of contributions to benevolent societies, permanent relief societies, sick clubs and burial clubs.
  An argument has been advanced about the value of the National Health Service, but no one, however clever he may be— even though he may be a genius like Lord Stamp, the famous statistician, or Sir Leo Chiozza Money— can estimate in terms of money the value of the National Health Service. It has been of value to the aged, the sick and the infirm, and I hope that we shall do nothing to interfere with the Health Service as it exists at present. If it is to cost more, we must face that fact, and we must do so whether productivity is increased or reduced. We must look after the sick. the aged and the infirm, although it would be of assistance in that connection if productivity is increased.
  One of the disturbing features about this Bill is that this is the third time that the amount to be paid by the workers has been increased. I am not complain-
  1060
  ing, but I maintain that while the workers and the employers— they are both concerned with this have been paying increased amounts, the grant from the National Exchequer has been decreasing. I have been making a close analysis of what is paid by employers and workers and by the Exchequer, and I find that every year since 1948, with the exception of one, the Exchequer contribution has gone down.
  If there is to be an increase in the charges; if we have to cope with a situation created by the increased cost of administration, of drugs and of doctors' fees, there should be a fair increase in payments all round. I suggest that there is a responsibility which must be borne by the Exchequer and not all the time by the workers. We want to pay our share, and we will do so. I have never yet found among those who earn their living by the sweat of their brow, anyone who objected to paying his fare share. But all the time we are trying to bridge this gap we are asking the workers to pay more than their share in comparison with the Exchequer.
  I should be happy if I could be assured that this increase would result in the abolition of the charges made for prescriptions. I shall be out of order if I develop that argument, but it would please me if the Minister said tonight that this increased revenue would be used to help poor people who find it difficult to pay the prescription charges. It would be very helpful if he could give us that assurance, but I do not think that he will.
  Let us examine for a moment what the Exchequer has paid. According to the returns made by the Ministry itself, we find that in the first year of working, 31st March. 1948–49, the payments made by the workers and the employers represented 57 per cent.: that paid by the Exchequer was 18·6 per cent. In the following year, the amount paid by the workers and the employers —
  Mr. William Shepherd: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman can give us these figures in money totals, because I cannot reconcile his percentages with the facts as I know them?
  Mr. Brown: I am quoting the Ministry's returns, which indicate how much is paid by the employers and

  1061
  employees and how much by the Exchequer. What disturbs me is that in the span of years from 1948 to 1957 the amount paid by the former has been increasing. It is true that there has been a variation, and that variation in the amount paid by the workers and the employers is obvious to anyone. What is not obvious to me as an ordinary chap is why the Exchequer grant has been going down considerably.
  Mr. Glover: I thank my hon. Friend — and I will call him that— for giving way. His hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) made great play of the fact that the workers' contribution was 11 per cent. of the total expenditure on the Health Service in 1948 and that, as a result of this increase of £40 million, it will now be 12½ per cent. At the present moment, without the Bill, it is 6 per cent., so I do not know how that tics up with his figures.
  Mr. Brown: I think the hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood my hon. Friend. She said 11 per cent. of the expense, not of the contributions, and there is a vast difference. The contributions are classified as income. What I am trying to show is the great difference there is between what the workers and the employers together pay and what the Exchequer pays. That is one of my complaints. The Exchequer grant has been going down all the time, and it is that continuing trend that makes me complain.
  In 1956, the total from the employers and the employed was 52·2 per cent.: from the Exchequer it was 8·4 per cent. Therefore, from 1948 down to the year ending in April of this year, the Exchequer contribution has gone down from 18·6 per cent. to 8·4 per cent. My contention is that the Exchequer is not bearing the financial responsibility it should in this connection. And, be it remembered, a lot of the improvement in our economic circumstances has been brought about by the increased productivity of the working people. If I may use pit parley— most of it comes from the pick point. It comes from the working people, and I say, once again, that if we call upon the working people to increase their contributions in order to bridge a gap created by many factors and circumstances, then, at the same time,
  1062
  we are justified in asking that the Exchequer should increase its grant to the Fund and not let the full, 100 per cent. responsibility rest on the working people.
  I conclude on this note. We cannot and must not let our National Health Service degenerate. We have to keep it up to scratch. Much has been said about expanding the Service. We know that there are very many branches of medicine which ought to be brought in, and which we advocate should be brought in. We cannot bring them in unless we have the money to pay for the administrative and other work involved.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to examine the whole aspect of the case— he does not need to go into a lengthy review— and I say to him that if he can so administer the Fund and so use the increased contributions as to bring to an end the prescription charges, he will be doing a grand job of work for the chronic sick, the infirm and the aged people of these islands.
  7.47 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: I know the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) too well to imagine for one moment that he would try to mislead the House, but I must say that he has, in fact, rather tended to do that in what he has said this evening. It is not true, of course, that the percentage contribution which the Exchequer makes to the National Health Service has been going down. It has been rising very rapidly. What he has been doing is to confuse, as quite a lot of people do, the National Insurance Fund with the National Health Service, and that mistake somewhat underlines the need to make the position clearer. I should like to see the whole matter treated in an entirely different way, and then we would not get these mistakes.
  To put the matter right in finality, let me say that in 1948, when the Scheme was first mooted, the percentage covered by contributions was one-fifth, and it sank to as low as one-seventeenth. It is, therefore, perfectly clear that the contributor is not paying an increasing share, but that that increasing share is being paid by the Treasury. If one looks at the figures, one sees that, from the time when we on this side came to office, that contribution has risen from £ 390 million

  1063
  to £ 550 million net. That is a very large sum indeed, and it is that increase which hon. Members opposite have not faced this afternoon.
  I have not heard one hon. Member opposite really face the basic problem of these increasing costs. Even the hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer), who is very learned in these affairs, had, in order to criticise this Measure, to bring in fantasy, and talk of the possibility of there being discrimination amongst those who were to be treated that the Bill was not really introduced in order to save money but as a screen which, at some later date, would be used to introduce that discrimination.
  We all know that that is not so, and that there is no basic objection in equity, and certainly none on economics, to individuals contributing towards the National Health Service. What is important is, of course, that there shall be no discrimination. We must treat the sick when they are sick. At the same time, no case can be made against saying that all who are gainfully occupied shall pay a proportion towards the cost of the service which they are receiving. No hardship can arise from requiring those who are gainfully occupied to pay an increasing contribution towards the National Health Service. There is spent every year on three things which are by no means necessary, namely, drink, tobacco and entertainments, about £ 2,000 million, but what we are doing today is asking for a contribution towards a very expensive Service to the extent of £40 million. No one can honestly say that this contribution will cause any hardship to those gainfully occupied.
  I believe that the present contribution is inadequate, and we ought to work, albeit by easy stages, towards an arrangement whereby at least one-third of the total cost of the National Health Service is covered by contributions. If we could do that, or something towards it, we should be able to do away with at least one unpleasant feature of the present arrangements, that is, the prescription charges, which I think have failed in their purpose and are altogether an infernal nuisance. I support the Bill and regard it as only one step towards getting a much higher level of contributions, with the intention as early as possible of doing away with the prescription charges.
  1064
  I very much doubt whether employers are now paying enough. It would, in my view, be wise to increase the employers' contribution under the National Health Service and do away with prescription charges. We should look at the pattern of what is happening in countries overseas. Although they may not be absolutely right in what they are doing, there is a very wide range of experience throughout the world in the financing of insurance schemes for pensions and health services, and I should like for a moment to run over what happens in a number of other countries and compare it with what we ourselves are doing.
  The percentages apply, in most cases, to both pension schemes and national health services, and in most other countries they lump them together, a procedure which, in my view, might well be considered here. In Austria. these services are provided for by the insured person paying 3·5 per cent. of his earnings, the employer paying 3·5 per cent., and the Government nil. In Belgium, the insured person pays 3·5 per cent., the employer pays 2·5 per cent., and the Government pay only 16 per cent. of the total contributions of insured persons.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Sixteen per cent. of income?
  Mr. Shepherd: No, 16 per cent. of the total contributions.
  Mr. Griffiths: The workers and employers pay a percentage of income?
  Mr. Shepherd: Yes, they do, and the Government pay 16 per cent. of the total contributions of insured persons. In Bolivia, a country in which one would not expect to find a service of this kind, insured persons pay 2·5 per cent. and employers pay 5·5 per cent., the Government paying a very small contribution towards the total sums expended on the service. France is a more common example. There, as hon. Members know, the insured person pays 6 per cent., the employer pays 10 per cent., and, again, the Government pay nothing at all towards the maintenance of the national health service in France. In Mexico, the Government are a little more generous and pay 50 per cent. of the contributions of both employers and employees. In the Netherlands, the Government pay nothing, and the rates of contribution by

  1065
  employer and employed are roughly the same. In New Zealand, there is a very high percentge of contribution, 7·5 per cent. by both employers and employed, the Government again paying only a small amount. If we look at the pattern of what is happening all over the world, we see that we are absolutely unique in maintaining a situation where the vast bulk of expenditure is, in fact, met by the Government and not by employers and employed as contributors. We ought seriously to consider whether our method is not, in fact, the least suitable, particularly in our present position.
  Mr. Julian Snow: Surely, those figures are very relevant if one takes into consideration indirect taxation in relation to the cost of the National Health Service.
  Mr. Shepherd: I was about to come to that; I think the hon. Gentleman has a point there. I was looking at the figures of indirect taxation in various countries of the world, and there is a very considerable variation which does not enable one to draw any very specific conclusions.
  I should like to say a word now about one aspect of this matter which has not, I think, been appreciated as much as it ought. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Glover) did refer to it. but only in part. I wish to delve a little deeper. The level of taxation which has obtained in this country over the past five or ten years has, in many ways, been not only disagreeable, but has acted as a disincentive. We know that we cannot obtain from our people amounts of taxation higher than they are providing today. But that is not the whole story by any means.
  In the United Kingdom today, we face a very disastrous inflationary pressure which can rob us of the fruits of our work and cause a great deal of hardship. The Government have not yet succeeded in dealing with inflationary pressure as effectively as they would have wished, and one of the reasons is that they cannot have a Budget which finances and has a surplus even below the line. One of the reasons why we cannot have a surplus below the line is that we have some very large payments to make. One of them is required to finance the nationalised industries, a matter to which I referred in
  1066
  a speech I made in the Budget debate. The other is expenditure of this kind, amounting to over £ 500 million a year.
  Mr. Robert Edwards: As well as £ 1,400 million on armaments.
  Mr. Shepherd: That is, I agree, a factor —
  Mr. Edwards: A substantial factor.
  Mr. Shepherd: It is a substantial factor. The cumulative burdens we have to meet are so large that we cannot get truly the surplus Budget which is necessary to beat inflation unless we can get rid of some of these commitments below and above the line. As the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards) implies, we cannot finance our armaments out of contributions. That would obviously be impossible. We can deal with certain capital expenditure in other ways, and I think we can deal with some of the expenditure on the Health Service by contributions in order to enable us to have a better method of dealing with inflation. I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite who, I know, are as much concerned about inflationary pressure as we are, to consider whether it would not be wise, in order to have a truly surplus Budget below the line, to lift some of the expenditure from the Budget and transfer it in the form of contributions.
  I believe that higher contributions would tend to give a greater sense of independence to those who use the Service. The higher contributions would, on the whole, tend to answer some of those wretched people who go about this and other countries decrying the National Health Service and decrying their own country. We hear these, as I call them, crabs and carpers almost everywhere. They are to be found, of course, more readily in the more expensive watering places in this country and among the more sun-drenched delights of the south of France. They stand up loudly at cocktail bars and tell the assembled community what a dreadful state we have got into in this country because we have a National Health Service and how, because of the social services which we now afford our people, the whole of the morale of the country is sinking lower and lower. Most of these people are distinguished by the fact that
  " they toil not, neither do they spin,"

  1067
  and we do not want to pay too much attention to them. I think, however, that any change in the system of raising the total sum required for the National Health Service which would increase the sense of independence would be a good thing and, on the whole, would give an answer to those who most unjustly criticise our social services.
  Indeed, whilst dealing with this point, I should like to say how much I regret that we have got this wretched phrase "the Welfare State."
  Mr. J. Griffiths: It is very good.
  Mr. Shepherd: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman I think it is a wretched phrase. I have always objected to it, because it conjures up a concept of people living in the lap of luxury— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "Oh, no," but that is what it does in the minds of a lot of people. It conjures up a concept of people living in the lap of luxury without having to fend for themselves. That, I know, is not true and it is because I know it not to be true that I consider it unfortunate that we have such a phrase as "the Welfare State."
  The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) interrupted me to ask about indirect taxation. It is true — let me say this in defence of those who attack the Welfare State— that the total contributions paid by workers in the form of direct and indirect taxation exceed, by a calculation made six or eight months ago, the benefits they receive under the various social services. The contribution in taxation paid by the mass of wage earners has gone up very considerably since before the war. It is true that they are paying more in total taxation, direct and indirect, than they receive in social benefits. I deprecate these attacks upon our present social set-up.
  There is really no serious cause for concern about the effect of the social services upon our morale as a nation. Many people confuse the effects of inflation upon morale with the effects of the social services. We know that we have some people who are not pulling their weight in the community, at all levels. The cause of that is not that they can get a doctor when they are ill or a pension when they become old and can
  1068
  no longer work. The reason is that we have an inflationary pressure under which it is not possible to exert a discipline on those who will not discipline themselves.
  That, however, is not the result of the social services. It is the result of excessive demand for goods and services and, in turn, an excessive demand for labour. Many people generally confuse the effects of inflation upon certain performances of work and the effects of the social services. I believe that it is a very good thing to increase the percentage of contribution paid by the individual. As I said earlier, I would be very happy to see the percentage of contribution paid by the employer to the Health Service increased. I would not mind it going up right away if we could do away with the prescription charges, to which I am completely opposed.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will regard the reception given to the Bill today as a very favourable one. I believe that hon. Members opposite, in their hearts, really know that this is the right step to take. The trouble is that the progressive Socialist is so much of a stick in the mud. [Interruption.] He really is. Having set a pattern in 1948 and then seen a whole mass of social change, he must stick glued to the spot on which he stood in 1948.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Not at all. Let the hon. Member wait and see.
  Mr. Shepherd: It really is not very intelligent. Whilst we in the Government must expect opposition, we are entitled to expect intelligent opposition. We are not getting intelligent opposition on this issue. Not one single speech to which I have listened from the benches opposite has given any sound reason, on the ground of economy or ethics or on social grounds, why the increased contribution should not be asked for. No hon. Member opposite has provided an effective answer to the question how we can fight the battle of inflation and have the necessary Budget surplus to do it if at the same time we try to meet the increased costs of the National Health Service from taxation.
  Not one single hon. Member opposite has dealt with the real problem facing the country in the financing of hospital building. In the next ten or twenty years, we shall be facing a huge bill for the

  1069
  building of hospitals. We are hopelessly out of date in terms of new hospitals. To build the hospitals that we shall need in order to put ourselves even on a par with some of our poorer companions on the Continent of Europe will mean a very considerable increase in the cost of the National Health Service. Not one single hon. Member opposite has made a practical suggestion of how this huge sum is to be met. Hon. Members opposite have merely said, "We had an idea in 1948. We have got this idea and, like true Socialists, we are stuck to it."
  I appeal to hon. Members opposite to abandon their reactionary ideas, to take a fresh look at this problem, to realise that there are changed conditions, to realise that we have to battle with inflation and must provide a rising standard, both in the National Health Service and in social services in the community, and that, if we arc to do it effectively and combine it with a sense of independence and national solvency, ideas and measures such as we have today arc indispensable.
  8.8 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Edwards: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). I always enjoy his speeches because they are always sincere and, from his own economic angle, profound and constructive, but he will forgive me if I dispute some of the basic economic arguments that he has submitted in support of the Bill.
  The two sides of the House have entirely different conceptions of the Welfare State--a description which the hon. Member does not like. When the Labour Government unified the social insurances of the country. which were in a fairly chaotic state before 1945, and commenced the building of the Welfare State. they wrote into the history of the world something basically important. They wrote into the alphabets of the world the new conception that we were our brothers' keepers and that a nation was not civilised if it allowed the sick, the poor, the unemployed and the aged to live in grinding poverty whilst there were millionaires in our society not facing up to their full responsibility to those unfortunate members of our society.
  The hon. Member, I am afraid, has a very short memory. Missions came from
  1070
  all over the world to study our Welfare State and the unified social services that an enlightened Labour Government proceeded to build. They literally came from all over the world to study this great revolution in social security. The fundamental principle of that social revolution was that through the medium of taxation everybody in our community should pay for these social services.
  We object to this Bill, and we object to the continued activities of the present Government, who are using fiscal policy to try to solve the economic problems which they have created for the people of this country because they are anarchists in economics. Yes, anarchists; for they want a free-for-all, everybody for himself, and say, "Get rid of all the physical controls. Get rid of every kind of control over the economy. Let us have unlimited profits. Let us have the kind of incentive that enables share-pushers to make fortunes."
  We cannot discuss this Bill in a vacuum. We have to discuss the Bill on the basis of the whole economic policies of the Government. We have to consider the Bill in the light of the fact that in the Budget the £ 1,000 a year man gets nothing in relief of taxation, the £ 700 a year man gets nothing, the £ 10 a week man gets nothing, but the £ 5,000 a year man gets £ 300 a year in relief of taxation and the £ 10,000 a year man gets £ 600 in relief of taxation— relief of taxation in one year equal to the whole annual income of a process chemical worker whom I am very proud to represent as the general secretary of the Chemical Workers' Union.
  It is in that light we have to consider the Bill, and this niggardly method which the Government are adopting to try to deal with the problem of inflation. Their method is to take it out of the people, and by all means they can to prevent the people from spending. This is the way in which they are trying to solve the problem of inflation, a way which has been supported, and rightly so in relation to this Bill, by two hon. Members opposite who have spoken on this subject. This is the background of the whole business.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) is one of the most learned and one of the wisest men in this House

  1071
  on these subjects, and has spent half a century, I think, in creating the will for the Welfare State, in moulding and building public opinion among miners and among trade unionists to try to get a unified service. He gave expression to some of his wisdom to this House tonight, and was taken to task for it. He was taken to task because he insisted that the percentage contribution of the Exchequer to the Welfare State was declining, and that this was a fundamental change in the whole principle of financing social insurance.
  I have details here of the percentage of the Exchequer contribution between 5th July, 1948, and 31st March, 1956. My source is the annual accounts of the National Insurance Reserve Fund. What do they show? They show that in March, 1949, the Exchequer contribution was 18·6 per cent.; in 1950 it was 17·8 per cent.; in 1951, 15·3 per cent.; in 1952, 10·1 per cent; in 1953 it dropped to 5·8 per cent.; in 1954 it jumped to 7·8 per cent.; in 1955 it dropped again to 7·5 per cent.; and in March, 1956, it was 8·4 per cent. The total amount was £ 92 million.
  In that last year the contributions from industry, workers and employers, amounted to 52·2 per cent., against the Exchequer contribution of 8·4 per cent. The amount of money contributed from industry was £ 570 million-odd compared with £ 92 million from the Exchequer. There is no doubt at all about this. Step by step the Exchequer percentage contribution. which is what matters, is declining, and the contribution expected from industry, including the workers is increasing.
  I take the point, legitimately made by the hon. Member for Cheadle, about the contribution of the workers and industry. I have heard the criticism and complaint of French industrialists and French trade unionists, Belgian industrialists and Belgian trade unionists, and Dutch industrialists and Dutch trade unionists, that we in this country have an unfair advantage against them because the contribution of our industry to our social services. is so small in comparison with their contribution to theirs.
  It is a very strange argument, I must say, coming from a Conservative who
  1072
  argues about the necessity for incentives and the necessity to maintain and expand our production and our export markets to suggest that the way to solve this problem is to increase the burden upon industry and the industrial workers and to lessen the centralised burden of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Shepherd: I intended to refer to that in my own speech. It is true that as we enter the European Free Trade Area we shall get into considerable difficulties because of it. Those countries are bearing on their production costs the whole of the cost of their social services, and we are jockeying ours on to our taxation system. Therefore, we are in effect subsidising our exports. It is a fact we must face in negotiations about the Free Trade Area.
  Mr. Edwards: This is a very strange argument. I take a very intelligent interest in the Common Market and I am a very keen supporter of it, and I hope we shall go into it, and that both sides of the House will support our doing so. It is news to me, however, that we have to discuss the whole of our fiscal policy as part of the Common Market and that we have to make changes in the whole of our taxation policy. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that is just nonsense.
  Mr. Shepherd: Hardly.
  Mr. Edwards: It would be stupid of us, in face of the intense competition we shall have to meet in the Common Market in Europe, to throw away one of our basic advantages which we have built up over the years because of our method of taxation.
  Mr. Shepherd: It is not stupid at all. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the social security contribution in France is about 50 per cent. of the wages bill and in Germany is between 25 per cent. and 35 per cent. and that that adds to the actual wage costs of the industries of those countries? It is not just nonsense but a very important matter.
  Mr. Edwards: I know that, of course. but I suggest that it is nonsense for us to argue their case. In the process of the negotiations we may have to make a number of concessions, but I am sure that we are not prepared— and I am

  1073
  certain that it is not asked of us— to make concessions in relation to the whole of our taxation system and the method of financing our social services. That is not an issue at all. However, we are moving far from the Bill which is before us.
  I was not tempted to speak in the debate until I was provoked by one of my hon. Friends. In case I am preventing some other hon. Member from speaking, I will bring my remarks to a close by saying that we should be proud of our social services and of our Welfare State. These services represent a further advance towards civilisation. The way in which we protect the poor and the sick and those less fortunate than ourselves is the measure of our moving towards a higher destiny.
  We should never be afraid of increasing the grant from the Exchequer for noble, majestic purposes of this nature, and we should be ashamed of ourselves if we accept the decisions of any Government who dare to undermine these great advances in the social services. We on this side of the House oppose the Bill because we believe it to be the thin end of the wedge of an effort to destroy the basic principle embodied in our magnificent achievement in building a unified social service.
  8.22 p.m.
  Miss Joan Vickers(Plymouth, Devon-port): I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking, because I am a supporter of the Welfare State. After having had a certain amount of experience, first as a nurse in a children's hospital and later as a member for nine years of a hospital committee of the London County Council, I realise the enormous benefit wrought through the National Health Service. I recall seeing in one hospital children being brought to what had been an old public house to have their tonsils and adenoids removed. If they were well enough, they were then taken home by their mothers. If they were not well enough, it was my duty to put them in a double pram and push them back to hospital. That was not so very many years ago. Then the London County Council took over a great many of the old Poor Law hospitals and since then, through the years, we have seen an enormous amount of welfare service
  1074
  embodied into the National Health Service.
  It is important, therefore, to consider the Bill in relation to its effect on the individual. It is well known that the area that I represent is not one of those high-earning areas about which we hear so much. I think that I am right in saying that the average earnings in my area are only about £ 9 a week. We should consider what happens to the individual on these low earnings. I was very interested to see from the report of the National Savings movement that in Plymouth a sum of 15s. 8d. per head was saved, whereas the national average was 11s. That proved to me that if people can afford to save they can afford to contribute something towards the Health Service.
  We have heard a great deal about Clause 12 of the Finance Bill, but it should be remembered that whereas many people pay high taxation the man who receives £ 12 a week and who has children, aged 11 and 16, pays no direct taxation at all. I believe that he is willing to pay something while he is in work towards a service of this kind for himself and his family. That is why I was unable to support my right hon. Friend's predecessor on the question of prescription charges.
  I very much regret that this Bill did not come into being before that proposal was made. I believe that, on both sides of the House, 'we all think that the Service must be paid for, and I submit that the way to do it is through the individual who is in work contributing something towards it. As we all know, old-age pensioners and those on National Assistance do not have to do that. I should prefer to see the principle established that the Service should be supported through these contributions rather than that money should be taken from a person who is sick, whether it is deducted from his National Health benefit or unemployment benefit, or even from his savings.
  When we discuss the question of what value people get for their money, we have to consider the question of drugs, to which several references have been made today. I am very much in favour of all experimentation in the use of these drugs. I believe that an enormous number of people, particularly diabetics

  1075
  and those suffering from various forms of rheumatism, are kept in daily work who would not be able to work if it were not for the service they receive through the National Health Service. A great deal of the money spent in this way has been very well spent.
  Therefore, when he considers the future of the National Health Service, I ask my right hon. Friend to do all he can to ensure that it is supported by contributions by those who are able to pay through their earnings and their productivity and not by those who are sick. There are many ways in which the Service could be considerably helped. One is the reduction of costs to avoid the need to raise contributions in the future.
  Far too many old people remain in hospital, occupying beds which are much needed for other sick people, when they would be much happier in some sort of home. Greater attention to this problem would help to lower the cost of the Health Service. My right hon. Friend, perhaps through the almoners, might give greater encouragement to the practice of boarding out old people. I know of a scheme which is running excellently, although it has been going on for only just over a year, whereby over 100 old people are boarded out. They are mostly old-age pensioners. They pay £ 3 a week. Their pension is £ 2, £ 1 comes from National Assistance, and they are given a little extra pocket money. That is a more humane way of dealing with the problem than keeping such people in hospital, which adds to the cost of the Service.
  I would also suggest— this may seem to be a small point— that when people go to a chemist for a prescription, the cost of the medicine given to them, if over 5s., should be marked on the bottle of medicine or on the box of pills. One knows only too well that if someone is given a bottle of pink medicine, he may be inclined to say, "It is only a bottle of pink medicine," whereas some cost 25s. each. I had an example the other day of a man who went to the chemist and asked what was in the prescription On being told, he said, "I already have a dozen of those bottles at home." That was a very expensive drug. It is only human nature, if one knows what a thing
  1076
  costs, to take more interest in it. so I suggest that a great deal of money might be saved in this way.
  If we ask people to pay this extra contribution, they have the right to see that they are getting value for their money. I suggest that in some ways they are, particularly in regard to the tuberculosis service. I do not think that this has been mentioned, but it shows the benefit of drugs. I understand that now for the first time T.B. beds in many parts of the country are empty. Indeed, in my own district one hospital has been shut recently. I am sure that many hon. Members will be pleased to learn that we have been able to offer these beds to patients from Malta suffering from the disease. That proves the benefit of the Service, and I do not think anybody who realises that this is taking place will mind paying the extra contribution.
  Mental hospitals have been worth while contributing to because there are now 15,000 extra beds. I am certain that this Service will mean eventually that we shall know far more about mental processes, and this will lead to a general improvement in mental health and more people in work, which is so desirable.
  In common with most other hon. Members, I want to raise one local point about the hospitals in my constituency. People who are contributing towards the Service have the right to expect full benefits. My right hon. Friend may know that for a long time we have had difficulty with an operating theatre in one of the hospitals. I think that if we are spending large sums of money— and we have been discussing large sums today— direct action should be taken to repair or rebuild accommodation when, as has happened in this hospital and another one, there are cases of gas gangrene, and when a patient has actually died and his relatives have been told that this was the cause. This does not give people either confidence in the Service or their dues in regard to the money we are taking.
  Also in regard to the contributions which people are making to the Health Service, I hope that we shall get more poliomyelitis vaccination in the near future. There is considerable anxiety because children are not getting the vaccine. My right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the type used in America is

  1077
  not the same strain as is beneficial to children in this country. If that is so, I hope he will be able to make a statement, because people are beginning to feel that this is being held up unduly when, at the same time, they are willing to make their contribution towards the Service.
  I only hope that in future it will be those in work who contribute towards the Health Service and not those who arc chronically sick or disabled or who are unable to work for themselves. I have always thought that it was a Conservative principle to ensure that the weak were protected and that the strong would be given every opportunity and help to encourage them, through their initiative, to help themselves and their families.
  This has been proved by the legislation passed through the House even during the present Session. I am referring to extra family allowances, and so on. I hope that in all administration in the Welfare State, and particularly in the hospital service, we shall see that the benefit is given to those who are sick and in need, and that there will be nothing to prevent them from getting the service they really require.
  In regard to individuals, I should like to suggest that a great deal of money is being wasted in administration. When I was a member of the London County Council, we had many fewer clerks, and so on, than now seem to be necessary, and if more people could go into the nursing field instead of into these other forms of activity I am sure that would be of benefit to the Service. I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the number of extra nurses who have been brought into the Service, but I should also like to make a plea that they be given far more electrical and other equipment to facilitate the cleaning of the hospitals, so that nurses do not have to do the ordinary donkey work of the domestic duties— either the domestic helpers or the nurses themselves— and so that more attention can be given to the patients.
  I sincerely hope that in all future legislation the Minister will bear in mind that these contributions are the right way in which to try to finance the National Health Service, in preference to individual charges for medicines being imposed on sick persons.
  8.36 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Snow(Lichfield and Tam-worth): I think we all listened with enjoyment to the well-informed speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Devon-port (Miss Vickers), who spoke from a wealth of experience. Except in so far as she gave her version of Conservative principles, I found much in her speech with which to agree.
  If it is a fact, as the hon. Lady said, that we can now provide beds for Maltese tuberculosis sufferers, I think that is a fact which might be brought to the attention of a much wider public. In fact, it demonstrates that we are trying to give a lead, and are accepting our Commonwealth responsibilities. I well remember at the time of the controversial discussions in this House on the National Health Service Bill, I think before the hon. Lady was a Member, the criticism against giving that sort of medical treatment to people who came to these shores, let alone our Commonwealth fellow-subjects.
  I well remember the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) describing the activities of mediaeval religious orders in maintaininc, hostels throughout Europe towards the maintaining East so that pilgrims going from England to Jerusalem would be assured of medical treatment on the way. He went on to say, I remember, that the mediaeval religious abbot was more progressive than the contemporary Tory in this matter. However, these are really matters into which we need not go in detail now, and I shall be more likely to be in order in sticking to the real subject of the Bill, with which I propose to deal in a few minutes.
  I hope that the Minister will accept from me that I have been very strongly tempted tonight to deal with certain matters of current interest in the Midlands regarding the structure of the National Health Service. I am not going to deal with them, because I know that they are receiving his attention, and I hope that there may soon be a decision.
  Within the context of that point, I think that we ought to be critical of the National Health Service, even on this side of the House, and should be quite certain that we are getting the sort of service which we originally thought was necessary. Let us face it. Some things have gone wrong. I am not at all sure

  1079
  that the structure of the hospital service has not gone somewhat wrong. I am now speaking particularly about the area of financial responsibility at regional and local hospital management committee level. I am certain that a lot of "horse-coping" goes on to try to attract patients in order to obtain more financial support. Those are matters which I think ought to be looked at.
  I find it rather tragic that many of the recommendations in the Guillebaud Report are not now being observed and are even held in contempt at certain levels in regional and local administration. More the pity, for much money was spent in obtaining the Report, and many of its recommendations ought seriously and quickly to be enforced.
  One of the weaknesses is the service provided in rural areas. One has cases brought to one's attention of people who live in deep rural areas and somehow or other do not get to hospital at the right time. Why is that? I can only assume that it is because there is a fairly close area surrounding a general hospital and there is a tendency for cases to be taken in from the immediate periphery of the hospital area and not from the rural areas. I do not know how it happens. All I know is that somehow or other one finds too many instances of patients waiting for one, two or even three years before they can have a fairly ordinary operation.
  I wish to comment on the whole question of accountancy under the Service. I have a feeling that the little men in black coats who mill around the Treasury and try to record the humanitarian and health problems of the nation in terms of double entry simply do not understand that a health service, if it is considered in normal accounting terms, is bound to become more and more expensive and a greater charge on the nation.
  I read somewhere— I think it was an article by Professor Titmuss— that, actuarily speaking, it costs less now to keep a man at work than it did before the war. If that is true— I believe it is— it is something about which the public ought to know. How can we maintain a heavy and necessarily increasing expenditure on building new hospitals and yet
  1080
  maintain an overall figure for the Service that begins to look reasonable? Of course it will not be reasonable. We have years of backlog to make good.
  One has to go round the provinces to understand what deplorably low levels of construction and maintenance we accept as reasonable. Hon. Members who have travelled in such countries as those in Scandinavia will know that the standards of some of our provincial hospitals would not be tolerated in those places. I refer not only to accommodation for patients. Let us consider the conditions under which nurses have to live and those under which many doctors have to work. I should like also to go into the question of mental health, in which I am very interested. Some of our mental health hospitals remind us of some of the things that we read in Dickens.
  Therefore, it is a problem which if one considers it in terms of normal Treasury accountancy— by that I mean inhuman accountancy— one will simply never get a reasonable picture in conventional terms. It is for that reason that I suggest that the financial effect of the Bill with which we are now concerned, which I read as being £ 41·2 million a year, is chicken-feed compared with the saving which is being achieved under the National Health Service by keeping people at work and by removing anxieties from the minds of workers because they know that their wives and children will be properly looked after.
  That is the sort of accountancy that we ought to consider. But no— we are all guilty of this— we knuckle right down to little black-coated men at the Treasury who, by virtue of their local surroundings and professional upbringing, cannot and will not understand a Minister's problems. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale had a terrific fight. With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman has not the same political experience as has my right hon. Friend. He will no doubt one day, but he has not got it yet. All power to him if he can resist the sort of pressure to which he is being subjected, not only economic but political, and the sort of pressure coming from the Treasury, which does not take account of ordinary human accountancy.
  8.45 p.m.
  Dr. Donald Johnson: I rise to support the Bill, because we all know that it is a necessity, if a somewhat disagreeable necessity. We all agree with the absolute necessity that the National Health Service should continue. The memories of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) brought back some of my own memories of general practice when the dependants of insured industrial workers were not covered by any scheme and of how when one called at a house to see a sick child one was handed 3s. 6d. and asked not to call again. The Health Service has, fortunately, finished for all time anything of that nature, and we cannot fail to give it our absolutely wholehearted support, even if some of us feel that it might have been arranged better and in a different way and that many adjustments are necessary.
  The effect of this increased contribution is not only to make people pay more for the Health Service but to make them pay in a more direct fashion. One only hopes that it will lead to an increasing interest and informed public opinion concerning the economies in the Service. I am glad to have this opportunity to express my sense of disappointment with the Report to which we looked forward for a long time, namely, the Guillebaud Report. I wish to say something in particular about the appendix to the Report, in the shape of the reservations made by Sir John Maude about possible rearrangement and economies in the Service.
  It is rather too glib a charge to make that economies necessarily impair efficiency. That is not so. On the other hand, it is often the case that waste and inefficiency go together, and so, accordingly, can economy and efficiency. The first thing to which Sir John Maude draws attention in his reservation, the first point of importance, is that we have not one Health Service but three health services working side by side with three separate administrations. That is not only expensive but inefficient, and it is frequently against the interests of the patient.
  I will instance just one point, and that is in connection with the mental health service. It is a fact— and I am anxious not to get on contentious ground on this matter— that people get into mental hospitals and stay there because nobody
  1082
  knows what to do with them after they have been there a certain length of time. There is no medium of rehabilitation. That medium could be created only by local authorities— as has happened in some places— forming a rehabilitation and local authority service by taking advantage of their powers under Section 20 of the National Health Service Act, 1946.
  However, at present, even though over all it would save money if such a service were in being, there is no inducement for local authorities to establish such a service, because it would be an extra charge on their funds. It would cost local authorities something, but there would be a saving by the hospital board. Although it might cost the local authority only a quarter of what it costs a regional hospital board to keep a person in hospital as an almost permanent patient, there is still a lack of inducement for it to do so, owing to the fact that those responsible think only of the immediate charge upon the rates and local authority services. There may be other inducements, but there is no financial inducement to get a rehabilitation service going. That is an outstanding instance of the way in which money could be saved and economies effected, to the benefit of the patient, by an increasing integration of our services in certain instances. I have no doubt that it would be possible to give many other instances.
  The second thing that Sir John Maude has drawn attention to is the predominant position of hospital services. He points out that nearly two-thirds of the money spent upon the National Health Service is attributable to the hospital services. Their estimated cost alone during last year rose to over £ 300 million. As Sir John Maude says, hospital treatment must always be expensive, but the hospital system is bearing too much of the burden.
  In tackling this problem of economies, we must have it firmly fixed in our minds that the most costly form of medical care is that given in hospitals. At the present time it seems to be public opinion that all but the most trivial ailments need the attention of specialists. One has only to be in general practice a short time— as I was immediately before I became a Member— to realise how impossible it is, in the present climate of public opinion, for a general practitioner always to give

  1083
  of his best and to take full responsibility in every case.
  A patient has only to see him once or twice before, if he does not feel a little better, making an immediate demand to see a specialist— a request which it is impossible for an ordinary practitioner to resist. That means a letter to the hospital. General practitioners' surgeries at present are no longer filled with instruments of healing but are places with files, in-trays and out-trays containing specialists' letters from hospitals. In some instances, although not always, patients are being treated more efficiently by these means, but this is certainly the most expensive possible way of treating them.
  In this respect, the British Medical Association points out that practitioners are even complaining that there is a tendency for hospitals to retain unnecessarily patients sent to them for consultation. They are required to return to the hospital at too frequent intervals for inspection and after-care, whereas they could well be sent back to the general practitioner's surgery, where he could keep an eye on them. I can certainly confirm that that is so from my own experience in recent times. Once a hospital has had a patient it seems to have a peculiar tendency to hang on to him in a quite unnecessary fashion.
  I must say that this appears to be one of the mysteries of the Health Service. Why hospitals, these busy institutions, wish to take on more and more work when they are already stretched to capacity, I do not know. It is as if they acquire some peculiar momentum of their own which so far it has been impossible to stop, and it has even been impossible to find its source. We see it, too, in our mental hospitals where more and more cases are being accepted in the unnecessary fashion to which reference has been made by me at other times.
  I should like, in conclusion, to turn to the question of drugs, which is another important item in the cost of the service and perhaps the most difficult and intractable problem in these rising costs. We have to admit the necessity and indeed the desirability of extensive pharmaceutical research and of the use of more and more modern antibiotics. Obviously if, by the use of an expensive antibiotic, we can cut short a serious illness so that a
  1084
  breadwinner can return to work after three days instead of having an illness of six to eight weeks, the cost of the drug, even if it is £ 2 or £ 3 for a small bottle of tablets, is justified.
  Nevertheless, the variety of these complex drugs is building up all the time. There is unquestionably an advertising pressure on the general practitioner to buy them, which tends inevitably to replace his naturally acquired skill in prescribing for the patient and in using what he learned as a student.
  I was practising for several years in the 1930s and there was then a gap in my general practice experience for fifteen to twenty years. When I returned after that I found a completely different climate of prescribing, particularly among the younger doctors. Some of us older men remembered the prescriptions of our younger days, the more or less inexpensive bottles of medicine which so often appeared to meet the case, but we found that our younger colleagues were often prescribing expensive tablets for similar and quite simple ailments. It is right that they should do so, if necessary, because a doctor is justified in treating the patient in the way that he sees fit.
  But I think the problem perhaps arises in the medical schools in the lack of pharmaceutical training at present. This is a science which I think has been going downhill, not only for the last twenty years but for twenty years before that. I can go back even further in my reminiscences and consider not only my own days but my father's days as a medical student, which takes us back to 1890. In those days it was one of the priorities in the training of a doctor that he should learn prescriptions, lists of drugs and so on. I learned nothing of that kind in my day. I picked it up from experience, and today I imagine that it is even less a priority. In attempting to solve this problem of the cost of drugs, we must recapture something of the old fashioned spirit and inculcate into medical students and younger doctors the value of using simple remedies as well as the more expensive ones.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to direct his attention to the recommendations of Sir John Maude with a view to economy, and also to bear in mind the points which I have endeavoured to make about drugs.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: The debate has ranged beyond the detailed provisions of this Bill. None of us would complain about that, because some things have become refreshingly clear to people like myself who remember the stormy debates on the original National Health Act. It is now agreed that the Health Service has come to stay, although had hon. Members opposite had their way we should not have had a National Health Service at all.
  Hon. Members have brought to the discussion of these problems their wide knowledge and experience, and it is clear from the many valuable speeches which have been made that there is a need not for the curtailment hut for the expansion of the National Health Service, particularly the hospital service. Hon. Friends of mine who have had wide experience of hospital administration speak with concern about what they fear may one day result in a scandal and a catastrophe. Suppose, for example, a great fire broke out in one of our crowded mental hospitals. There is urgent need for expansion in that part of the Service.
  Reference has been made to the proportion of the total cost of the National Health Service represented by the money spent on drugs. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) took to task my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) for speaking about this problem. I hope that the party on this side of the House will come to power before long and have an opportunity to consider this matter. As these requirements are essential to the nation, is not there a case for considering whether the State should manufacture these drugs as part of the National Health Service? That would render the Service more effective and enable economies to be made.
  The Minister introduced this Bill in a charming speech and tried to make us believe that it was an innocent Measure. I do not think it is as innocent as it looks or as the Minister tried to make out. Last week, during the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution, the Minister said that the purpose of the Bill was twofold. I want to remind the Minister and the House of what he said, for it is essential for us to understand that this is an important Bill, and one which, since 1946,
  1086
  represents an important new departure in the whole of our social service system.
  He said that the purpose of the Bill was twofold:
  " First, it is to double the contribution at present paid to the National Health Service and, at the same time "—
  and I ask the House to note this—
  " to relieve the taxpayer … of an equivalent amount."
  He went on to say:
  "Secondly, it is to establish for the first time a separate National Health Service contribution."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 237.]
  Those are the Minister's own words—
  " for the first time."
  I therefore beg the House to realise that what we are being asked to consider is not merely in what proportion the cost of the Health Service shall be distributed between the National Insurance Fund and the Exchequer. By the Bill we are doing something that no Government have done since 1946, which is to establish— as the Minister said, for the first time— a separate and distinct National Health Service contribution.
  It is quite right to say that this is the first time we have had a National Health Service contribution since 1946. Before that, under the old scheme, the health services that were provided as part of our social insurance system were part of the old National Health Insurance system, established by David Lloyd George in 1911, and amended and expanded from time to time.
  Under the original Act there was a contribution towards the health services that were provided as set out in that Act. The worker, the employer and the State each made a contribution, and the contributor was entitled to certain benefits. Standard benefits were provided in the Act, and there were additional benefits provided by the approved societies, or some of them, through which the old Act was administered. But they were insurance benefits; benefits provided for the contributor by virtue of the contributions which he made, and many other benefits were provided without any further cost. Many of the initial benefits were free, although some of them had partly to be paid for, but all were received by virtue of contribution.
  That was the old system which we had before the war, and which continued

  1087
  until the new scheme came in, first in 1946, and fully and finally in 1948. Since then, we have had no separate National Health Service contribution. Therefore, what the Government are doing is not merely finding £40 million from the insurance contributor towards the cost of the service, but something far more important and fundamental. They are separating the Health Insurance contributions from the rest of the National Insurance contributions. I note with interest that neither the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance nor anyone representing that Ministry are taking part in this debate.
  The Ministry of Health is taking it up and, as a Ministry of Health, is establishing a separate National Health Insurance system, and making contributors pay for it without even the advantages that they enjoyed under the old system, because, in addition to the contributions they make, the contributors pay for their prescriptions. From 1911. no contributor ever paid a penny for his prescription. But now they will pay the contribution and they will pay for their prescriptions. They will pay for other charges. They will pay charges which, in their range and amount, will be greater than those which they paid under the old system. This is, therefore. a step backwards.
  The Parliamentary Secretary is to reply. I ask him the question: Is he going to tell us that the Government propose to get £40 million, and is that all? Why then, as they themselves say. have they established for the first time a National Health Service contribution? Is it because they propose to go back to the old scheme? They could have got their £40 million just by increasing the National Insurance contribution. Why separate it? We have never had an explanation. I will come to the 20 per cent. in a moment; they could have got the 20 per cent. by increasing the National Insurance contribution anyhow.
  Quite frankly, it is this aspect which arouses our suspicions. The Government not merely want to get £40 million from the contributors, but they want to establish the National Health Service as a contributory system. If they want to do that, why not do it openly, not through the back door? Why not say that that
  1088
  is their purpose? Indeed, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), making a very thoughtful speech this afternoon, as he always does, said that he himself would like to see the contributions equal to one-third of the cost of the National Health Service. If that is what the Government want, why not say so? In any case, we, and hon. Members opposite, are entitled to know before we give a Second Reading to the Bill whether this is the beginning of a return to a National Health Service dependent upon, and financed out of, contributions.
  There have been proposals made today, very sincerely, calling for an expansion of the Service. Another point arises here, because one of these days we shall have an award about doctors' salaries, Do the Government propose that part of the increase given to the doctors shall be found out of contributions? The cost of the Service will probably be substantially increased when the final award is made about doctors' pay. I put this question to the Parliamentary Secretary: Is that to be paid for by the taxpayer through the Exchequer, or is it to be financed again by an increased contribution?
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, speaking in the debate today, have been evoking the name of Beveridge, It was my privilege to bring before the House the legislation originating from Beveridge's investigations. I had the great privilege of starting the organisation which incorporated a great deal of the Beveridge plan. This is a very important matter, and I want to refer to what Beveridge said.
  The proposal for a National Health Service in Beveridge's Report is separate from the plan for social security. Beveridge said, "I devise this plan for social security, on three assumptions, first, that the Government will initiate a system for family allowances, secondly, that they will establish a comprehensive National Health Service, and, thirdly, that they will pursue economic policies which will maintain full employment. If we can have those three assumptions fully realised— family allowances, a comprehensive National Health Service, and full employment— on that basis my plan is practicable and I recommend it ". In the course of considering these things, Beveridge himself sought to lay out what

  1089
  he meant by a comprehensive National Health Service plan, and it is relevant to this debate, particularly since his name has been so often mentioned, to refer to paragraph 437 on page 162 of his Report, where he speaks about his conception of a comprehensive National Health Service:
  " From the standpoint of social security, a health service providing full preventive and curative treatment of every kind to every citizen without exceptions, without remuneration limit and without an economic barrier at any point to delay recourse to it, is the ideal plan."
  He hoped that that plan would be accepted by the Government and put into operation.
  He then went on to consider whether in the plan that he was outlining in the main body of his Report any contribution should be made from the Insurance Fund towards the cost of the National Insurance Scheme. Here he was in difficulty, and it is fair to him to point it out. His name is being used as if he committed himself to the view that the National Insurance contribution should fulfil the rôle of providing 20 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service.
  The first difficulty of Lord Beveridge was that when it came to providing in his plan for sickness benefit, unemployment benefit and retirement pensions, he was enabled to have the assistance of an actuary to give him an estimate at certain levels of benefit of what the cost would be, but he came to consider the cost of a national health service no one could give any precise estimates. How could they? There was no comparable experience in any other country. I hope that we are proud of the fact that we were the first country to have a comprehensive health scheme.
  I therefore quote from paragraph 437 of the Beveridge Report:
  "This review of some of the problems involved in establishing a comprehensive medical service makes clear that no final detailed proposals, even as to the financial basis of this service, can be submitted in this Report."
  All that Lord Beveridge had was a rough, tentative estimate from the Ministry of Health and its officers that a health service might cost £ 170 million. He made it clear that it was not a precise estimate. It was, in fact, a guess and the Government admitted it. They had scarcely any information to work upon. It was a guess which was found to be very much on the low side.
  1090
  Lord Beveridge then said that he would provide that there would be a contribution of 10d. The Coalition Government accepted that and introduced its White Paper. As Minister, I accepted it and embodied it in the National Insurance Bill, 1946. It never provided anything like 20 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), in opening the debate from this side this afternoon, gave the facts. In the first year, 1948–49, the contribution provided for only 10 per cent. of the cost— and that was not a full year. Eventually, the percentage to be provided went down to 9 per cent. and to 6 per cent. and we have been told what the figure is now. The Government have been in office for a long time— far too long. When did they discover that it was proposed that the National Insurance contribution should provide 20 per cent. of the cost of the Health Service? How have they just discovered it now?
  During the past few years, we have had increases in insurance contributions. In 1954, the then Minister of National Insurance introduced a Bill, to which the House gave a Second Reading, increasing the contributions under the National Insurance Act by 1s. a week for Class 1 contributors. The Financial Memorandum accompanying that Measure in 1954 stated quite clearly that the increased contribution of 1s. included, as hitherto, 10d. towards the cost of the National Health Service.
  The Government accepted it then at 10d. That 10d. contribution, which has been there since 1946, has never been equal to anything like 20 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service. I therefore ask the Government, since they invoke that, since the Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke about it last week, and as we are entitled to an answer, do they propose to make it so? Do they propose that the National Insurance contribution shall provide 20 per cent. of the cost? If so, let them say so frankly.
  Let us consider what it would mean. The cost now is £ 690 million. I think that in these days of inflation we are all becoming rather bemused by these figures and rather frightened by them, but the fact is that even £ 690 million is a lower

  1091
  proportion of the national resources going to the National Health Service than was the proportion when we began it. The Guillebaud Report said that people would be surprised by the fact that the National Health Service was costing a smaller proportion rather than a bigger proportion of the national resources. However, the figure is £ 690 million.
  If the Government propose that 20 per cent. of the cost shall be met out of the National Insurance contributions under these provisions, then the flat rate contribution to that 20 per cent. of the cost would be 3s. extra per week above the National Insurance contribution. Is that what the Government propose to impose? Do they accept that? Do they propose increase the flat rate contribution by an amount like that?
  Now I come to a reason why I think the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance should have taken part in the debate. I hope that he will take part next week in subsequent debates on the Bill. Let me put clearly before the House what all this means. Beveridge himself was very deeply concerned about the flat rate contribution. So was I. I have said so before. I said it on the Third Reading of the National Insurance Bill. I said that the time might come when we might, perhaps, have to consider it. Beveridge came down for a flat rate contribution because it was the method of financing the old insurance scheme, because it was the method which had been accepted by us since the beginning of the insurance system, and because it would provide a flat rate of benefit. So he accepted it. At the same time, he uttered a word of caution— several words of caution— that the flat rate contribution was a poll tax which was not "capable of indefinite expansion." It reaches a point at which it becomes so regressive we must think of another.
  I put this to the Minister, and to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and other Ministers. We are to have a stamp, I gather. It will contain two sets of figures, I gather, the amount to be paid towards National Insurance, which is 5s. 7½d., and the amount which is for the National Health Service, and it will be paid by every employed Class I contributor, all those of 18 years of age
  1092
  and over, working under a contract of service, whatever their wages or salaries. The total for such a contributor is 10s. 5d. At that figure already this has become a regressive tax, and the burden of it bears most heavily upon those least able to bear it. It is a most unjust way of financing any of our services, including this one. I put this to the Minister of Health, and I hope that in Committee on the Bill I shall be able to put it to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance who, I hope, will also join in our debates on the Bill.
  Mr. Ross: And the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. Griffiths: It is not being quite fair to the House that in a debate on a Bill which affects Scotland not a single Ministerial representative for Scotland has been here all evening.
  For these reasons, we propose to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, for we recognise in it only an extra charge upon the contributors and, we suspect— and we have the right to suspect— the beginning of the introduction of the contributory principle in the National Health Service in negation of Beveridge and all we have done.
  It has become in debates such as this an almost customary cry from hon. Members opposite to ask us, "What did you do?" I would remind them that it is their business that we are discussing. They have to answer for what they do at the moment. We will answer for what we have done and for what we shall do. We have been doing something which the Government should have done. I provided in the National Insurance Act that at the end of five years, when we had had a reasonable experience of its working, there should be a comprehensive quinquennial review. It was not carried out.
  The whole system should have been reviewed and examined thoroughly and a report should have been presented to the House, but all we had from the present Government was a tiny leaflet of one-and-a-half pages from the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Here was an opportunity of discussing all these problems. Why was it not taken? The whole system of financing the scheme and the whole level of contributions could have been examined.

  1093
  Hon. Members opposite ask what we propose to do. We are making an examination of the whole social insurance system and of our social services. There is one conclusion which we have arrived at and which I propose to give to the House. I wonder whether the party at Chequers will come to a different conclusion. We have examined very thoroughly the whole provision for retirement pensions. We have come to the conclusion that an adequate retirement pension which would guarantee to men and women who have served the nation all their lives —
  Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: All of them.
  Mr. Griffiths: I said "all of them". We have come to the conclusion that a retirement pension that would bear a reasonable relation to their standard of life when they were working could not be guaranteed to them on the basis of a flat-rate contribution. Hon. Members opposite need not exercise their patience much longer. Our plan will be published on 19th May. I ask them to examine it when it is published. I believe that it will be acceptable to the vast majority of our people. Because we have come to that conclusion in relation to that one great service of retirement pension, it obviously follows that all the other provisions must come under review, including this Bill and the method incorporated in it. It is for that reason that we ask the House to reject the Bill on Second Reading.
  The Minister said that in addition to the purpose to which, so far, I have devoted all my remarks, there was a second purpose. It was that this contribution was being doubled in order to relieve the taxpayer. I hope that hon. Members opposite will tell that to their constituents. It was not the Minister of Health who first announced this increased contribution, and that is significant. Nor was it the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. It was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and announced by him as part of the savings that he wanted to accumulate in order to present his Budget.
  What happened? Here is an increased poll tax to reduce the Surtax—10d. on the lowest-paid worker in the land to make gifts to the Surtax payer.
  1094
  [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but that is what the Minister said it was for. Those were his words. He said that we were doubling the contribution to relieve the taxpayer. Yesterday, the Finance Bill was read a Second time, and in that Bill we found the kind of taxpayers who are being relieved. It is for these reasons that we have no hesitation in saying that the Bill is wholly objectionable, and we ask the House to reject it.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might say that I speak at this Box, if not for the first time, at any rate for the first time not on the Motion, That this House do now adjourn, which I can assure you for a Parliamentary Secretary in my position is a pleasant change.
  The debate has ranged far and wide and has included a number of interesting constituency points. It has been pleasant and good tempered. It has been far more restrained in its tone than, frankly, I had expected. Whether this was due to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) introducing the subject of tranquillisers at an early stage, I do not know, but certainly the tone struck by all the speeches on both sides of the House has been happy and interesting. Some of the tranquilliser was beginning to wear off when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) began to wind up his speech. He then became a little less restrained and began to make suggestions as to our motives, which I think I shall be able to prove to the House we can completely repudiate.
  If I may deal with one or two of the minor constituency points, if I may so put them without offence, I hope the House will bear with me. I do not think that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) is here at the moment, but he raised a point about a hospital at Towyn. My right hon. Friend is visiting the Welsh Board of Health next week, on Tuesday, I think, and he will certainly look into the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  We had particularly good speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) and, although I did not hear it, from my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers).

  1095
  My right hon. Friend will look into the points she raised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle mentioned two things: first the question of the prescribing of drugs. If he reads HANSARD, he will see that my right hon. Friend has taken some steps in this direction. Although I have crossed swords with him on another occasion on a related matter, I would like to say how much I agree with the spirit of what he said, about the necessary development of local authority domiciliary services to deal with mental health. He is absolutely right, and I think we may see a big change— if I may put it that way without being too indiscreet— in the course of the next year or two.
  My right hon. Friend has no reason on the whole to be displeased with the way in which this Bill has been received by the House today. He has had the remarkable experience in one and the same day of being described as a bright new pin and as a radical reactionary. I understand that he is not quite happy about the latter phrase, but I can assure you, Sir, that he really is a bright new pin.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) complained bitterly, and the complaint was repeated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly, that this Measure was being brought in by the Minister of Health and being dealt with by Ministers from this Department. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, the fact is that this is a Health Bill, because the fundamental fact lying behind the necessity for the Bill is that we have a National Health Service in this country the cost of which has gone up and is continuing to go up. What we have learned today is that all hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate the Health Service. They wish it well. But those who have listened to the demands that have been made for more expenditure, even in this debate, will have some idea of the problem facing my right hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) complained about the present methods of accounting. At times any Minister in a spending Department has some sympathy with him in his views, but that does not get us away from
  1096
  the reality of this situation. If I can repeat the figure which my right hon. Friend gave earlier, the estimated total cost for the coming year will be £ 690 million, which compares with some £ 450 million in 1949–50. Of course, it is true, as hon. Members have said, that much of this increase is due to changes in earnings and prices. That is perfectly true, and it is perfectly fair and legitimate comment to make, but there has also been a substantial increase in real terms, and I shall revert later to that.
  Faced with this growth, and it is not an unwelcome growth, except in so far as it brings problems with which we have to deal in the resources being devoted to the Health Service, the Government have to consider how much of the cost should or can be allowed to fall on the Exchequer.
  Out of the total estimated cost of £ 690 million this year, before the present proposals were made, about £ 550 million would have fallen on the Exchequer; that is, on the general taxpayer. This would have represented 80 per cent. of the total cost, which compares with the 72 per cent. which it was estimated, in the original calculations in 1946, would fall upon the Exchequer, and it compares with 81 per cent. in 1950–51. So, in fact, there is no great alteration in the percentage borne by the Exchequer. It has gone up from the original estimate of 72 per cent. to 80 per cent., and it was about 80 per cent. when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite left office.
  So the Government have had to consider what proportion of this growing burden can reasonably be expected to be borne by the general taxpayer. Obviously, no Government can or should allow any particular service to impose a completely unlimited charge on the Exchequer, and it was no doubt for these reasons that the Labour Government itself, as late as April, 1951, affirmed their intention at that time, no doubt as a temporary measure, to work to a ceiling of £400 million.
  It is quite true that prices have changed, but the House should note that the equivalent of £400 million, adjusted in terms of the consumer price index, is today about £ 500 million. The Exchequer expenditure for this year was put at £ 550 million before the decision to increase the National Health contribution, so that that

  1097
  increase will now reduce Exchequer expenditure from a date later this year to the equivalent of £ 510 million a year We are, therefore, in fact adhering to a comparable ceiling of expenditure to that which was laid down by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Miss Lee: Before leaving that point, would the Minister tell us how much extra money would be spent on the Health Service today if it were receiving only the same proportion of the national income as it was receiving in its earlier years?
  Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am going to discuss the whole question of the proportion of the national income to which she has referred, but, if I may, at the moment I will continue with my speech.
  Faced with the dilemma of this growing expenditure— which I am quite certain no hon. Member on either side of the House has any desire to change, where it makes a real and tangible contribution to the health, prosperity and productivity of the nation, as hon. Members on both sides wish it to do— faced with that dilemma of the growing, but I will not say unmanageable, expenditure, the Government have decided that some further contribution should come from those who, together with their dependants, derive the benefits of the Health Service, particularly since the contributions will fall to be paid at a time when they are in good health.
  The alternative to placing on the general taxpayer the burden of higher expenditure is either to ask for greater contributions in the way of further charges, which we must reject, or that people should be asked to contribute when well towards the cost of the burden which would otherwise fall upon them when they are sick. Surely it really is not unresonable that there should be a modest contribution by everyone during the ages when they are fit and well towards the cost of a service which helps them in both youth and old age or when they are sick, at times when they do not contribute to it.
  Throughout this debate, and throughout the preliminary canter on the Ways and Means Resolution, no right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite came out into the open as to what the Labour Party's alternative would be. The hon. Lady the
  1098
  Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) reminded us that it was part of the programme of the Labour Party that it would abolish charges, but, after having listened to the speech of her right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, can she honestly say that the Labour Party would abolish the charge in the Bill?
  I listened particularly carefully to every word the right hon. Member for Llanelly said. We were told that we had now got to wait until 19th May, C-Day, to hear what the proposals of the Labour Party are for social security, but the right hon. Gentleman did not in any way today commit himself to any change in the contributions which we are proposing to make. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is satisfied with that or not, but I suggest that she will find that her Front Bench will be very chary of committing itself to adding an extra £ 120 million to the cost of the National Health Service without much more mature consideration than appears to have been given to it up to the present.
  One of the charges has been that it is our intention to convert the Service from its present comprehensive form into one in which there would be entitlement only by virtue of contributions. This was most explicitly put by the hon. Member for Newcastle - upon - Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) when he spoke on the Ways and Means Resolution. If I quote what he said, it is because it is so very clear. He said:
  "… I believe it is also their desire…gradually to convert the finances of the National Health Service so that it is a Service paid for by contributions in one form or another, either by flat rate insurance contributions or by charges imposed on the Health Service itself. This is a good opportunity to look at that principle rather seriously."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 224.]
  That charge was repeated by the right hon. Member for Llanelly. if the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East meant by that quotation or by his speech that it was our desire to shift the whole burden on to contributions or on to charges, I can and will categorically deny that. Now and in the future the bulk of expenditure will always come from general taxation.
  The right hon. Gentleman made great play with the old days of the Lloyd-George insurance scheme, but he forgot—

  1099
  I do not think he really forgot it, but he did not exactly include it— the great change between the two, that the dependants were not included then but they are now. For that reason alone, it becomes obvious that the bulk of expenditure must, as I have said, be borne by general taxation.
  As to the proportions which will come from the various sources, it is for any Government to make up its mind as to what it proposes to do at any given moment. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not exacty clarified any of our minds as to what sources they will use for the National Health Service in the unlikely event of their being returned to power. I have dealt with that point already, but if it is part of the Labour Party's election programme that there should be an entirely free Health Service, it ought to have been stated from the Opposition Front Bench tonight.
  Perhaps I can amplify that by giving a quotation from the speech which the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) made in the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution. He said:
  " The Government have decided that they will not only introduce a contributory service,but will do so in such a way that it will be virtually difficult for the Labour Party when going into office to reinstitute a free National Health Service."— [OFFICIAL. REPORT, 1st May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 231.]
  Pondering on that statement, I found it very hard to follow. If, as I suspect, it is intended to create a face-saving excuse for the dilemma which might face the Labour Party in the event of its taking office, let me say here and now that there is nothing whatever in the Bill which will prevent a Labour Government, or any other Government, abolishing this contribution at any time when back in power. All we have done is to restore the status quo of 1948.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly dealt with what he called the new and pretty stamp. He read into the introduction of the new stamp a great many misinterpretations of our intentions. Frankly, not enough has been made of the fact that the contribution to 'he National Health Service has been separated out. If he will read the Guillebaud Report, he will see how it commented on the confusion which there has always been in the public mind about
  1100
  how the Health Service is financed. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North referred to publicity in this connection, and to the need for explaining the position to people. I could not help thinking that it was a little late in the day to bring that forward. The time for the publicity was 1946 or 1948. If at that time people had been made to understand the real basis of the finance of the Health Service, that would have been a very useful contribution.
  Of course, many people— as has come out in the debate— particularly in the older generation, were so used to the words "National Health Insurance "that the idea has been carried over into the new era that the whole of the Health Service is paid for by the weekly contributions. A contributory factor was also that in 1948 the appointed days were the same both for the National Insurance Scheme and the National Health Scheme. That accounted for a great deal of the confusion which arose in the public mind. Candidly, no steps have been taken since then in any way to bring it home to the public that the bulk of the Health Service has been, is and always will be financed out of general taxation.
  At least now, with the visible evidence of the stamp before us, it will be simpler to explain to our constituents that Is. 8d. a week is being contributed direct to the cost of the National Health Service, rather than try to explain, as the right hon. Gentleman rather lamely did in his speech, that what has been happening all these years is that out of their weekly contribution to cover themselves for retirement pension, unemployment and sickness benefits a certain amount was paid through the Insurance Fund to the Ministry of Health.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the 20 per cent., and I shall deal with that later. He ought to recognise that what the Bill is really doing in the separating out of the contribution is to legitimise a contribution towards the Health Service which hon. Gentlemen opposite willingly accepted when they were in office. All that we have done is to legitimise and publicise that fact, and I think that it will be at any rate a slight clarification of a rather difficult position.
  Many hon. Members opposite— especially the hon. Member for Lanarkshire. North— commented upon the table given

  1101
  in the Guillebaud Report as to the proportion of the gross national product devoted to the National Health Service. I am in no way criticising the use of the figure given there, but I am a little doubtful— although I have used it myself upon many other occasions— how far it is a really valid argument. In actual, real terms, the amount devoted to the Health Service has increased and, thanks to extraneous factors, such as the improved new medicines, the effect or the impact of that expenditure has increased even more.
  If hon. Members will refer to paragraph 20 of the Guillebaud Report, they will see that the figures there carry us up to the year 1953–54, and they show that the percentage of the gross national product devoted to current expenditure from public funds upon the Health Service had declined from 3·51 per cent. in 1948–49 to 3·24 per cent. in 1953–54. These figures obviously need bringing up to date. Unfortunately, the figures which I could have given to the House differ slightly, since they are not compiled on the same basis. But the trends are the same. I know that it will be a source of great pleasure to hon. Members opposite to know that in the last two years— that is to say, the years since the figures given in the Guillebaud Report— this trend has been reversed, and the percentage going to the National Health Service has risen.
  I rather hoped that that announcement would have been greeted at least with a cheer from the party opposite.
  Miss Herbison: Since the Minister is making an important point of this matter, and since the only information that we have is contained in the Guillebaud Report, he should have given us his other figures before he used this argument.
  Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am sorry if the hon. Lady is accusing me of any discourtesy. In order to give the figures, it would have taken some time. The Guillebaud Report figures were composed upon a different basis. If the hon. Lady had been so interested in the matter she could have asked a question and the figures could have been made available. I have them here, but I could find them only by rummaging all through my papers. In any case, they are composed upon a different basis from those contained in the Guillebaud Report.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Surely the Minister can give us comparative figures to those contained in the Guillebaud Report, as to the cost of the National Health Service expressed as a percentage of the gross national income. Can he give the same figures as are given in the Guillebaud Report from the mass of figures that he has?
  Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am afraid not, because the Guillebaud Committee used its own method of calculation. If a Question is put down the figures can be given, because they are available.
  The important point is that there can be no final fixed relationship between National Health Service expenditure and the national income. Although they are rather interesting in showing trends, the figures are in no way a yardstick of efficiency. In any case, any Government, as a matter of policy, must take cognizance of the other social services and national commitments which are competing for the available resources. However much we argue as to how much of the national income ought to be devoted to the Health Service, the facts as to what has been done with a static or even a diminishing percentage of the national income are astonishing.
  Throughout the last seven years every part of the Service has continually developed. In the hospitals, the number of beds has risen and the number of staff has risen, with all that that means for better service for the patient, shorter waiting lists, and the benefits, particularly, which these improvements bring to older people.
  We all deplore how out of date our hospitals are. Anybody in my place and that of my right hon. Friend is only too anxious to get a move on. But let us face it. Within that percentage of the national income the hospital building programme has gone up and is going up even more next year, and the same applies to the general medical services. We have a splendid record. Whatever side of the general medical services we consider, the public as a whole are getting far better service than ever before. Faced with the problem of meeting the bill for this increased expenditure, we have resolved it in the manner which seems the most reasonable to us.

  1103
  A great deal of use has been made of the argument that this is a regressive Measure. The fact is that the National Health Service contribution is no more regressive now than it was when it was constituted in another form in 1946. The House knows perfectly well that incomes have risen since then. If it is regressive or burdensome now, it must have been so in 1946 when it was used by hon. Members opposite.
  Some hon. Members have made play of concessions made in the Budget to taxpayers in contrast to this charge on the Service. It is a matter of historical interest to remember that within twelve months the Labour Party reduced the Purchase Tax on Rolls-Royces and slapped charges on the provision of teeth and spectacles. In fact, there are elements in the new Bill which are less regressive than the proposals which were put forward in 1946 because for the first time the Health Service element in the individual Insurance contribution will no
  longer be a charge liable for tax relief; it will no longer be deductible from tax.
  Finally, may I quote some words used by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, who tonight told us a great deal about what he did in 1946? Speaking on this very point in 1946 he said:
  " Remember what other benefits it covers. Of the 5s. 9d. and of the 4s. 7d., 10d. is the contribution, and the only contribution, that he will make towards the complete National Health Service: a doctor, a consultant, hospital treatment for himself, for his wife, and for his children— all for 10d. a week. Why, he pays more than 4s. 7d. for that alone now in thousands of homes in this country." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1946: Vol. 418, c. 1751.]
  In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said then, I commend this Bill to the House as an honest endeavour to grapple with the problem of financing and expanding the National Health Service.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 230.

  Division No. 103.]

  AYES

  [9.59 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

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

  Fort, R.

  Altken, W. T.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Foster, John

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

  Carr, Robert

  Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe & Lonsdale)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Channon, Sir Henry

  Freeth, Denzil

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathfioat (Tiverton)

  Chichester-Clarke, R.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Anstruther-Cray, Major Sir William

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Arbuthnot, John

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Cole, Norman

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Ashton, H.

  Conant, MaJ, sir Roger

  Glover, D.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Cooke, Robert

  Godber, J. B.

  Atkins, H. E.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Balnlel, Lord

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Gower, H. R.

  Barber, Anthony

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Barlow, sir John

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Cot. O. E.

  Grant, W. (Woodslde)

  Barter, John

  Crowder, Sir John (Flrtchlcy)

  Green, A.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Crowder, Petre(Ruislip— Northwood)

  Grimond, J.

  Beamish, MaJ. Tufton

  Currle, G. B. H.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Danoa, J. C. G.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Gurden, Harold

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hall, John (Wyoombe)

  Bevins, J, R. (Toxteth)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Biggs-Daviton, J. A.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Black, C. W.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

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

  Body, R. F.

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Boothby, Sir Robert

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

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Duthie, W. S.

  Harvie-Watt, Sir George

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Henderson-Stewart, SirJames(Fife,E.)

  Braine, B. R.

  Elliott, R. W.

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Errington, Sir Erio

  Hicks-Beach, MaJ. W. W.

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

  Erroll, F. J.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon, Henry

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Hinehingbrooke, Viscount

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Fell, A.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Bryan, P.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Hobson,J.G-S.(Warwick&Leamington>

  Bulkis, Wing commander E. E.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Holt, A. F.

  Butcher, sir Herbert

  Forrest, G.

  Hope, Lord John

  Hornby, B. P.

  Macmillan, Maurioe (Halifax)

  Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

  HortKby-Smith, Mitt M. P.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Maddan, Martin

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Hornoastle)

  Sohofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Howard, Hon. Creville (St. Ives)

  Maltland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Howard, John (Test)

  Marmingham-Bulier, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Sharpies, R. C.

  Hughes Hallett, Vlce-Admiral J.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Shepherd, William

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

  Mathew, R.

  Soames, Christopher

  Hyde, Montgomery

  Maude, Angus

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Speir, R. M.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Mawby, R. L,

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

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'g'tn, S.)

  Jenkins, Robert (Oulwlch)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Johnson, Erio (Blackley)

  Mott-Radolyffe, Sir Charles

  Storey, S.

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Creen)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Neave, Airey

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Joynson-Hioks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Kaberry, D.

  Nlcolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Keegan, D.

  Noble, Cmdr. Rt. Hon. Allan

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Teeling, W.

  Kerr, H. W.

  O'Neill, Hon.Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Temple, John M.

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Kimball, M.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  Lagden, G. W.

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

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

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Osborne, C.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Lanoaster, Col. C. G.

  Page, R. G.

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Pannell, N. A. (Klrkdale)

  Turner, H. F. L.

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Partridge, E.

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Leavey, J. A.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Plokthorn, K. W. M.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

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

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Vlokcrs, Miss Joan

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

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

  Pitman, I. J.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lenone)

  Llnstead, Sir H. N.

  Pott, H. P.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Ward, Rt. Hon. C. R. (Worcester)

  Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

  Prioe, Henry (Lew.sham, W.)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Lucas, Sir Jooelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chltwiok)

  Profumo, J. D.

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Rallies, Sir Victor

  Webbe, Sir H.

  MoAdden, S. J.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  MoCallum, Major Sir Duncan

  Redmayne, M.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Rees-Davles, W. R.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  MoKibbin, A. J.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Renton, D. L. M

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

  Robertson, Sir David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S)

  Mr. Heath and Mr Oakshotl

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)

  Robson-Brown, W.

  MaoLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Alnu, A. H.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Burke, W. A

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Allen, scholefield (Crewe)

  Burton, Miss, F. E.

  Deer, G.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Balfour,A.

  Castie, Mrs. B. A.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonsti lire, E.)

  Chapman, W. D.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

  Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Dye, S.

  Benson, G.

  Clunie, J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Beswiok, Frank

  Coldriok, W.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

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

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Blackburn, F.

  Collins, V.J (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Cove, W. G.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Boardman, H.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

  Crenin, J. D.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Boyd, T. C.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Forman, J. C.

  1106

  1107

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Ross, William

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

  MacColl, J. E.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd

  MacDermot, Niall

  Shinwell, nt. Hon. E.

  Gibson, C. W.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Short, E. W.

  Gooch, E. G.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Mahon, Simon

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Grey, C. F.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Snow, J. w.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Hannan, W.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Steele, T,

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Monslow, W,

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Hastings, S.

  Moody, A. S.

  Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (lpswich)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Stonehouse, John

  Healey, Denis

  Morrison. Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Mort, D. L.

  strachey Rt. Hon. J.

  Hewitson, capt. M.

  Moss, R.

  Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Moyle, A.

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Holmes, Horace

  Mulley, F. W.

  Swingler, S. T,

  Houghton, Douglas

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Howell, Denis (All Saints)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Hoy, J. H.

  O'Brien, sir Thomas

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Oram, A. E.

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Orbach, M.

  Thornton, E.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Oswald, T.

  Timmons, J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Owen, W. J.

  Tomney, F.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Padley, W. E.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Paget, R. T.

  Usborne, H. C.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

  Viant, S. P.

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Weitzman, D.

  Janner, B.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Parker, J.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Parkin, B. T.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Pentland, N.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Plummer, Sir Leslle

  Wigg, George

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

  Popplewell, E.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Jones, David (The Hartiepools)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, s.)

  Price, Philips (Gloucester, W.)

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tiliery)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Probert, A. R.

  Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Kenyon, C.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E)

  King, Dr. H. M.

  Randall, H. E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Ledger, R. J.

  Rankin, John

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Redhead, E. C

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Reeves, J.

  woof, R. E-

  Lever, Harold (Cheatham)

  Reid, William

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Rhodes, H.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Lewis, Arthur

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lipton, Marcus

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

  Logan, D. G.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

  Committee Tomorrow.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS [MONEY]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).— [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for requiring persons who pay, or are liable to pay, contributions under the National Insurance Act, 1946. as amended by subsequent enactments, to pay contributions towards the cost of the national health service, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) sums to be paid by the Minister of Health to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland and to the appropriate authority or fund in the Isle of Man, in accordance with any provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to classes of persons in respect of whom financial adjustments in relation to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man are made under the said Act of 1946; and

(b) any administrative expenses incurred under the said Act of the present Session by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State.— [Mr. Vosper.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

HERRING INDUSTRY (SUBSIDY SCHEME)
10.12 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope): I beg to move,
That the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1957, dated 17th April, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th April, be approved.
This Scheme is the final stage in implementing the promise made by my right hon. Friend on 26th February that the Government would introduce a direct herring subsidy. The White Fish and Herring Industries Act which, among other things, gave authority for the payment of this subsidy, has been speedily passed into law, and I now ask the House to approve this Scheme so that we may start the payments. No doubt there will be some hon. Members who have questions to raise or criticism to make. But on one thing we are, I am sure, agreed, namely, that it is important and necessary for the herring fishermen
1110
to receive their subsidy as soon as possible. For that reason, I hope that we may count on the co-operation of the House over this Scheme just as we could count upon it when the parent Bill was debated.
The object of the Scheme is, of course. to carry out the Government's undertaking to give the herring fishermen a subsidy broadly equivalent to the White Fish Subsidy in amount, extent and duration. We cannot achieve this simply by applying the white fish subsidy rates, because the circumstances of herring fishing are somewhat different from those of white fish catching. We have, of course, to take into account the effect of stopping the oil and meal subsidy which has hitherto been paid, and, in particular, the incidence of that subsidy as between the various classes of boats.
The rates which we have fixed, which are set out in Article 9 of the Scheme, will, we believe, achieve this broad objective. We calculate that in a full year they would give the herring fishermen about £ 300,000, which is just about what the herring boats would have got in white fish subsidy had they been employed on white fish catching in 1956 at the white fish subsidy rates now in force. That shows the broad equivalence of our proposals. I should say that the total of £ 300,000 is about three times the benefit which herring fishermen have been getting from the oil and meal subsidy, which, in the last two years, has been running at the annual rate of about £ 100,000.
Before I comment on the actual subsidy rates themselves, I would like to say a word about the duration of the Scheme. lf, as I hope, it is approved by Parliament this week, the Scheme will come into operation next Monday, 13th May. Hon. Members will have noticed from Article 2 of the Scheme that it will come to an end on 1st September next. This does not, of course, mean that we are intending only to give a very short-lived benefit to the herring industry; it merely means that during the summer we shall be reviewing the operation of the scheme and we intend before the Summer Recess to lay a further scheme. coming into operation on 1st September.
The House will know that it is customary to review the white fish subsidy scheme at this time of year, and

1111
we shall lay a new white fish subsidy scheme during the summer to operate, if approved, for the twelve months beginning 1st August. Our plans for herring, therefore, provide for a similar review in the summer so that the two subsidies can be kept in step. That is the reason for the short duration of the present Scheme. There is, in fact, a month's difference between the termination dates, because 1st September is a more convenient date for the start of a new herring subsidy scheme than 1st August, which comes in the middle of the summer herring fishing season.
Now, may I turn to the actual rates which are set out in Article 9 of the Scheme. Four different rates of subsidy are set out for the four classes into which we have divided the boats; and for the reason I have already given, neither the classes nor the subsidy rates are exactly the same as for white fish.
As hon. Members will know, the subsidy for the smaller white fish boats, generally up to 70 ft. in length, consists of 8d. per stone of gutted fish landed and 6d. for ungutted fish: and for boats over 70 ft. the subsidy takes the form of a payment at a fixed rate for each day at sea. In general, the subsidy for herring boats will be of the latter form, for that is the form which the discussions with the fishermen's representatives showed would be most acceptable to the herring fishermen.
The only exception to that is for category "A", which consists of the very smallest boats under 40 ft. in length. There are few of those and they do not make very regular voyages. It seemed appropriate, therefore, that in their case the subsidy should be so much per stone of fish landed. The rate fixed is 3d. per stone and I am told that with normal results this would work out about £ 3 per day per boat, which is much the same as those boats get at white fish.
The next category— category "B"—consists of motor vessels between 40 and 80 ft. in length. This includes practically all the Scottish herring fleet, both the drifters and the ring-net boats. They are to receive £ 5 10s. per day at sea, and since, as in the case of white fish, both the day of departure on a voyage and the day of arrival count as a day at sea, provided that no day is counted twice,
1112
it will normally mean that each boat will receive six days' subsidy per week. This will still be so if they miss a night's fishing in mid-week owing to bad weather.
Some of the boats in this category, particularly the smaller ones, will get more subsidy than they would at white fish; others will get a bit less. For example, the white fish subsidy for boats up to 70 ft., at 8d. per stone of fish, works out at an average of between £ 4 and £ 5 per day, which is less than the £ 5 10s. we have fixed for herring; and the majority of seine net boats over 70 ft. at white fish get a daily payment of £ 6 10s. as against the £ 5 10s. we are proposing for herring.
However, after looking at the accounts which the fishermen have submitted for their operations in 1956, and bearing in mind that the smaller boats on the whole will feel the withdrawal of the oil and meal subsidy more than the larger boats, the Government consider that this is a fair arrangement. I am satisfied, as far as one can be satisfied on a subject of this kind, that for the Scottish boats the proposals will broadly achieve equality with white fish.
There is one special point I should mention. It is about the Isle of Man. The Act authorises the payment of subsidy only in respect of voyages made for the purpose of landing herring in the United Kingdom or in respect of herring landed in the United Kingdom. The Isle of Man is not, of course, part of the United Kingdom, and the scheme. therefore, does not authorise payment of subsidy there. We are, however, proposing to give the Board a grant of 5s. per cran on all surplus herring purchased by it in the Isle of Man on condition that it pays the fishermen 5s. more than it otherwise would. This is the sole exception to the decision to withdraw the oil and meal subsidy, and is justified simply because we cannot pay ordinary subsidy there.
The third category of vessel concerned in the herring subsidy, category "C," consists of motor vessels of over 80 ft. in length. They are to receive £ 6 a day, the rate payable to motor trawlers of between 80 ft. and 90 ft. engaged in white fish catching. It is less than the rate of £ 10 paid to motor trawlers between 90 ft. and 100 ft. This is,

1113
however, counter-balanced by the fact that all steam vessels engaged in herring fishing, category "D," are to receive £ 9 per day, whereas steam vessels of the relevant sizes engaged in white fish catching receive 10s. or £ 6 a day.
Thus again, while preserving broad equality with the white fish subsidy over the whole range of vessels over 80 ft., we have given some rather more and others rather less. The vessels concerned are practically all English, and my right hon. Friend who is responsible for the fishing industry south of the Border is satisfied that these proposals achieve a fair distribution of the subsidy having regard to the financial results of the different classes of vessel and those of comparable white fish vessels.
On the evidence available, the motor vessels should, despite their lower subsidy, make profits which, although small in relation to the capital employed, are materially better than the financial results of comparable white fish vessels. My right hon. Friend hopes that this assistance will encourage the development of modern motor vessels at East Anglia. At the same time, the higher rate to be paid to the steam vessels, which made considerable losses in 1956, should help to moderate the very sharp decline in their numbers in recent years and should give the owners sufficient confidence to stay in the industry and replace the old steam vessels with new motor vessels.
There are only a few other matters of explanation with which I need detain the House. Subsidy is payable only in respect of vessels not exceeding 140 ft. in length and for voyages to the near. middle and inshore waters. These limits are laid down in the Act, and I am advised that they should not in fact have a restrictive effect in the herring industry. since herring vessels do not normally exceed 100 ft. and do not fish the distant waters. In addition, no herring subsidy will be paid where a claim is made for white fish subsidy or where the proceeds from sale of herring amount to less than half the gross proceeds of the voyage. We clearly ought not to pay two subsidies for the same voyage.
With these explanations, I strongly commend this Scheme to the House. It will, I am sure, be of substantial benefit to the herring fishermen. At least herring fishermen will now be competing
1114
on fair and equal terms with their white fish brethren, and the fortunes of the two sections of the industry will be determined by consumer preference, which is as it should be. We have not been able to go as far as the herring fishermen and, perhaps, some hon. Members would wish. but if the question is asked, "Will things be better for the industry as a result of this Scheme being passed by Parliament?" the answer is, "Yes, much better."
10.24 p.m.
Mr. Edward Evans: We on this side of the House, of course, welcome this Scheme. It is a result of continued pressure by those of us on both sides of the House who have been interested in herring fishing and have watched its steady decline over the last few years. It is gratifying to find that at last the Government have taken cognisance of feeling in the herring industry and have brought this Scheme into being.
Before I heard the explanation by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, I was a little worried that the Scheme was of only six months' duration, because we remember that when we were discussing the Scheme for the White Fish Authority one of the criticisms made of it was that it was of only short duration and that that left a feeling of instability in the industry and militated against longterm planning.
I am very glad to know that the Minister will bring before the House again before 1st September another scheme in which, I hope, he will take heed of the lessons that are to be learned from this Scheme during its operation in the interval. We, and particularly those of us who represent East Anglian constituencies, have watched with dismay the decline of the herring industry on the East Coast. In the last debate, I quoted a prominent fisherman in my own constituency who said that the East Anglian herring season was finished. That was an outlook of sheer despair. Anything that will subscribe to the arrest of the retrogression is to be warmly welcomed.
Although we warmly welcome this proposal, we cannot wholly commend it. It is a rather timorous approach to the problem. One of the objects of the Scheme was to secure stability. It was to ensure that there was sufficient manpower and that the drift from the herring

1115
industry to the white fish industry, which is a very grave factor in the decline of the herring industry apart from the catches, should be prevented. The Scheme was designed to keep men in the herring industry. This drift was largely due to the poor rewards comparable with those of fishermen in the white fish fleets. It was also due to the fact that the rewards in the white fish fleets were associated with a very substantial subsidy granted to the near- and middle-water fleets. These rewards were shared among the working fishermen, and that naturally made a very strong appeal to them.
The poor catches, of course, were due to over-fishing. I was very glad to hear from the Minister not long ago that there was an attempt among the countries bordering the North Sea to stop that iniquitous fishing for immature herring. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us of the success of the negotiations.
There are other anomalies in this proposal. First, the Minister has excused the direct grant of 3d. a stone for catches on the rather poor ground that there are not many of them and that it affects only a few boats. It reminds one of the housemaid's baby which was only a little one. This affects the very smallest men of all, and when 8d. a stone is paid for the white fish in the smaller boats it is very anomalous that only 3d. a stone should be paid for the herring. The schedule to the white fish subsidy contained a more balanced and graduated scale of payments, rising to the fantastic figure, which I very much criticised, of £ 22 a day for the encouragement of the very vessels that we wanted to go out of business— the steam trawlers which were very much out-of-date.
The bulk of the herring vessels which operate from my constituency and neighbouring constituencies in the East Anglian herring season are of about the 70 ft. to 90 ft. mark. They are rather prejudicially treated in comparison with the Scottish vessels. One must always almost apologise in the House for being an Englishman when a debate on fishing is taking place.
Mr. Anthony Fell Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth) indicated assent.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Member is nodding his head vigorously. The Scotsmen seem to go away from these debates with a great deal of satisfaction, and they seem to be very generously treated. It is anomalous that a vessel of up to 40 ft. should receive £ 5 10s. whilst a vessel up to 90 ft. receives only £ 6.
Let us look at what that means. These larger drifters as we know, very often they are double-purpose boats— employ a crew of about eleven men. If they are to get only £ 6 a day, then we may say that half of that will go to the crew, and if it is divided among the crew— it is not quite equally divided among them— how much will they get? There is nothing there to induce men to remain in the herring industry rather than go into the white fish industry. The rewards to the men are not adequate to our problem of retaining the men in the herring industry.
We welcome the subsidy. I hope the Minister will continue his negotiations with the men who are actually catching the fish. They are only just grateful to him; if they wanted to thank him they would say "Thank you" and not "Thanks". The feeling among them is that the Government felt that vis-à-vis the white fish industry they had to do something owing to the pressure brought to bear upon them, and the men feel that the Government could have gone a good deal further. If the Government had brought the daily grant up to £ 8, as the industry desired, it would not have been a great deal in relation to the global sum of £ 300,000, but it would have made a difference to the prosperity of the industry and its attractiveness to the fishermen.
I want to refer to the discontent among other sections of the industry, particularly the canners. There is very great disquiet among the processors and canners about the price structure. Time and time again the Minister has been approached to reexamine the subject, to obtain a much better understanding and to give a much more realistic figure to these people who perform one of the most necessary ancillary operations in the industry. I observe that Mr. Speaker is looking in my direction. I will not trespass on the generosity of the Chair by going into the structure of the herring price.
I conclude with a modified blessing for the Scheme. I hope that when it comes

1117
to be re-examined in five months' time the Minister will give a little more consideration to boats in the 70–90 ft. class. It would be a great encouragement to the catchers if that were to happen.
10.34 p.m.
Mr. W. S. Duthie: When the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1957, was receiving its Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
" The rates will be worked out after consultation with the Board and with the fishermen's associations in the same way as we do ordinarily and will be given effect to by a statutory scheme subject to the approval of both Houses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1957; Vol. 566, c. 1001.]
I have been in consultation with the Scottish Herring Producers Association and other associations, and they take the view that they have not been adequately consulted in connection with the framing of the Scheme.
I expected from the Minister's declaration that a scheme would be evolved which would be contributed to by all the interests concerned. We are told that the herring industry, from a subsidy point of view, is going to be put on the same basis as the seine netters. One would naturally have inferred that there had been a certain measure of equity introduced into the establishment of that common basis.
None of the proposals put forward by all associations engaged in the catching of herring has been accepted in so far as the figures are concerned. The Government's figures fall very far short of what was considered the essential minima by the catchers' associations. I will not go over them because they were gone over in detail in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, but there is a very grave disparity between them.
One naturally asks who decides on the figures and who determines the basis upon which this document is founded, because no one closely associated with the herring industry would agree that there is any measure of equity whatsoever in the figures which we are discussing tonight in relation to the herring industry. White fishing is reasonably successful at the present time, and it has been reasonably successful over a fairly long period, but the subsidy which it obtains is the major factor in achieving that measure of success.
1118
The white fish industry has assured markets and all good quality fish that is landed commands a fairly good market price. Bad conditions do prevail on occasion, but, in the main, the white fish industry has a reasonably good prospect of instantaneous sale at reasonably good prices if the fish is good.
Certain factors must be borne in mind in achieving this measure of equity which, I insist, should have been given in these figures. Certain considerations apply to the herring industry which warrant very special treatment. The first is gear costs. The gear costs of the herring fishing vessel are infinitely greater than those of the seine net vessel. That gear is wearing out. The industry has had a long period of failure and there has been little or no replacement of gear— at least there have not been the funds to maintain that replacement.
I need not remind the House what happened when an attempt was made to depress the white fish subsidy for gutted fish from 10d. to 6d. a stone. The industry was up in arms about it and so were those hon. Members of the House who represented fishing constituencies, with the result that a middle course was accepted and 8d. was fixed which enabled the white fish industry to just get by.
I hope that my hon. Friend realises that the herring industry is on its beam ends. It is nearly down and out. Not only does it require sustenance; it needs revival. This is the time at which that help should have been given. The proposals of the practical men have been rejected, and one naturally wants to know how these figures were arrived at. Was it a case of some cheeseparing guesswork on the part of the Department or of the Herring Industry Board? They certainly did not come from the men who are completely au fait with conditions obtaining in the herring industry today.
There is another consideration. Is it generally realised that a vessel of 60 ft. length, for instance— which is about the average for an inshore vessel— will have a crew of from six to eight men if it is a seine net vessel, but ten if it is a herring fishing vessel? That is a consideration which should be borne in mind straight away. It shows that more generous treatment is needed for the herring fisher. Again, we must consider the inter-season rest periods, which are

1119
absolutely essential for the rehabilitation of gear— the change-over of gear and its repair— and during those periods the men are not at sea and not earning. That factor should also be taken into account in fixing this subsidy.
I understand that it would be out of order to talk about oil and meal, but 1 am comforted by the thought that this will be only a short-term Measure, and that it will be reviewed. But I want it to be reviewed not within six months but within six weeks, because it will be found that it will go no way to achieve the end which we had in view when the idea was first mooted.
I shall not vote against the proposals; I shall accept them with reluctance, knowing that they will not do the job which it was hoped they would do. I also sincerely hope that in the meantime there will not be a further secession from the ranks of the herring fishers. I will not say anything about the Herring Fishing Board because that would probably be out of order, but I hope that the opportunity will arise in the very near future when we can air some of our grievances in that matter.
10.42 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: The Minister has received from The Scottish Herring Producers' Association strong representations against this Scheme. I do not intend to go over the arguments it put forward, but most hon. Members who represent constituencies whose members are engaged in herring fishing cannot feel that this Scheme, by itself, will attract many more men or boats into this industry, or make it a really lucrative life. It may equalise Government assistance between white fish and herring, on the face of it, but there is no doubt that the ultimate reward for herring fishing in my constituency will be too small to instil any optimism about the future of the industry.
The Minister probably knows the figures concerned with the various types of boat. He will have noticed how small are the net average earnings of the boats in my constituency— round about £ 2,300. Considering the very long hours and the exhausting type of work, the remuneration per man is very miserable. A
1120
herring fisherman going to sea at night in all sorts of weather and running considerable risk is not earning any more than a comparatively untrained clerk in an office. I do not think that the subsidy will be sufficient to make up for the poor reward.
As the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) said, the industry is caught between the poor returns and the ever-rising price of gear. Fewer and fewer boats are prepared to equip themselves with the necessary gear. The Minister mentioned that the subsidy was worth three times the oil and meal subsidy, which I think was about £ 100,000. That is an improvement, but it is not necessarily making the same reward to all boats. This is a very serious matter.
The Minister has said that he will keep this matter under review and that a new scheme will be brought in before 1st September. The effect of the reduction of oil and meal prices upon the price of fish is a factor which must be kept under very close review, because there is a great deal of anxiety about it.
One hon. Member on this side of the House spoke about the very small vessels. It is true that there are very few of them, but, as I see it, not only will they get a smaller reward— I think it is 3d. per stone— but if they are kept in port through bad weather they will get nothing at all. As the Minister said, the larger vessels can be kept in port by bad weather not only for one night a week— as he indicated— but for three nights a week and yet get a voyage payment for every day. I think that is a right interpretation of the Bill. While I welcome it on their behalf, it makes the position of the smaller boats still more unfair. I do not know whether anything can be done to improve their position.
Naturally, one will not oppose this, because it does something for the industry. But, so far as Shetland is concerned, it would be wrong to leave the Government with the impression that this will put a rapidly declining industry on its feet. It will not bring back the curers or give confidence to the canners and other subsidiary trades which have been so important in many Scottish ports in days gone by.
10.47 p.m.
Sir Robert Boothby: If I may venture to say so, Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that the herring industry is one of great importance. It has produced as fine a breed of men as exists in this country, men who have rendered invaluable service to the Fleet and to the nation in two world wars. From time to time it has altered the course of history. Now it is dying. It is dying for one simple reason. Costs have steadily outpaced earnings since the war, so that it no longer affords an adequate living wage to the fishermen. They are leaving it to go to the white fishing industry in which they can earn more money, or else they are getting more lucrative employment ashore. Crews simply cannot be obtained. They are not being obtained for the forthcoming summer fishing. New blood is not coming into the industry. The sons of fishermen are no longer anxious to join their fathers in what was once a great adventure.
The number of drifters in membership of the Scottish Herring Producers' Association has fallen from 365 in 1948 to 185, a drop of over 50 per cent. It will fall further this year. The decline in the fleet prosecuting the great East Anglian herring fishing, upon which in Tudor times the strength of the Navy was largely based, is even more startling. In 1949, 473 boats were working from Yarmouth and Lowestoft. Last year there were only 189. This year there will be fewer still.
We must admit that this herring subsidy is an effort to stop the rot. It is to be paid per day at sea, and that is unquestionably the correct method. It has only one defect, but that defect is fatal for the purpose of attracting fishermen back to the herring industry. It is that the subsidy is quite inadequate. If we take into account the fact that a herring drifter requires at least two more of a crew than a drifter which is seine-netting, it does not bring the herring subsidy level with the white fish subsidy. By and large, if we consider the herring drifters from all the Scottish ports, the smaller ones and the ones between 60 and 80 feet, which are the ones with which the fishermen in my constituency are mainly concerned, it cannot possibly be maintained that the proposed subsidy is equal to the white fish subsidy.
1122
This subsidy must also be considered in relation to the recently published price structure imposed on the industry, in the teeth of vehement objections, by the Herring Industry Board. It would be out of order to discuss these prices apart from their impact upon the subsidy scheme, but the impact is direct and great. A condition of the subsidy has been the withdrawal of the Exchequer grant in respect of the reduction, of herring to oil and meal. That is part of the "package deal." It means that the fishermen will get about 40s. a cran at ports where factories are situated, and only 20s. a cran elsewhere, as against a minimum last year of 42s. and 28s. In fact, the great bulk of herring consigned to the meal and oil factories last year was sold at either 42s. or 35s. This will hit my own fishermen hard, but it is death for the ring net fishermen on the West Coast of Scotland, unless the general subsidy is increased. That one can just be washed up. It is the end.
In addition, in its recent publication of price rules, the Herring Industry Board has decided to knock out the freshing and most remunerative side of the industry at the North-East ports of landing by fixing a high minimum price at the same level as that for the southern ports, regardless of transport charges; and also to knock out, as the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) has pointed out, the expanding export trade in canned herring. Why, I do not know. It really is not much use subsidising an industry which is already being sabotaged from within.
In our debate on the Second Reading of the Bill under which this Scheme is being introduced, I and various of my hon. Friends on both sides of the House made speeches on this particular subject. I think that we put our points of view rather forcibly, and Lord Macpherson in another place also put the case very forcibly. On both occasions the Government said that they would give deep and careful consideration to what we said. Nothing happened— no consideration of any kind, so far as we can see, was given— because the Scheme has gone through without a comma being altered.
I feel pretty strongly about this, because ten years ago I was instrumental in bringing about a meeting between the fishermen and the canners which resulted

1123
in a system of fixed price agreements, with allocations, which has been a tremendous success throughout those ten years. That has all now gone by the board; and the Food Manufacturers' Federation has been driven to say that, if this system cannot continue, the proposed statutory minimum prices are quite unrealistic and will result in the loss of our export trade. Last year, 85 per cent. of the total herrings canned were exported.
Listen to this, Mr. Speaker— from the Scottish Herring Producers' Association:
"The Association is convinced that the rules fixing herring minimum prices, so far, at least "
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member is commenting rather upon the Scheme of the Herring Industry Board for minimum prices than upon the subsidy Scheme. I quite agree that it is relevant to mention the matter, but it cannot be discussed in detail on this Scheme.
Sir R. Boothby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker— I did not altogether expect to get as far as this. The report from which I was quoting did say that the effect of these rules on the processors of herring would more than offset the benefits proposed to be given to the industry by way of direct subsidy to herring fishing vessels; so I thought that at least it came under the cover of this particular subsidy scheme which we are now discussing.
I have spoken with a little bitterness on this subject. Heaven knows, I have long since given up hope of being consulted by any Government Department about anything. But I have been mixed up in the herring industry for over 30 years and would have to be a mental case if I did not know something about it; and the same thing goes for my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie). They never seem to talk much about it to us; but they produce these subsidies and regulations from time to time, and then we are obliged to pick holes in them, and sometimes they are amended and sometimes they are not.
It is a bit hard to see this great herring industry gradually declining over the years almost to extinction; and I think that the Herring Industry Board's sustained
1124
ineptitude, with, I must add, the heroic support of the Government, is largely responsible for it. This is a bit hard to face. The Board does, on occasion, consult the industry; but never on any occasion pays any attention to the advice it is given. I must add that, as against the White Fish Authority, it has for the time being completely lost the confidence of the Scottish herring fishing industry.
Tonight, we can do nothing but pass this subsidy, for what it is worth— but it is not worth much.
I believe that the absolute minimum required to retain the existing personnel in our greatly reduced herring fleet in Scotland is a subsidy of at least £ 6 10s. per day at sea for boats between 60 ft. and 80 ft. in length, which go to make up the major part of the Scottish fleet; with proportional increases in respect of other boats. That, I think, is the minimum, especially in view of the new prices. Between now and September, the Government have got to make up their minds whether the herring fishing industry is worth the expenditure of something between another £ 50,000 and £ 100,000 a year, or whether it is not. When one thinks of the global total of the Budget, well over £ 4,000 million, and the amount given in subsidies— in my view, rightly— to agriculture, it seems fantastic to suggest that the survival of the herring fishing industry is not worth another £ 50,000.
I conclude simply by saying this. If the Government allow this great industry to collapse, because that is what is happening at the moment— it is inexorable, and one can see it from every figure one gets— if they refuse to spend this trivial additional sum of money to save it, I believe that they will live to regret the day they did it.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) said that he spoke with some bitterness. I can assure the House that his bitterness is a comparatively mild bleat compared with what the Clyde fishermen are saying about the Government and this subsidy. Far from agreeing that it is generous, they condemn the meanness of the Minister. They found him extremely unsympathetic and unco-operative in negotiations, and they are extremely critical of the whole Scheme.

1125
If there is a case for giving subsidies to the herring industry, there is a case for doing the job well. What the herring fishermen on the West Coast of Scotland say is that the removal of the oil and meal subsidy has placed the small herring fishing communities on the West Coast in very difficult circumstances indeed. I have here a statement from the Clyde Fishermen's Association, giving some figures about the twenty-three vessels now employed in the Clyde. 1 see from them that the crew member's average earnings were £ 427 2s. 7d. last year. The average number of weeks worked was 45. The average earnings per week worked out at £ 9 9s. 10d. The average number of hours worked per week worked out at 90. The labour share, as a rate per man-hour, worked out at 2s. 1¼d. an hour. If those are the earnings of the men, can one wonder that they are not likely to stay very long in the herring industry?
The argument of the Minister was that now they are going to be raised to the level of the white fish industry; but, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East said, they think in terms of the farmer. They want to know why they should get such miserable earnings compared with the farmer and farm worker. Let me illustrate the case as put by the Clyde fishermen, the very moderate case submitted in their memorandum. They say that the shock as a result of the withdrawal of the oil and meal subsidy has been very considerable and that they will, in fact, be worse off. The Minister may nod his head, but I assure him that the fishermen on the Clyde are very bitter about the way he refused to listen to their case.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to contradict these figures which have been supplied to me. The letter states:
" The proposed subsidy is inequitable in its results in that there is only one factory port on the West Coast of Scotland. This port, Stornoway, is far from the ring net fishing grounds. These ring net fishermen will almost inevitably have to sell their surplus herring at 20s. per cran— five for 1d., against the 4½d. paid to the farmer for an egg."
It is the contrast with the agricultural industry that one hears about when the fishermen state their grievances. The Scheme may mean that some parts of the country do better than others, but it
1126
will certainly be disastrous to the fishermen living in the small communities, such as Girvan, Maidens, Dunure and Ballantrae and on the coast of Argyllshire.
We are told:
"Fishermen will not be persuaded by the direct subsidy to work all night and then steam eight hours across the Minch for 20s. per cran."
Can we expect them to do so?
" The whole psychology is wrong, and the result is that boats will not put to sea."
That does not look like saving the herring industry if boats do not go to sea. The letter continues:
"The direct subsidy divided according to custom will result in a married member of the crew getting no more than he would get on the dole."
If that is the Scheme, what is the use of it? We are told that
"The inducement of catching herring at five for Id. will not get him to sea, and it should be stressed that during the summer months he can sell his herring for little else."
So the fishermen I represent think that the Scheme is miserable, mean and niggardly and will not achieve the results which the Minister has stated.
Of course, £ 300,000 is a comparatively small sum in subsidies these days. The Scheme will be only half the cost of putting the "Britannia" to sea for a year. When the fishermen think of the other subsidies— the subsidies to those who pay Surtax, for example— they consider that they have been very harshly treated. They believe that the Scheme will work down in practice and that unless something better comes along it will ultimately mean the end of the herring fleet on the Clyde.
11.3 p.m.
Sir James Henderson-Stewart: I cannot help thinking that some of those who have spoken this evening have forgotten the debate that took place on the Second Reading of the Bill, the purpose of which— we all recognised and applauded it— was to bring to the herring industry the same measure of subsidy as was, and is now, enjoyed by the white fish industry.
According to my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, mathematically the Government have kept their pledge. I do not know whether it is right or wrong — I have not worked it out— but I accept

1127
what my noble Friend has said that, mathematically, the Scheme will bring to the herring industry some £ 200,000 a year more than it is now getting. If that is so, it is at least as much as the Government promised on the recent Bill, and, in fact, it is a little more. On the face of it and on the figures which have been presented, that appears to be so.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie), looking at the breakdown of the general global addition, doubt whether equity has been produced or, to use the words of my noble Friend, there has been "broad equivalence." Why is it that my hon. Friends doubt what my noble Friend said? I am sure it is not because they doubt he was speaking the truth. It is not because of that at all. It is because when we have broken down this figure to see what this section of the industry will get we find it will get less than was hoped. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire, looking particularly at the group of boats he so ably represents, finds that that group may not be as well off as he expected. What is apparent, therefore, is that it is in the breakdown of this £ 200,000 that we are running into trouble.
My noble Friend admitted that in his speech. He said some would be getting more than others. The large boats, for example, in comparison with others are getting a poor deal. I must say I have the profoundest sympathy with the ring net fishermen on the West coast of Scotland. All the time I was at the Scottish Office, as my noble Friend will find, I was striving to try to do something for that group of fishermen, because for a long time they have been running into trouble, largely because the herring have gone away. I do not assert this because I do not know the facts, but it would appear that this is another group of fishermen who have not done as well out of the Scheme as I expected they would.
What is the conclusion one comes to? It is this. Obviously we cannot suggest detailed alterations to the Scheme tonight. It would not be in order to do so. However, I hope my noble Friend will take to heart the message, the plea, the demand from all parts of the House tonight, and which I emphasise. He must
1128
examine with the greatest possible care at once the effect of these various figures upon the various groups of fishermen before he introduces his new Scheme at the end of July.
My own view is that we shall not have made a proper review by the end of July. It is only a couple of months, six weeks probably, before the accountants will consider the figures. In any case, it will be a short-term review covering only part of one herring fishing season. I do not think we can make a good judgment in much less than nine months. Therefore, we shall have to regard the new Scheme in July as temporary.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire got the point, of course, as he always does. If, having reviewed the figures, my noble Friend comes to the conclusion, as I think he must, that a higher measure of help is required, and if the total comes to £ 50,000, £ 70,000 or even £ 100,000, I am sure the House would be ready to grant that £ 100,000, considering the total size of the subsidy going to the white fish industry as a whole. If the £ 100,000 would make all the difference to other sections of the fleet, my noble Friend ought to fight the Treasury to get it.
I know he would have liked to have done that. We have talked about this before. We were thinking of this before I left office. In all these matters, of course, the Scottish Office has to persuade the Treasury that what it proposes is right, just, sound, and a proper use of the nation's money, and the Treasury, naturally, are always stiff. They have to be. It is their duty to be so. However, there are times when the Scottish Office has to fight.
All I am asking is for a careful review in the next month or two, or for a longer time if necessary. If it is then proved to the Secretary of State, as I think it will be, that changes must be made in the detailed application of these subsidies, I warn him that the House, including his hon. Friends behind him on this side, will demand a bigger amount of money for that section of the industry.
11.10 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Fell: Some hon. Members sometimes get a little impatient with those who represent

1129
fishing interests because we all "have a go" as a rule when the House debates the fishing industry. The reason for our doing so is that we are really worried about what is happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) talked about the debt that the country owed to the fishermen as a whole and about the things that the fishermen had done in the past for Britain. I merely claim to say tonight that the people of this country were very grateful in the past to the people of Yarmouth for taking to their bosom, so to speak, Nelson and, with him, Lady Hamilton. The people of this country were also grateful to Yarmouth because it supplied many of the gallant men who fought at Nelson's side. The country is no longer grateful to Yarmouth, even though Yarmouth suffered greatly in two world wars and received no adequate compensation for its suffering.
I think that it would be accepted by most people that now is the time when Yarmouth is suffering more than almost any port in England, because it relies solely on herring for fishing. This is the time when the country might think that it could do more to help the herring fishermen at Yarmouth, and the fishermen who used to come in great numbers to Yarmouth from Scotland but no longer do so.
I am informed that to help the motor-driven vessel of over 80 ft. by paying a subsidy of up to £ 8 a day, instead of the proposed £ 6, would cost only about £ 12,000. If that is true, it is very difficult to see why the Government decided upon £ 6. I have had a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which contains one remark that greatly puzzles me. It says:
" The object of the white fish subsidy has always been to moderate losses and not to ensure profits."
That seems to me to be the economics of madness.
It might be argued that there should never have been a herring subsidy or a Herring Industry Board, and that the Chairman of the Board, before agreeing to the dissolution of the herring industry, should have resigned. It could be argued that if the Board had not been set up, the industry would not have relied upon
1130
the Board and might have fought harder for itself. But I cannot understand a statement of principle that a subsidy is not designed to help the industry to make a profit but only to ensure that losses might not be so bad. Is that the principle of subsidy as applied to agriculture? If it were, I doubt whether the country would support giving any subsidy at all to a dying industry.
It may be that I and my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Duthie) are talking nonsense, but it may be that we are not. If it is true that the country is throwing a subsidy away, or at any rate that part of the subsidy now proposed will be thrown away because the industry will still die, and, in the words of the Ministry, a subsidy is designed to moderate losses, not to ensure profits, then I do not think that we should give a subsidy at all.
On the other hand, the Ministry says that
"… the rate for motor vessels of 80 foot and over … should, we think, give reasonable encouragement to the owners of this class of vessel and will stimulate further the development of modern motor vessels which we are very anxious to see…"
How can the production of more modern vessels be stimulated on the principle that the punpose of the subsidy is to encourage companies to sustain less of a loss but not to make a profit? I do not see the logic of that.
I hope that as a result of the encouragement that the Minister has had from my hon. Friends who have been so close to this industry for so long, and bearing in mind the great experiment that is now being carried out at Yarmouth— on which I cannot speak in detail without transgressing the rules of order— the Minister will consider very carefully what has been said in this debate. If he cannot do anything before this Scheme expires, I hope that he will seriously consider doing something better when the matter is reconsidered.
11.16 p.m.
Mr. John MacLeod: I do not want to detain the House for very long in supporting the arguments which have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Banff (Mr. Duthie) and Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby), and the hon. Members

1131
for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimoncl).
I should like to add my plea to the Minister to watch very carefully the situation affecting the small ring net fishermen, particularly on the West Coast. There is no doubt that this subsidy will affect these ring net fishermen very seriously.
Last year in the Minch we had the system of grading ports. A result of this subsidy is that that system has now been stopped. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire referred to the remarks made by Clyde fishermen on the subject of vessels steaming to Stornoway. There is an extraordinary situation in the Minch now. Not long ago I made an extensive tour of the Western seaboard of my constituency, and the fishermen whom I met were very worried when they heard about the proposed withdrawal of the oil and meal subsidy. The situation is ludicrous. Boats are now being forced to go to Stornoway. I have nothing against Stornoway, but when one finds that the boats are forced to go to Stornoway to get better prices because there is a factory there, but that there are no factories on the mainland of the West Coast. the situation is ridiculous.
I am glad that the subsidy is to be paid only for an interim period, and in the meantime I trust that the Minister will watch the situation carefully. There is no doubt that this Scheme is introduced to try to persuade the fishermen not to change over to white fishing but to remain herring fishermen. The Minister will not achieve that aim unless he watches the situation of the factories concerned with oil and meal.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff said, the lack of consultation is deplorable. The Herring Industry Board seems to make up its mind what it considers right, and then does it without real consultation with the fishermen concerned. I hope that one day we shall have only one Board dealing with white fish and herring. It is ridiculous, when we are paying a subsidy —
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is raising issues which are much wider than this Scheme.
Mr. MacLeod: I will leave that aspect, Mr. Speaker.
1132
I hope the Minister will carefully watch the position of the ring net fishermen. After all, on the West Coast and in my constituency we are trying to keep the ports alive. The argument is advanced that the subsidy obtained by the fishermen will be better than that last year because not so many herring were then sold for oil and meal. The reason for that was that more herring were being sold for pet food. Because of the fewer herring in East Anglia the firms have been coming north. Now the argument is put forward that the subsidy will be a much greater encouragement to the fishermen because it will bring them more than they were getting for oil and meal. However, the explanation is that they were getting a better price for pet food. and so it was natural that the fishermen should sell their herring for pet food. The Minister must watch the situation carefully. There has only to be good fishing off East Anglia and the income of the fishermen in the northern ports will disappear. I hope the Minister will not be influenced by the other argument, which has no doubt been put to him.
I dare say that we shall be reviewing this situation shortly, and I hope that we shall see a completely new policy in respect of oil and meal. Otherwise it will be disastrous for the owners of small boats. The ring net fishermen depend to a great extent on disposing of surplus herring for oil and meal, and it is a ridiculous situation when fishermen receive a price of perhaps 42s. in Stornoway but only 20s. in some other places. I hope that the Minister will watch the situation very carefully.
11.23 p.m.
Mr. G. R. Howard: If an Englishman may dare to intervene in this "Scottish" debate, I should like to make three points.
First, Article 3 refers to "registered owner". Does that mean the registered owner of one or more vessels? Secondly, I was glad to hear about the Isle of Man, because it seemed a little unfair that if herring fishermen had to land their catches there they should be penalised for it.
Thirdly, Article 11 says:
" Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 of this scheme, if any structural alteration is made to any vessel which will increase its length, grant may be paid at the rate appropriate to the length of the vessel before the alteration was carried out …"

1133
What does that mean? Is it suggested that someone will build a false bow on a vessel to make the vessel slightly larger in order to qualify for more subsidy? It is an extraordinary Article, and we ought to have an explanation of its meaning. An alteration to a vessel would be likely Ito cost far more than any additional subsidy that was obtained.
11.25 p.m.
Mr. Thomas Fraser: The Scheme has been introduced because there was a great run-down in the size of the herring fishing fleet, because examination of statistics submitted by the Scottish Herring Producers' Association showed that the income of the fishermen was deplorably low, and because there was widespread evidence of loss of confidence by the herring fishermen in their industry.
The Joint Under-Secretary will be under no illusions by this hour, after having listened to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken for the fishermen of their constituencies and made it clear that this Scheme is not going to repair the damage done to the herring fishing industry. It is perhaps arguable whether this kind of scheme will ever do the trick. I am not blaming the Under-Secretary for bringing forward a Scheme which merely produces another subsidy on a temporary basis, another expedient to deal with the long-term ills in the industry. On many occasions in the past I was myself in that position— introducing schemes and listening to debates, and making, I am sure, wholly inadequate replies at the end of the discussion.
It has been made abundantly clear that the provision in the Scheme is not enough. The Under-Secretary gave a little explanation during, I think, the Second Reading debate or a subsequent debate on the White Fish and Herring Industries Act as to why the oil and meal subsidy was being discontinued. But he has heard tonight what those hon. Members think who speak for the ring net fishermen in particular. Indeed, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby), who does not normally speak for ring netters but for the North-East Coast fishermen, said that the withdrawal of the subsidy meant death to the ring netters. Perhaps his language was too strong, but the ring netters are pretty
1134
nearly dead already. If any withdrawal of help leads to a worsening of the position, then, of course, it will mean death to the livelihood of those fishermen.
Fishermen who have spoken to me on the subject have deeply regretted the withdrawal of the subsidy and have said that, although they accepted the principle of the subsidy, there should be in addition to it a payment by result, a continuation of the subsidy in respect of those herring which are taken for reduction to oil and meal.
The Under-Secretary has commended the scheme to us as one which he hopes will help to restore the confidence of the herring fishermen. He has accepted the fact that the earnings of these men in the past year or so have been deplorably low. In those circumstances, was there any justification for foreclosing on so many of the fishermen on the West Coast who got their boats under the grant and loan scheme? As it is accepted that the industry was in a poor state and earnings were deplorably low, were not the Government over-hasty in foreclosing on a number of people in the last six months? Could the Minister say how many were foreclosed on in that period?
When I sat on the other side of the House, I used to listen to the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire complaining about the Herring Industry Board. Fishermen have complained to me that the Board always seems to be far too distant from them, too unfriendly and unco-operative. The same fishermen at other times are fishing for white fish, and they tell me that their relations with the White Fish Authority are excellent. When the same people give one information about the two authorities, it leads one to suspect that there must be something really wrong with the Herring Industry Board.
The fishermen tell me that money alone will not recreate the necessary changes, that there must be changes in their relations with the Board and that there must be wider consultation before changes are made. I take the view that this industry is not going to be saved by the introduction from time to time of palliatives of the sort that we are discussing tonight. Something bigger must be done. If I were to offer some suggestions I suppose that I should be out of order.

1135
But here we have a Scheme which is to be replaced by another, which is to be introduced before the Summer Recess, so that there cannot be more than two months before the Government will be getting down to the job of producing the next scheme. The Joint Under-Secretary has had made very clear to him tonight the view that the next scheme must be more generous to the herring fishermen than this one is, and I hope that it will be more generous not only in the matter of the subsidies made available but also in its conception of what is needed to bring about a recovery in this great herring industry.
11.30 p.m.
Lord John Hope: If I may address the House again in reply to the debate, I am sure that the House would wish me to do so as briefly as possible. That is always desirable, but it is probably more so at this hour than it would have been earlier. I shall try to answer the spirit of the debate, and if I omit to answer any detailed questions I will put that right afterwards, as one always tries to do.
I appreciate most sincerely the force of feeling which has been demonstrated in all quarters of the House and, on the whole, the sense of responsibility which has been shown. I know that hon. Members on both sides feel that the Government might have done better, but some have made it equally clear that the Government might have done worse. There is nothing for any Government to be complacent about in that, and the Government are not complacent. On the other hand, as the House knows very well, we have had to work within certain limits, and most hon. Members pitched their criticisms against the true background in relation to which we were working, which was that we were trying to put the herring industry upon an equal footing with the white fish industry. If that premise is accepted it can be said that some of the conclusions which one or two hon. Members were inclined to make went rather beyond it.
I do not want to weary the House at this stage with too many figures, but I think that I must deal briefly with one or two. In answering this debate I must show, if I can, that the extremely gloomy forecast which several hon. Members have
1136
made is really not borne out by the figures as foreseen on a perfectly reasonable basis— a forecast based upon the figures as we know them to have been so far.
The House will probably agree that the particular category which was singled out more than any other was that of the ring-net vessels on the West Coast. Many hon. Members concentrated upon the lot of their crews. We believe that, on balance, the ring-net vessels will be substantial gainers and not losers. I suggest that whatever group one takes one must introduce the factor of comparison between what will happen as a result of the subsidy and what has been happening up to now. If the net result is a gain, surely that is not the language of death or destruction in the industry.
On the basis of their average catches over a 45-week period last year the withdrawal of the oil and meal subsidy should cost the ring-net vessels from the West Coast about £ 729 a vessel. But if they manage to fish for four nights a week. and therefore qualify for five days' subsidy, they can get about £ 1,237 a year out of the new subsidy; so that on balance they are about £ 500 better off per boat. That, to me, seems at least an encouraging figure.
It has been rightly said that there is a dearth of factory ports on that coast, but planning approval has been given for a factory to be built at Mallaig subject to certain conditions. The detailed design and the implementation of those conditions are matters for the Board and the county council, subject, if necessary, to appeal to the Secretary of State. I hope that there will not be any serious difficulty. I cannot say when the building is likely to be started, but the sooner it happens the better we shall be pleased.
Mr. T. Fraser: I thought that the case for the withdrawal of the oil and meal subsidy was that these factories were not being used. If they are not being used, why build them?
Lord John Hope: This certainly will be a help, as I think the hon. Member will realise as well as anyone else.
Mr. John MacLeod: I have dealt with this question of oil and meal for quite a time, and I do not agree at all. If a factory is to be built, I would rather see one which would be supplied by all sections of the industry.
Lord John Hope: I must not use the expression "red herring", because that would be misleading in the context of this debate. All I suggest is that this will be an encouragement to the ring netters on the West Coast.
We estimate that over every class of fishing boat the profits will increase by about twice as a result of this subsidy and, of course the average crews' earnings per day per man will go up in proportion, though obviously that does not mean by twice as much. I shall be delighted to give detailed figures to bear out that statement to any hon. Member who would like to have them, but perhaps the House will be satisfied if, at this late hour, I merely state the principle.
Hon. Members may have hoped for something more from the Government, but I am sure that on reflection they will agree that it will render no service to an industry which we all want to help if we overstate the case against this subsidy. We should look forward to the future with hope and confidence rather than with despair, arid it is in that spirit that I hope that the House will consent to this Scheme.
Question put
Resolved,
That the Herring Subsidy (United Kingdom) Scheme, 1957, dated 17th April 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th April. be approved.

WHITE FISH INDUSTRY (EXPORTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Wills.]
11.40 p.m.
Captain M. Hewitson: In view of the lateness of the hour I will speak more briefly than had been my intention. I wish to bring to the attention of the House the position of the white fish industry in relation to the long-distance trawlers. Those trawlers are not subsidised, and those who own them are not asking for any subsidy. To put one of those modern trawlers into the water costs about £ ¼ million; and to keep one at sea costs about £ 250 to £ 260 per day. As the average tour is of 21 to 23 days' duration, it will be seen that they must work at full pressure if they are to show
1138
any profit at all; and the expansion of scientific techniques has made the possibility of bigger catches greater than it was even a few years ago.
We must, therefore, do something with the fish that is caught, but, during the last two or three years we have had a great amount of unsold white fish on the home market. In 1955, we had a surplus of 25,000 tons, of an approximate value of £ 1,200,000: that was edible white fish unsold in the Humber ports alone. In 1956, more than 21,000 tons were left unsold, of a value of £ 1 million. The amount of unsold white fish on the Humber since 1948 has averaged about 16½ thousand tons annually.
What happens to that fish? It goes to the fish meal factories for conversion into animal feeding stuffs, or to the fertiliser factories to be used, eventually, on the countryside. Even so, there are restrictions on the amount of meal and fertiliser made from the fish. We are not allowed to export any of that fish, and it is the export position that I wish to draw to the attention of the House.
We in this country have the largest fishing industry in the whole of Western Europe, yet our exports of white fish are very small indeed. There is a potential market in Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany. What is happening? Those markets are being supplied mainly by the Scandinavian countries, Iceland, and, to a lesser extent, Holland.
Russia is supplying us with about £ 1 million worth of canned salmon and crab annually, and in the Government's barter agreement under which it is sent it was provided that herring should be supplied against the £ 1 million worth of salmon and crab. In 1955, the herring shortfall was £ 676,000, and in 1956 it was £ 462,500. What is to be the position in 1957? It is in that regard that the industry is asking for Government help.
In 1957, Iceland will export to Russia large quantities of herring, but in addition she will send 32,000 tons of cod fillets, to an approximate value of £ 4 million. This is trade which we in this country could have. I do not say that we could have it all, but we could have a good slice of it if we had that active support which we believe we should have from the Government.

1139
East Germany is another possible market. We find that we get no help there from Her Majesty's Government. and we rather suspect that we are having no help because they think that Western Germany may look upon such trade with an unfavourable eye. But Norway will, in 1957, supply white fish to the extent of 43 million kroners' worth, approximately £ 2¼ million worth. Iceland will supply East Germany with 3 million dollars' worth of fish, that is, approximately £ 1¼ million worth, of which some £ 1 million worth will be white fish. Here is a market which we could usefully have.
Again, to Czechoslovakia we supplied £ 120,000 worth of frozen white fillets in 1955. But what of 1957? Whilst Her Majesty's Government have gone ahead with the proposal to export herring to Czechoslovakia— we have been talking about herring tonight— white fish has been left out altogether. Yet the Czechs are importing 7,000 tons of white fish. valued at about £ 900,000 from Iceland
These things are happening around us. We have the opportunity now to go ahead. If we do not, we may find ourselves in difficulty. With the development of the modern trawler, we have agreements now being made, and working, but the trawlers are not fishing to capacity. We have arrangements made to stop overfishing during the summer months. Approximately 4 per cent. of trawlers are laid off for refits and other reasons, but this is really a method of laying them off so that there shall not be an overloading of the market with fish landings. If only Her Majesty's Government would give help in making the agreements that they are at present busy with, the industry would be grateful. We could use all our capacity.
There is one other matter which I must mention, which is the danger point in any help we may get. Arrangements would have to be made, if we had this extension of the overseas market for white fish, so that the trawler owners, who would probably be running the new association which is being set up, would not have first call on fish landings for the export market; that would be dynamite and would upset the whole position. The idea is that the shortfall in herrings which should go to the Soviet should be made up in white fish. Let us press that. Let us not take "No" from the
1140
Russians; they say "No" too often and get away with it. We should be tough with them and insist that a section of the shortfall should be taken in white fish.
If that were done, we could develop our deep-freezing industry, which would mean more employment. Only in the last two weeks, we have had reports from Hull that the unemployment figures again are creeping up, and we have no hope for them in ordinary industry, unless we establish some trading estate. In the fishing industry, however, we could absorb these people. We need extra filleters, extra men on the dock and in the ice factories and men for the development of ice factories and deep freeze facilities. That would be for the benefit not only of the whole of the North-East Coast, which it would develop, but also the ports on the East Coast, which could do well from that, and it would help the export trade.
I apologise for occupying the time of the House at this late hour, but I hope the Minister will give some indication that the Department will give all the help that is possible to our white fish industry.
11.51 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The hon. and gallant Member for Hull, West (Captain Hewitson) was kind enough to indicate to me beforehand the line which he would be taking during this brief debate. I hope that he will be satisfied if I do not try to answer some of the wider points which he has raised relating to the state of the fishing industry as a whole, which would be more properly answered by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and if I for my part confine myself to the heart of his speech: namely, the question of exporting more white fish caught by the British white fish industry, to what we might describe as the Iron Curtain countries, and particularly to the U.S.S.R. It might, therefore, be most helpful to the House if I were to reply to the debate by taking each market in turn and outlining our proposals.
Far and away the most important market is the Soviet Union. Our trade with the U.S.S.R. is on an informal basis because we have no formal trade agreement.

1141
We have, however, been making arrangements each year whereby the United Kingdom has granted import licences for canned crab from the Soviet Union equal to the value of the cured herring for which the Russians have placed a contract with the Herring Industry Board.
The hon. and gallant Member suggested that these imports of crab and salmon were to some extent competitive with fresh white fish. That is a matter for debate, because there is a definite and distinctive taste and demand for tinned crab and salmon which could not be equally well satisfied by fresh white fish. I have been interested to notice the vigorous and able advertising campaign promoted by the white fish industry designed to attract the public to a greater consumption of white fish. I hope that it will succeed.
As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has pointed out, we have run into difficulties in connection with the two-way trade between Russia and ourselves in fish and fish products. I need not burden the House with the full background details at this late hour, but the trouble has been that the last two years' herring contracts have been under-fulfilled. Because of that— I stress particularly what I am now saying, because the hon. and gallant Member asked the Government to do something to help—we are determined this year to try to do something to help the white fish industry. We have decided that white fish exports to the U.S.S.R. should be supported in the same way as herring exports have been supported in the past. We are, therefore, asking the Soviet authorities to balance a definite part of their exports of canned crab to the United Kingdom with imports of white fish from this country. I hope that that will result in a substantial quantity of white fish of British origin entering the U.S.S.R.
Now, perhaps, I might turn to some of the other countries which have been mentioned. In regard to Poland, under our trade agreement last year with Poland we obtained no quota at all for white fish. Under the trade agreement for this year there is a quota of £ 150,000 for fish for what is described in the agreement as
" fish of all descriptions, of which cured herrings not exceeding £ 30,000 …"
1142
That, of course, means that there is a large element of the quota available to white fish, although admittedly no white fish has so far been sold against that quota. The quota has not yet been open for long, so that it would be far too soon to complain to the Poles about their not taking steps to fulfil it. But the quota is there, and we hope that full use will be made of it.
I turn to Czechoslovakia. At the moment, I must admit, we have not been successful in securing a quota for exports of white fish in the trade arrangements with Czechoslovakia. The agreement was made in October, 1956, and covers trade until the end of this year. The present position is that the Czechs have undertaken to purchase up to £ 95,000 of herring, and they have noted our desire for them to accept our white fish. They did, however, say quite definitely that they did not think, at the time when the agreement was negotiated, that there was any market in Czechoslovakia for white fish. We had to accept the position, while reminding them of our desire to export white fish to them. We shall make further efforts to obtain a quota for white fish when we next negotiate with the Czechs. This will be in time for the new trade agreement covering the calendar year 1958.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to Eastern Germany, and he said that there was no hope of help from the Government. That is not really quite the case, as I shall seek to explain. As hon. Members know, Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the East German authorities and we cannot, therefore, enter into trade arrangements with them. The Board of Trade is, however. willing to continue the arrangements under which we shall issue licences for the import of certain less essential East German goods against the export to them of white fish of equivalent value. Those facilities, of which the white fish industry is already aware, are the same as the arrangements which have already been made by the herring industry.
I should like to turn now to the other Iron Curtain countries, Hungary and Bulgaria. Fish exports to those remaining satellite countries are on a small scale. Under the current trade arrangements Hungary, for example, has established a quota for imports of fish cured, frozen or

1143
salted to a value of £ 20,000. Bulgaria has agreed to a quota for herring and white fish to a value of £ 50,000.
I have made considerable references to quotas, and I would make it plain that if, when any of the quotas for Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria have been opened for some time, no purchases have been made against them, we shall of course he ready to take the matter up with the country concerned.
I hope that from what I have said the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree
1144
that the Government are doing their best to promote the export of white fish in addition to herring to the Soviet Union and to the satellite countries of Eastern Europe. We cannot compel them to take our white fish. We are doing our very best to give what support we can to the understandable desire of the industry to increase its most valuable and important exports.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.

MALAYA AND SINGAPORE
  Constitution (Discussions)
  Constitution (Discussions)
  Legislative Elections (Candidates)
  Legislative Elections (Candidates)
SIERRA LEONE
  African Farmers
  African Farmers
  Economic Survey
  Economic Survey
TANGANYIKA
  Bukoba Air Service
  Bukoba Air Service
  Elections
  Elections
CYPRUS
  Oil Prospecting Licence
  Oil Prospecting Licence
ROYAL NAVY
  Hardway, Gosport (H.M.S. "Sultan")
  Hardway, Gosport (H.M.S. "Sultan")
  Admiralty Yard, Belfast (Orders)
  Admiralty Yard, Belfast (Orders)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Dominion Exchange
  Dominion Exchange
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Air Trooping
  Air Trooping
TRANSPORT
  Safe Driving Awards
  Safe Driving Awards
  Midland Red Omnibus Company (Fares)
  Midland Red Omnibus Company (Fares)
  Kingsway Tunnel (Use)
  Kingsway Tunnel (Use)
  British Transport Commission (Report)
  British Transport Commission (Report)
ROADS
  Traffic Signs
  Traffic Signs
  Improvement Scheme, Dagenham
  Improvement Scheme, Dagenham
  Dual-Carriageways, Swansea (Width)
  Dual-Carriageways, Swansea (Width)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Air Trooping Aircraft (Maintenance)
  Air Trooping Aircraft (Maintenance)
  Viking Aircraft
  Viking Aircraft
RAILWAYS
  Accident, Welwyn Garden City (Inquiry)
  Accident, Welwyn Garden City (Inquiry)
SHIPPING
  Merchant Vessels
  Merchant Vessels
  European Common Market
  European Common Market
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Recruiting Offices
  Recruiting Offices
  EGYPT (SUEZ CANAL)
  EGYPT (SUEZ CANAL)
  UNITED STATES SIXTH FLEET (MOVEMENTS)
  UNITED STATES SIXTH FLEET (MOVEMENTS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Dock Labour Scheme (Report)
  Dock Labour Scheme (Report)
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  United Kingdom and Ghana (Technical Assistance)
  United Kingdom and Ghana (Technical Assistance)
  Pamphlet (Ghana)
  Pamphlet (Ghana)
  Swaziland Mineral Development Commission (Report)
  Swaziland Mineral Development Commission (Report)
HOSPITALS
  Mental Patients (Alcoholic Psychosis)
  Mental Patients (Alcoholic Psychosis)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence, St. Pancras
  Civil Defence, St. Pancras
SCOTLAND
  East Kilbride
  East Kilbride
  Clyde Bridge, Carstairs
  Clyde Bridge, Carstairs

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

BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL
React 3a, and passed.
CATTEDOWN WHARVES BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

EGYPT: BRITISH SUBJECTS' BLOCKED ACCOUNTS
LORD GIFFORD: 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 consultations have yet taken place with representatives of Barclays D.C. & O. and other trading banks with a view to facilitating advances against blocked sterling accounts to British subjects expelled from Egypt; and to institutions whose property has been seized by the Egyptian Government.]
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, Barclays Bank D.C.O. has recently been in communication with the Bank of England, on behalf of itself and a number of other banks about the position of securities held by these banks to the order of Egyptian branches for the account of customers of these branches who have been expelled from Egypt. Her Majesty's Government are examining this problem as part of the wider problem of the steps to be taken to obtain the return of assets sequestrated in Egypt, or satisfactory compensation for them. This wider problem is under urgent examination, but I am sorry to say I am not at present in a position to make any further statement.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his
422
Answer, but, in view of the great hardship which is being caused to many of those expelled from Egypt by this long delay, will Her Majesty's Government do their utmost to get representatives of Barclays Bank D.C.O., and other private banks, of the Treasury and of the Bank of England around a table for a conference at the earliest possible date, when I believe it would be possible to resolve many, if not all, of the difficulties?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, communications are taking place and Her Majesty's Government are considering the matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I feel sure that the noble and learned Viscount realises that Members in all parts of your Lordships' House have received very strong representations about the hardship caused in this matter and that there is a growing feeling in the country that, as it arises so largely from national policy over the past year, we hold a national responsibility. Might some greater urgency, therefore, be given to the question of seeing that some immediate relief is given to these people who are suffering such great hardship?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that our hearts and our consciences are as deeply affected by this as are anybody else's. On the whole, I would be more prepared than the noble Viscount to say that the hardship was caused rather by an unjust expulsion by a foreign Power than by Government policy. But that in no way detracts from the seriousness with which we regard the hardship caused.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, while, as I understand, the hearts of Her Majesty's Government are open, what about their purse?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the purse is as much the noble Earl's as ours.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, arising out of the Answer of the noble and learned Viscount, may I perhaps bring him from the general to the particular and ask him whether his attention has been called to these documents—National Savings Certificates—and to what is printed in very large type on the first page: "
Everybody's gilt-edged security":

423
and on the last page: "National Savings Certificates are of no value to any person but the registered holder"? Can the noble and learned Viscount, therefore, explain why large numbers of National Savings Certificates, bought by British subjects in Cairo during the war and now deposited physically in the United Kingdom, are not allowed to be paid out, and why their owners cannot draw against them? The situation defies all understanding by the simple man in the street. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will explain how that is justified.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, has concluded his supplementary question, perhaps he will allow me to say that that is not the Question which is on the Order Paper. If he cares to put a Question down he will receive an Answer.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: My Lords, further to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I would say that if the purse is the State's, the purse strings are Her Majesty's Government's. Is the noble and learned Viscount aware of that?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have responsibility for all these things, and therefore must try to act with a sense of public responsibility.

PETROL ALLOWANCE FOR HIGHLAND VISITORS
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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 any statement to make regarding the continuation of petrol rationing, and in particular regarding the announcement given to the Press that the Minister of Power has made special arrangements for the supply of extra petrol to motorists visiting the Highlands of Scotland.]
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, a statement about petrol rationing generally will be made as soon as possible. Meanwhile it remains the view of Her Majesty's Government that petrol rationing should not
424
be removed until an adequate and regular flow of supplies is assured. As to extra petrol for motorists visiting the Northern Highlands of Scotland, the scheme which was announced on May 3. and which comes into operation on May 13, is intended to assist the Northern Highlands tourist industry which is exceptionally dependent on visitors who come by car.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord mind explaining to your Lordships why petrol rationing is now used as a subsidy for the hotel industry in a certain part of the country? Might I ask him whether he does not think it grossly unfair that a motorist who leaves the South of England to go to Inverness, coming back from Inverness is able to obtain petrol equivalent roughly to one-and-a-half months' basic ration supply for the purpose of returning to the South of England, while a motorist travelling from Inverness to the South of England, or from Newcastle, let us say, to the South Coast, or from East Anglia to the Lake District, does not get anything at all? Surely the noble Lord recognises that if there is a surplus of petrol to be shared out in this way the principle of equity must obtain? Might I also ask whether he will once again look into the system which I suggested to him on two previous occasions—that if he would increase the basic ration of petrol to all motorists there would be no necessity for this unfair discrimination? Finally, would he not agree with me that while his machine of rationing must perhaps be kept in existence, he has power in his hands at any time, day or night, to alter it one way or another as befits the national circumstances?
LORD MILLS: The Northern Highlands are in an exceptional position. They are far from the main centres of population, the public transport facilities are not good and the tourist industry there is very dependent upon tourists who come by car. It is quite an exceptional case. It is the worst case. Therefore, I think I am fully justified in trying to aid that industry. Now the noble Lord, I am glad to note, recognises that perhaps there is some need to continue rationing. As to the extent of the rationing. I must rely upon the calculations of my own Department rather than upon the wishes of the noble Lord.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is able to say offhand what percentage of pre-Suez stocks of petrol are at present in storage in this country?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am not sure that that has anything to do with the Question. But our stocks are reasonably adequate, and are just a little less than normal.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I ask the noble Lord to tell us a little more about this question of extra petrol rations to support the tourist industry in certain quarters? If there is a case for the Scottish tourist industry for extra petrol for anything over 200 miles, why does he not apply that principle to every other district of the country to which people may go from centres of population over 200 miles distant? Such places where the tourist industry is operating are legion. There are, for instance, the Cornish Riviera, North Wales and the Lake District. Why should a special handicap be put on them now by giving this preference to the North of Scotland?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I said that the conditions in the Northern Highlands are exceptional. They are highly dependent upon the tourist industry, and the very fact that the noble Viscount points out that there are numerous cases where the distance is over 200 miles is, I think, sufficient answer why I cannot do it for everyone.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the motorist does not have to go to the Highlands—he has only to go as far as Inverness.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Inverness is n the Highlands.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Inverness is not a remote district away from all other means of communication
426
than that afforded by the motor car. If the motorist goes to Inverness from the South of England he can get 500 miles' worth of petrol to get him back to the South of England again. He can get that petrol to get him back to the South of England because the South of England is 500 miles from Inverness. The motorist has only to go as far as Inverness; he need not go a mile further. I have never understood that rail communications as far as Inverness are so bad that the hotel industry in Inverness and south of Inverness must be aided by means of this supplementary ration of petrol.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, wrong in his assumption that Inverness is not in the Highlands. In any plan of this kind we have to start at some point, and Inverness, being in the Highlands, is not a bad starting point.
LORD REA: My Lords, arising out of the last supplementary question, would the noble Lord consider giving the figures of imports, stocks and consumption for, say, April of last year compared with April, 1957?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, that is not in the Question, but I like to be as forthcoming as I am able. The stocks and imports are at present rather less than they were last year.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that: his concession to the Highlands of Scotland has been welcomed not only by the Highlands but all over Scotland, since everybody in Scotland knows that there is no part of the country which, I venture to think, has been so hard hit by rationing as the Highlands, or to which the tourist industry is more important in the summer months?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I should have thought that the English love for Scotland would have made our proposals very welcome indeed.

DEFENCE POLICY
2.51 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT) rose to move to resolve, That this House approves of the Outline of Future Policy of Defence (Cmd. 124). The noble Lord said: My Lords, the outline of our country's future defence policy, published four weeks ago, in which your Lordships' concurrence is now sought, is one of the most important statements of Government policy ever put before Parliament. Since its publication, and the publication of the Service Estimates, there has been an unusually wide discussion on the principles involved—a worldwide discussion, indeed, and one that reflects the far-reaching significance of the policy that Her Majesty's Government had advanced. That discussion is welcome; but, after all, this document is no more than an outline of future defence policy, a statement of the main principles which are to be translated into specific decisions, as part of a single comprehensive pattern for the next five years.
There have, however, been some comments which I think have pulled particular pieces of the pattern out of their setting and have slightly distorted the perspective. For example, some critics have suggested that we intend to rely too much on the use of nuclear weapons, to the virtual exclusion of that always underestimated but always invaluable character—the man with the rifle on his shoulder. The Government's policy has been represented by some simply as a political plan to end National Service; or as a questionable gamble which will give us missiles instead of men; or as a unilateral decision bounced upon our Allies and aimed at reducing the taxpayer's burden whilst side-stepping the consequences to the Western Alliance. None of this is true. This debate will, I hope, do something to restore the perspective and to clear people's minds, at home and abroad, on what our future policy really involves.
Let me briefly restate our intentions. There are three main factors which have governed the evolution of our policy: the recent spectacular advances in military technology; the fact that the prevention of war and the defence of the free world depend primarily on collective defence—
428
this, of course, is the basis of the North Atlantic Alliance; the South East Asia Alliance and the Baghdad Alliance; and thirdly, the fact that this country has for some years been contributing more than its fair share to the system of collective defence and must imperatively evolve a defence programme which eases the strain on its solvency.
Our new policy is based upon these three factors together; not upon any one of them alone. One pre-eminent point, however. I must make at once. If we could reduce the risk of war, through a genuine international disarmament, matters would be vastly different. We are trying to achieve this in the discussions going on at the moment, but it would not be sensible to consider, say, the problems of our own nuclear tests in isolation, as if they were a totally separate matter.
Your Lordships will have noted the important new proposals put forward by the Government last Monday. We continue to believe that the overriding aim in all our military planning must be to prevent war. We continue to believe that at present upon the fear of immediate nuclear retaliation, on a massive scale, with all its attendant and inconceivable horrors, depends the prospect of avoiding global war. We propose to continue our contribution to the nuclear deterrent power of the free world. This is our major protection against the outbreak of that third global war.
Next, we must make a fair and adequate contribution to the balanced pattern of armed forces which the Western Alliance as a whole maintains in order to prevent that war. Right away we find ourselves considering the concept of collectively balanced forces. This is, in turn, part of the concept of collective defence. We recognise that we have been trying to do too much. We must now consider what is the best contribution we can fairly, honestly and usefully make, which will not so endanger our economy that we dishearten our friends and cheer our foes by arming ourselves into bankruptcy, but which still enables us to meet our world-wide responsibilities.
N.A.T.O. strategy is based on the principle that the security of the North Atlantic area is founded not only on the possession by the Alliance of nuclear

429
weapons but also on the possession of sufficient: forces on the ground to demonstrate that all attempts at aggression will be firmly resisted. Our contribution to the Alliance has always been potent. It will remain so. But when we cut the total size of our Forces almost by half, as we plan to do for the reasons I have just explained, our contribution to the Alliance in land, sea and tactical air forces obviously cannot remain unchanged.
When we come to our contribution to the defence of other areas of the world against possible Russian aggression, we must again remember that our membership of the Baghdad Pact and S.E.A.T.O. means that we contribute to the security of the other members of these Alliances by the very fact of our possession of nuclear deterrent forces, which could intervene with great effect in those areas. Our next task is to defend our fellow-citizens in our own Colonies and the people of the protected territories against local attack. In the Middle East, we shall continue to maintain a force strong enough to defend Aden Colony and the Protectorates and those territories on the Persian Gulf for whose safety we are responsible. There will be substantial garrisons in Cyprus and Hong Kong.
In general, our policy is to depend more and more on the increasing strength and efficiency of Colonial forces and our growing capacity to reinforce rapidly. We are entitled also to note the increasing ability of the independent members of the Commonwealth to play their part. We shall, therefore, be reducing overseas garrisons which are too small to be effective yet too large to be economical. But we are, of course, maintaining a Central Reserve in the United Kingdom. We shall be providing the means of rapid mobility for this Central Reserve, primarily with a fleet of transport aircraft, under Royal Air Force control. These transport resources under Royal Air Force control will be supplemented, where necessary, by suitable civil aircraft and, of course, by naval and mercantile vessels. Two new troopships, incidentally, have recently gone into commission. The rapid mobility of our Central Reserve is now a major feature of our defence planning.
There seems to have been some doubt about the future rôle of the Royal Navy.
430
Perhaps this is because the White Paper suggests that the rôle of naval forces in total war cannot be precisely forecast. Of course, it cannot. But surely that is true of all the forces in a global war. There are, however, two points which are made in the White Paper and which I should like to emphasise. In the first place, it is the strategy of the North Atlantic Alliance to maintain substantial naval forces and maritime air units against the possibility that we may have to defend Atlantic communications and our own lifeline against a formidable Russian submarine attack if the initial nuclear exchanges in a global war do riot prove decisive. What we are saying, however, is that the contribution which this country had made to that strategy will have to be reduced, on the grounds that we have been trying to do too much, all over the world. Nevertheless, we shall continue to make a very substantial contribution to N.A.T.O.'s naval forces. The second point I should like to reiterate is that it is the Government's policy that the Royal Navy, though smaller, should be fully modern and effective. It will thus, with its inherent mobility, provide the means of bringing power rapidly to bear in times of sudden upheaval and emergency. It is with this in mind that we now base the main fighting strength of the Royal Navy on a number of aircraft-carrier groups.
Your Lordships of course appreciate that there is a continuing and vital rôle for the Royal Air Force to play. Fighter Command will continue to play its part in the defence of the home-based deterrent force. Transport Command, as I have explained, will be an all-important element in the mobility of our reserves. The medium V-bomber force will make a major contribution to the deterrent; so will the light Canberra bombers, which can also carry the nuclear bomb.
All this leads the Government to the conclusion that we should be able to discharge our responsibilities to ourselves and to our Allies with Armed Forces considerably smaller than at present. This means that we shall be able to dispense with the hitherto essential—but inherently uneconomic—contribution which National Service men have made since the War to the Active Forces. May I stress the importance of this contribution? National Service men have served very

431
stoutly in Korea, in Malaya (where I saw them for myself), in Kenya and elsewhere, side by side with their Regular comrades. We are, however, now planning on the basis that there will be no further call-up under the National Service Acts after the end of 1960.
This now presents us with the task of obtaining sufficient Regulars to man the reduced forces. We must convince the potential Regular recruit that service in the Armed Forces is a wholly honourable and rewarding career, and we hope to have the good will of the nation behind us in so doing. But we shall succeed in attracting enough Regular Service men only if we can show that their conditions of service compare well, in the context of Service requirements, with those in civil life. We are overhauling the whole range of conditions in the Services, and intend to make improvements in no niggardly fashion.
I turn from men to missiles. To what extent shall we be relying upon nuclear weapons? May I review for a moment the actual nuclear weapons with which the West is equipped or is equipping itself? The means of delivery at long ranges of kiloton and megaton bombs will be the V-bombers of the Royal Air Forces. There will also be a variety of tactical nuclear weapons operated by the three Services. The Royal Navy will have strike aircraft with kiloton bombs; the Army will have the Corporal now, and several other nuclear weapons in the future; and the Royal Air Force will have Canberras carrying kiloton bombs. This contribution to the major deterrent against global war will also be supplemented by ballistic rockets. The United States have agreed in principle to supply us with medium-range missiles of this type.
It is wrong however to suggest that it is the nature of the weapons used that would determine whether a conflict developed into an all-out struggle. The truth is the other way round. The scale of military effort the contestants put out would depend on the extent to which the conflict became a matter of life and death to them. The doctrine of economy of force still remains valid. No Government and no commander would use more resources than they thought was essential to carry out the task effectively.
One certainly cannot rule out the possibility of a situation in which the Allies reacted to aggression by using nuclear weapons but without full-scale thermonuclear retaliation. As I say, it is the nature of the situation that would determine the type of action called for. Unquestionably any serious act of aggression would create an exceedingly dangerous situation, which might lead rapidly to all-out war. But that would not depend primarily on the nature of the weapons used.
It is absurd to suppose that a bitterly contested struggle involving, say, fifty divisions could be fought without risk of its developing into total war, simply because the explosives used were let off in artillery barrages of very large numbers of small explosions rather than small numbers of large explosions. And, incidentally, it must not be thought that all nuclear explosions need be at least as big as the Hiroshima explosion. They could range all the way down to something less than the equivalent of, say, one thousand tons of T.N.T. In the sustained artillery barrage of the sort put up on the eve of the major battles that ended twelve years ago to-day the Royal Artillery used something in the neighbourhood of 1,600 tons of T.N.T. To do this, a commander would have deployed about 150 batteries of the Royal Regiment involving something like 30,000 men, without counting the second line and beyond. The same amount of fire power can now be directed against enemy forces by nuclear weapons without, on the one hand, producing in a single explosion the devastating effect of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and, furthermore, without employing anything like 30,000 men.
But it seems to me that there are two mistakes into which the Allies must on no account fall. First, we should not attempt to maintain conventional forces on a scale designed to enable us to engage in a life-and-death struggle with Russia with these forces alone. We should bankrupt ourselves in the ensuing arms race, and we should lose it. It would certainly mean keeping National Service in the United Kingdom. Secondly, we should not define in advance precisely what form our reaction to particular threats would take. To do so, even if it were practicable, would, to my way of thinking, not diminish but increase the risks, because it would invite an aggressor to plan his

433
aggression, carefully designed to leave him in a state of advantage. The point that we must make clear in advance is that the freedom of the free world will be preserved by the use of whatever measures are needed.
In some quarters the Government's determination to continue tests of our own hydrogen bomb (and to build up a stock when the tests are completed) has been vehemently attacked. Attacks upon the Russians for doing precisely the same are, oddly enough, less often heard. We believe, however, that the policy of placing reliance on large conventional forces, armed solely with non-nuclear weapons, is just another way of preparing to fight a war and lose it. I myself believe—and one has one's views—that the advent of the hydrogen bomb and the realisation of its immeasurably destructive power has edged the danger of global war a little into the background. That danger will remain in the background only so long as we maintain and make abundantly clear our determination to resist aggression.
It is no use having a policy which permits us to reduce the manpower of the Services to a small Regular force unless we stiffen the power of those Regular forces with nuclear weapons. And if we are going to have this terrible H-bomb, we must obviously test it. To call a halt ourselves, but still to shelter under the protection of the American bomb, strikes me as frankly immoral. Testing is, of course, a necessary part of the development and manufacture of weapons of any kind. Those who suggest that we should abandon our nuclear tests are, in effect, asking us to throw over our long-prepared and costly nuclear weapons programme and surrender our participation in the deterrent. This would mean not only that we should be in a far weaker position to make our political contribution to the affairs of the world but also that we should, in effect, be relying almost entirely for the defence of our own country on America. In present circumstances, our defence consists fundamentally in the power to hit back. In other words our defence consists in ensuring that we shall not be attacked.
There have been complaints that there was inadequate consultation with our Allies about our new policy. There have been some sensational and. I think, rather
434
silly suggestions that our new policy amounts to a partial withdrawal from N.A.T.O. Nothing could be further from the truth. The facts are that since the end of 1955 we have been urging on our partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation the imperative necessity of re-thinking a defence policy that will reflect the development of the hydrogen bomb and the swelling economic power of Russia.
We told our Allies at the end of 1955 that we were trying to work out a basic new approach to our own defence policy, and that we should place the results before them when we were in a position to do so. This we have done punctiliously. There should therefore be no grounds for the suggestion that this re-examination came as a surprise to our Allies, though the realism of our conclusions may possibly have shocked them. We have also observed scrupulously the requirement to consult fully with our N.A.T.O. Allies about that part of our new policy which affects our contribution to the forces placed under the N.A.T.O. Supreme Commanders.
The proposal which we put before our partners in N.A.T.O. was that, as part of the streamlining of our forces throughout the world, we should, then and there, reduce the British Army of the Rhine by 27,000 men and our 2nd Tactical Air Force of the Royal Air Force by about half, both processes to be completed by March 31, 1958. Our Allies requested us to limit the withdrawal of men from the British Army of the Rhine of 13,500 in the period up to March 31, 1958. This we have agreed to do, on the understanding that in the autumn of this year the Allies, in their turn, will give further consideration to our outstanding proposals. This fact is striking evidence of the reality of the consultation which goes on between the partners in Western European Union and in N.A.T.O. Our Allies recognise that we are pulling more than our fair weight. We recognise, on our part, that the speed with which we had felt it necessary to reduce the Army in Germany would not give the Allies adequate time to re-set the field. But the Germans themselves cannot escape blame for the slowness of their build-up.
Although we are making a numerical reduction in the size of the British Army in Germany, the reduction in fighting

435
capacity is by no means proportionate to the number of men pulled back. Quite apart from the increased strength which the possession of tactical nuclear weapons will give both the Army and the R.A.F., our Army will be reorganised so as to increase the proportion of fighting troops to administrative troops—the proportion between "teeth" and "tail."
There is a great deal of public concern, both inside the Services and out, not only with the measures which we must take to make the career of the regular Service man sufficiently attractive to ensure that we shall get the men we want, but also with the more immediate problem of providing real compensation for those officers and men whose chosen careers may have to be prematurely and unhappily ended as the Forces are run down to their permanent all-Regular level. We are acutely aware of the anxieties and uncertainties which must now be troubling the minds of many Regular officers and men, and their wives. The sooner these anxieties and uncertainties can be resolved the better. I can assure your Lordships that the task of working out a fair scheme of compensation, and one which is regarded as fair by the men themselves and by the country which they have honourably served, is recognised by the Government as of paramount importance. What is more, disgruntled ex-Service men make poor recruiting officers.
Before we can put an end to the uncertainties and anxieties, we have a formidable planning operation to carry out. The Defence White Paper was an outline of future policy for some years ahead. It did not pretend to be a nicely calculated exercise. The outline came first: the calculations are now in train. We want to ensure some finality. We and our potential recruits want as little chopping and changing as possible—the Army has a word for that. The Service Departments are engaged on working out in detail the new Order of Battle and the administrative arrangements for putting the plan into effect. The evolution of the plan will be detailed and immensely complicated, and it will not. I am afraid, be ready to-morrow.
Two things, above all—I hope I can obtain your Lordships' agreement for this—must be achieved: a new, full and attractive career, with good prospects for the right men and as little trespass as
436
possible upon those old and proud traditions of ship, regiment and squadron in which the loyalty and morale of the Armed Forces of the Crown are so deeply rooted. There are few more attractive intellectual exercises than that of armchair strategy. It is an exercise, however, in which a Government which intends to govern can seldom indulge, because, unlike the armchair strategist, a Government must eventually make up its mind, stir its stumps, get out of its chair, take a decision, and carry it out.
This, my Lords, is what the Government has done. I do not maintain that every "t" in our plans has yet been correctly crossed and every "i" dotted, to the satisfaction of every armchair strategist. Military progress (if that be the right word) is nowadays too rapid and the ensuing complications of defence too imponderable for that. I believe, however, that we have fairly and squarely acknowledged our obligations. I believe that we have correctly estimated our assets, and realistically accepted our limitations. I believe that we have dealt honourably with our allies; I believe, too, that we are fully and properly discharging our responsibilities towards the country for whose safety Her Majesty's Government must always inescapably answer, and I ask for your Lordships' approval of the manner in which we are doing it. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House approves of the Outline of Future Policy of Defence (Cmd. 124).—(Lord Mancroft.)
3.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords. I must say that in all the addresses we have had on Defence from the Government Benches in the last five or six years, I doubt whether we have ever had a speech so rapid and so full of apparent confidence as we have had to-day. If those two qualities are especially deserving of congratulation on this vastly important subject, then the noble Lord certainly has my congratulations. I wish that there were in the country at large anything approaching the type of confidence in the policy indicated to us by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Of course, he was perfectly right, at the opening of his speech, when he drew attention to the importance of these defence debates this year. Nor is he wrong in suggesting that they have

437
become of world-wide interest, and that they have been widely commented upon by different forms of world opinion. But when we consider what has made these debates so important, perhaps we shall get some further guidance.
The Government's decision in this White Paper, primarily on weapons (because it has been made clear to us in another place that it is the decision upon weapons which is at the base of the new general defence policy and which guides and governs the whole of our future strategy and defence organisation) was. I think, correctly described by the Prime Minister the other day in another place as "a terrible decision." It is a terrible decision. By whatever events we have arrived at this point of departure, it means, if closely followed and leading to its logical belligerent result, that should strife occur, there will be no return. That is a matter of very great seriousness to the nation. In this matter of adopting the nuclear weapon as the basis of our strategy, perhaps the point of greatest importance to the people of this country to consider at present—because, if the White Paper is right (and I think it is) there is no known adequate defence in this country to the weapon—is that, whilst other countries possessing the nuclear weapon have certain reserves in depth, we in this country have no reserves in depth. That is what makes it so vital a question for the population as a whole. That is what is wrapped up in the "terrible decision" which the Prime Minister says the Government have had to make.
But that does not mean, surely, that, because it is a terrible decision, we cannot have some sympathy with the Government in the position in which they find themselves in having to come to this decision. All political considerations apart, I have never been—and I think your Lordships will grant me this—among those who have at any time on matters of defence sought to lay principal blames upon my own countrymen, without considering the contribution to world chaos in these questions which has come from other countries, very often deliberately and wilfully. We cannot in such matters be unaware of the terrible risks which are being placed upon us, not merely by our mistakes and omissions but by the actual, active opposition to disarmament, and therefore to agreed
438
peace, which has come from other countries.
But, whatever our sympathy with the Government in finding themselves in that position in having to make their decision, it does not and must not mean that citizens with any sense of responsibility to their country and to their families in this matter are not entitled to criticise past errors. Nor is there any doubt as to the sharp and painful division that has been created in the country, throughout the nation, on the recent decision of the Government set out in the White Paper. That division exists in Parties—because by no means is there unanimity in the Conservative Party. There is certainly not unanimity in the Labour Party about it, and we shall no doubt hear later in the debate whether there is unanimity in the Liberal Party.
If we look to outside religious opinion, we find that there is a sharp division in the Churches. It was only last week that the denomination to which I am proud to belong, the Baptist denomination, had in their General Assembly a motion on this matter, a motion which was, from my point of view, quite a right sort of one in regard to the use of nuclear power. They took a vote on an amendment to the motion, the amendment being in favour of immediate suspension of all tests. With nearly 700 votes in the Assembly, there was a majority against the amendment of only 5. That is the measure of the sharpness of the division in organisations like the national Churches, and right throughout the nation. Therefore it is quite clear that the decision that the Government have portrayed in this White Paper is of very great, indeed vast, importance.
How have we come to this actual position to-day? If we look at paragraphs 2 and 5 of the White Paper, we have a little guide. Paragraph 2, a little way down, says this:
"It was clear that the plan for a short intensive rearmament spurt "—
that is, speaking of the period immediately after the Korean war—
"no longer fitted the needs of the situation, and that for it must be substituted the conception of the 'long haul'. It also became evident that a military effort on the scale planned in 1950. which envisaged expenditure amounting to £4,700 million over three years, was beyond the country's capacity."

439
That was immediately after the Korean war which was very nearly four years ago. Then if we look at paragraph 5, we see that it says:
"But it is only now that the future picture is becoming sufficiently clear to enable a comprehensive reshaping of policy to be undertaken with any degree of confidence."
My own view upon that is that, however difficult it may have been, we have been singularly slow in coming to a decision on these matters, whether this decision is right or wrong. In this House, for more than five years now we have requested that there should be a real inquiry into these matters, not forgetting that that inquiry should include something which is now portrayed by the Government in their statement of policy as being factual—that is, that the economic position of our country is a very important part of our capacity for defence. That fact has been mentioned again and again in the requests we have made for economy, for until we had a new Minister of Defence a few months ago, and until he had been to the United States of America for consultation, no decision was made, no presentation of a Paper of this importance could be made ready or presented to Parliament. That is a great pity.
No doubt, to some considerable degree that state of affairs stems from the fact that in this vastly important Department, the Ministry of Defence, there has been very little in the nature of continuity of ministerial control of policy. Of all the Departments that need such continuity, so that a Minister is given time to formulate and control policy, surely the Defence Department is one of the most special. Yet during the period of office of the present Government we have had, including the present Minister, six Ministers of Defence, five of them in rather less than two and a half years. How on earth it is thought to be possible to have real work with Chiefs of Staff, and to ensure continuity of policy, with so rapid a change of Ministers as that. I do not know. It seems to me a most extraordinary state of affairs. It is one of the factors which has forced this kind of decision upon us, so late that we have reached the position of having to build a policy in which we are pushed into the cul-de-sac of having to rely now upon the ultimate deterrent from which we shall have considerable difficulty in extricating ourselves.
440
One of the contributory factors, perhaps, to the policy set out in this White Paper has been the general result of the Suez policy, the Suez adventure. I think that must be said. I am making no complaint at all about the Minister of Defence and what he has had to do in the present circumstances, whether his decision has been right or wrong; but I do say that the effects of the Suez policy have been a profound factor in the general make-up of the policy now adumbrated in the White Paper. The Government must get back on to an economic level keel. They must try to restore the country's economic capacity to be able to conduct an adequate defence. There must be a looking back at all angles by the Minister of Defence. No doubt he would be quite right in doing so, but when we consider the cost of (a) the actual operations in Suez, and (b) the economic effect upon our situation as a whole, then the Government have seriously impaired the nation's capacity to maintain anything like the present and past rate of expenditure since 1950 upon armaments. There is another special pointer showing how and why this White Paper has been produced. That is a very great pity.
Before I go on to another point, let me say this on the economic issue, and know it will be resented by some because it is no doubt a political point. I think we took grave risks and went a long way in adopting the triennial programme which was desired by our Allies in 1950–51, and pushed up our defence programme to £4,700 millions for the three years, but I believe that our country is not so bereft of capacity to deal with these matters if, in face of great problems like that we work upon planned economy and, if necessary, physical control. But in fact we have apparently never been able to keep up with the actual plan of the triennial programme, because since 1951 we have been pursuing very largely a "free-for-all" in our economy; therefore we have not been getting anything like the reserves of material equipment that we should have had if the triennial programme had been carried through.
Now I would say one or two further words upon the White Paper itself. I am very glad indeed to note in paragraph 10 of the White Paper the emphasis upon

441
the fact that no country can any longer protect itself in isolation.
"The defence of Britain is possible only as part of the collective defence of the free world."
That is by no means a new statement; it has been made by many people of different military authority and different political outlook in the past. But it is essential that it should be emphasised; and if it is adhered to surely we should not engage in any more military adventures of the Suez type, because that was made, it seems to me, without due consultation with our Allies. That alliance was carefully and painfully built up over the years from the first Brussels Treaty until it now has a very wide spread. In my view it is essential in the defence of the free world that that alliance should be maintained and strengthened wherever it possibly can be. But you do not do that by going off on operations before there has been due consultation with our Allies.
Now I come to paragraph 12 of the White Paper on the nuclear deterrent. It says:
"It must be frankly recognised that there is at present no means of providing adequate protection for the people of this country against the consequences of attack with nuclear weapons."
I think that in our case that is absolutely true, because we have not the depth. When people begin to talk about civil defence in relation to nuclear attack, and about wholesale evacuation, they at last begin to ask how far the people can be evacuated in the event of nuclear attack. It is obvious that even if only a very few of the major weapons of nuclear power were used in attack upon us we should be disorganised throughout the country, and every section of the country would be in immediate and appalling danger. If you take the Government's own statement in this Paper as being the fact, that is what we have to face.
What is happening in view of that position? First of all, let me make it clear that we cannot overlook the two paragraphs on civil defence in the White Paper. We did not hear much in explanation of them from the Minister who introduced the White Paper this afternoon. First of all the White Paper says here is at present no means of providing adequate protection. The other paragraph says that civil defence must accordingly play an essential part in the
442
defence plan. I happen to be amongst those who believe that to have at least a framework organisation for civil defence is necessary in any case. But there is a school of thought which believes that civil defence at any great cost of preparation to-day is quite unwarranted, in view of the fact that, as the Government say here, there is no adequate protection against nuclear attack. I think it is worth while to mention that some countries, such as France, have no civil defence organisation—none at all. There may be other countries in the N.A.T.O, alliance who are in the same category. At any rate, during the course of the debate perhaps we may have a better exposition of the Government's real ideas regarding civil defence in view of their statement about nuclear deterrent in paragraph 12. If they can obtain the information in the time, in the course of the two days' debate, I hope they will let us know which of the other Allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation have arrangements for civil defence and which have not, so that we may make our own studies and comparisons in the matter.
Now in view of that statement let the country face up to this also. In paragraph 14 and paragraph 15 we get a clear indication of what the Government's immediate policy on nuclear weapons is. They say in paragraph 14 that the only existing safeguard against major aggression is the power to threaten retaliation with nuclear weapons. It does not say that the major aggression is necessarily a very high-powered nuclear attack against us or our Allies; just "a major aggression". They go on in paragraph 15 to say that they are pursuing a policy of making the megaton bomb (on top of the kiloton bomb and stocks of kiloton bombs), which will shortly be tested; and thereafter a stock will be manufactured. I just want to put these facts into the minds of the House so that we may have fully before us what we are actually considering.
The Prime Minister complained in another place that the Amendment of the Labour Party to the Government Resolution to approve the White Paper said that the Government were relying unduly upon the power of nuclear deterrent. It was greatly criticised. I am not complaining of anything that was said, but

443
that Amendment was highly criticised. Is it not really creating a dangerous position for us if we cut both manpower and expenditure on our defence by relying upon something which, if it is ever put in use, will most likely destroy ourselves almost before anybody else? It seems to me to be wrong to put our sole reliance on that. At any rate, it might be useful in the course of the debate to have an answer upon that point. I say that we in Great Britain and Northern Ireland have no depth of defence in this regard. Are you right, therefore, in putting your reliance upon what some may, as the Minister did, describe as a gamble, or what perhaps in more Parliamentary language one should describe as a very grave risk indeed?
Strangely enough, in the midst of all that comes paragraph 13, which is a paragraph with which we can all agree. This makes it more than ever clear that the overriding consideration in our military planning must be to prevent war rather than to prepare for it. So far in the history of man's use of constantly developing and increasingly powerful weapons there have been prophecies at almost every stage that the weapons would be such a deterrent that there would be no future major war. It was a proposition that was put widely round the world on the discovery of what we now regard as a simple explosive—dynamite. People argued then that there would be no further war. Then, at various stages, as we moved on to heavy armour-piercing shells, then to torpedoes, then to the use of gas, always it was said that if only we would rely upon this particular weapon as the main deterrent then there was little likelihood of a major war in future.
Who can say that this weapon is going to be a reasonably reliable deterrent to war in the future? It may well have been a great deterrent so long as the free nations in the world alone possessed nuclear power. That view might then have been forcefully argued. But that is no longer the position. Nor is it apparently likely to be the case that the present members of the free world who own nuclear power will remain the only nations in the free world who are to possess it. Nor is it likely, in those circumstances, that the Russians, who are now admitted by the free world to have both the kiloton and the megaton bomb,
444
will be content to rely only upon their great depth in the use of these weapons. It seems likely that if the use of these weapons is spread through the alliance of N.A.T.O., or of S.E.A.T.O. or of the Baghdad Pact, there will be the same spread among those who are within the orbit of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. So in that argument there is no real reliance upon safety at all.
What, to me, is certain from the policy now published, and from the statement which was emphasised, is what came out quietly two years ago: that we intended to use tactical atomic weapons. We have since heard by way of further explanation that we, as members of the free world, have determined to use for tactical warfare, as apart from major warfare, weapons of atomic power. As to when it will become necessary to use the ultimate deterrent, we have to wait and see. But what sort of power is involved? I thought that the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry were singularly insufficient this afternoon in dealing with this matter. He said that, of course, one could not say directly that the atomic tactical weapon was likely to be the heaviest of the kiloton type, or that it would not be a much lighter weapon; nor could one say effectively that we should not be able to settle some of these minor conflagrations without recourse at all to atomic weapons. But it is, in fact, quite clear, if you look at the reply given by the Minister of Defence in the debate in another place on February 13 last, that atomic weapons of the power of the Hiroshima bomb are now regarded as primarily suitable for tactical use by troops in the field.
I ask your Lordships: what sort of tactical warfare is that? I suppose it means the kind of warfare which is foreshadowed in the White Paper, which says that there is to be firm ground defence of the frontiers of the free world; therefore we should be quite entitled, I suggest, on the statement of the Minister of Defence in another place, to use an atomic bomb of the Hiroshima strength in tactical warfare in ground defence of our frontiers. I hope it will be made perfectly clear whether or not I am stating what is the correct understanding. Certainly the Minister of Defence himself, in his cross-examination in the House regarding the White Paper, failed to give any effective answer upon that

445
point, except to show, as I think it must be shown to us all, that once you have gone into a conflict that you think is of such frontier importance that you use atomic tactical weapons of strength up to the Hiroshima type, you can hardly expect one side or the other in that conflict not to have recourse to the ultimate deterrent.
That is the position into which we have gradually been led. I have complained bitterly, year after year, that gradually we have been drawn into that position by declarations of military policy from high officers of S.H.A.P.E., the military headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which have led to the adoption of this kind of policy. We have never had in their proper order, at the right time, declarations of policy by Ministers on this matter—never, until we got the real thing, that some atomic weapons were being produced two years ago. The way in which this powerful hierarchy of military officers in S.H.A.P.E. has been allowed not only to shape policy in the staff room and in the planning room but to publish a policy which should have been announced by Ministers, is to me quite shocking in a modern state of things.
Now I come to the last two points—all that I have time for—out of the many ether matters that I wanted to deal with to-day. The first is this. I am wondering how the Government, on the basis of their finance defence plan—the plans affected by manpower, by equipment and the like—are adequately to carry out the defence of the Commonwealth. In one breath you are cutting down your manpower considerably; in another breath you are saying, "We must maintain adequate forces and troops, say, east of Suez; we must maintain adequate forces in Cyprus, Hong Kong and Singapore; we must have reserves in this country "—as is stated, in the White Paper "which can be thrown expeditiously to any point of the Commonwealth requiring reinforcement: or strength." Apparently you are trying to do all that with a very reduced number of personnel.
I know that in putting points like this I speak only for myself. I know that there have been from my own Party as big, if not bigger, requests for a reduction in the number of personnel as there have been from any other quarter of
446
public opinion in the country. But because I have always been exceedingly keen about the defence of the Commonwealth I must say that from my experience I am sure it will be found that, with the extent to which reliance is to be placed upon a great deal of new and highly technical equipment, it will not be possible to save as many personnel as the Government expect and still be able to cover the duties of the ground force personnel and all the other commitments which have been mentioned. At any rate, I feel that that is arguable, and that we should have from Her Majesty's Government a much more detailed estimate than anyone has yet had showing the number of personnel to be employed in the technical weapons and allied services in that connection, and how many people are to be freed for the normal duties of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the ordinary ground forces of the Army.
Certainly there will not be voluntary reserves available to the extent that there have been before, because the Government are interfering with the existing forces of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, both of which have been disbanded, thereby leaving only very limited resources available.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, only the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve Air Wing has been disbanded—not the Volunteer Reserve itself.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am glad to have that fact pointed out to me, but there will certainly be far fewer reserves available for the Royal Naval Air Wing and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force—that is certain. That fact must be taken into account when one considers the commitments outlined in the White Paper as requiring to be fulfilled. Anybody who studies this question and appreciates the length and breadth of our Commonwealth commitments must never forget that we are not in the position that we were in in 1939. With India gone, and no Indian Army, the position in regard to military personnel is entirely changed. We ought therefore to have from the Government Benches some greater explanation of how these figures of projected personnel are

447
to be divided between the nuclear sections, with their technical and maintenance services, and the other three main Services to which I have referred.
As my noble friend Lord Lucan is rather indisposed and has lost a great deal of his speaking power, I want this afternoon to take up a point which he himself had intended to raise, one already dealt with by the Minister: the treatment to be given to men displaced from the Services by reason of the projected cuts. The Minister made very large and wide promises, and I have no doubt that if they are fulfilled to the satisfaction of the men a great deal of satisfaction will be felt generally. On the other hand, the more those men are given (and I do not want that to be in any way cut down), the more provision must be made for civilian employees to be displaced from Government and State institutions, ordnance factories and the like. I hope that that fact will not be forgotten.
The treatment of displaced officers and N.C.Os., as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will depend to a great extent on their recruiting value. I am greatly in favour of a voluntary force, if we can get it. I have never been an addict of the principle of National Service and, speaking entirely for myself, I have never been able to find any answer to the post-war problem without National Service. When we have gone out specially to get large additions to our Regular forces, we have tried to do so, stage by stage, by giving substantial increases in their emoluments; and in every case there has been a spurt of enlistment which has subsequently fallen away. There has been another spurt with the next injection of a little more encouragement, and then that, too, has fallen away. And so it will go on.
I have no confidence that we shall be able, in the age in which we live to-day, in view of the kind of demand for, and opportunities offered to, people in the industrial and commercial spheres, to get, by Regular enlistment, the full number of people that we hope to get to form an entirely Regular force. I hope that we may hear something more about that, and may be told how Her Majesty's Govern-
448
ment believe that is going to be done. I am quite certain that everybody in the country will wish Her Majesty's Government well in their plan to give adequate compensation to displaced officers and N.C.Os. Some of the N.C.Os. are worthy of great consideration. They have done very fine service, not only in training themselves and those under them, but sometimes in training officers as well; and I hope they get adequate compensation. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will succeed in all these matters, for I want to see success here. I am bound to say, however, that I am very doubtful. I admit that the White Paper says that unless the required numbers are obtained, there will have to be further recourse to National Service. But let us have the estimated figures for the branches of the Services in this nuclear age and know how Her Majesty's Government hope to be able to manage the defence of the Commonwealth with the limited number of troops available.
I am quite sure that the House will see that I have been trying to state the case from both sides; and I have, I hope, tried to be reasonably fair. In my own personal and public life I have taken the line of trying to see that we get adequate defences for our country, but in our discussion of national defence we have now largely come to making a decision on a point of departure from which there is grave danger that there can be no return. I was gravely concerned to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who introduced it as his own personal opinion, that those people who thought there might usefully be a postponement of tests and things of that kind held a view which was almost immoral, in that they expected to get nuclear assistance that was wanted from some country other than their own. If your Lordships will look at Hansard you will see exactly what was said. I hope the noble Lord does not mean that, if the Baptist Union, or the Churches, pass a resolution to that effect, they are, in the view of the Minister, to be classified as immoral in doing so; because, on the contrary, there are in this country at present people who believe that in the country's present fortunes, and in view of the threat of grave danger to the whole world, it is time that the whole nation was thinking not merely more in moral terms but also in the spiritual terms required, and seeking the help of Divine Providence in order that we may see a way through and do something for agreement, disarmament and peace.

EXPORT OF LIVE CATTLE
4.0 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement about the Report of the Committee, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, on the export of cattle to the Continent for slaughter, which has been very carefully considered by my right honourable friends, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food. The Committee concluded that, save to a very limited extent, the alternative of a carcase trade is not practicable and that the journey to the Continent is not a sufficient reason for prohibiting the trade in live animals. They said, however, that they had been concerned by evidence that cattle are sometimes sent on long train journeys after arrival on the Continent. Their main recommendation was designed to ensure that internal transit after disembarkation would be over relatively short distances, and that satisfactory arrangements would be made for accommodating, handling and slaughtering the animals.
We fear that it would he difficult to adopt the Committee's suggestion that the trade should be allowed only to small countries or territories: but we propose as a matter of urgency to consult the authorities of the countries concerned, with a view to securing mutually acceptable arrangements for mitigating the conditions that in recent months have given rise to public criticism.
The Committee made a number of recommendations designed to increase the protection afforded to cattle before they leave this country. We shall continue the veterinary inspection of all cattle being exported for slaughter on the Continent, which has been in operation since February 26 this year, under the permissive powers conferred by the Exported Cattle Protection Order, 1957. This will ensure that no unfit cattle are allowed to be exported, and we propose to make this inspection a statutory requirement, as recommended by the Committee. We also propose to discuss as soon as possible with the interests concerned the recommendations relating to
450
strengthening the conditions applicable to the rest period before export.
The Committee recommended one or two amendments to the regulations governing the carriage of animals by sea. Some rather technical points are involved, and here again we propose to consult the interests concerned as a matter of urgency. We are drawing to the attention of British Railways the Committee's recommendations which concern them. Finally, the Committee made one or two general recommendations of a long-term nature, including the suggestion that the disbudding of calves and the use of the electric goad, instead of the drover's stick, should be encouraged. We are in sympathy with these recommendations, which we propose to bring to the notice of the interests primarily concerned.
We should like to thank most sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh and his Committee for the expeditious manner in which they carried out the task which was entrusted to them at very short notice.
4.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his statement, and to say how pleased was to hear the tribute which he paid to the admirable work done by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and his Committee in this humanitarian matter. May I ask the noble Earl one question? He is going to talk over the recommendations of the Report with foreign Governments. Assuming that he fails to reach agreement with foreign Governments about mitigating these undesirable conditions, will he reconsider the main recommendation of the Committee's Report—namely, the prohibition of export to countries where long distances have to be covered, and the prohibition of re-export?
LORD REA: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies to that question, may I add my tribute of appreciation to Lord Balfour of Burleigh and his Committee, and also thank the noble Earl for giving us this information which, of course, is extremely satisfactory? There seems, however, to be one point which is not quite covered. This is not a time to go into the matter in detail, but perhaps the noble Earl can answer a question about it. There seems to be a gap between the time when the animals leave the farm and

451
the time they arrive at the dockside; after that time there seems to be no particular provision for looking after them. There is some public disquiet about the transporting of animals, particularly calves, to the port of embarkation and their treatment there, and I wonder whether some safeguard could be devised in this connection. Apart from that, I should like again to thank the Committee for their splendid work and their excellent Report.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as regards the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, it is a little difficult to anticipate what the outcome of these discussions will be. We will certainly bear in mind what the noble Earl has said, and we shall have to reconsider the position if we should be unsuccessful in coming to a satisfactory conclusion. With regard to the transport of animals in this country, there is a considerable mass of regulations at the moment covering both the actual transport of the animals and any period of rest which they may have before they are shipped. On that matter, as I say, the recommendations of the Committee which affect the railways are being brought to the attention of British Railways. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned calves, but they are a different subject: they are not affected by this export at all.
LORD REA: I meant road transport, rather than rail transport. I am obliged to the noble Earl for his reply.

DEFENCE POLICY
4.7 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I return from the subject of the slaughter of animals to that of the slaughter of people. That is, of course, what we are debating this afternoon—or, rather, it will be, should our efforts to prevent another war prove unsuccessful. I think that two main points emerge from the present White Paper on Defence. The first, a positive one, is that we have at last realised that we can no longer afford the huge sums necessary to run our defence programmes as they have been run in the past—programmes that have been increasing from year to year—and that in future our defence organisation must be
452
smaller, less costly, and very much more mobile. The second point is a negative point: that we have not yet realised the importance of our Commonwealth. We still to a great extent attempt to plan our defence in an insular manner, disregarding the tremendous opportunities which we have if we work with our Commonwealth as a united people. Looking back over our history, and reading this Defence White Paper, it seems to me that we may well ask what has been the use of all the tremendous efforts and suffering and the great determination we have had to build up our Empire over the centuries and, when the time is ripe, to hand over these fine territories to self-government, if we cannot work together as a united whole, both in peace and in war.
If we look first at the positive approach, we see in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the White Paper something which many of your Lordships have advocated for a considerable time—recognition of the need for a new approach to the whole subject. This approach must, of course, be practical. That we are going to save considerable sums which we could never, in fact, have afforded is all to the good, but we must ensure that the sums we do spend are used in the best way. At present, by far our greatest problem is the cost of our nuclear weapons. We all admit that at the moment we in the Western Alliance are relying to a great extent on the United States of America. I must add, however, from these Benches, that we are glad we already have atom bombs and the bombers to deliver them, and that we have megaton bombs ready for testing. Some of us, particularly on these Benches, are not happy about the manufacture of this kind of weapon in this country, just as we are not happy about the effect on humanity of the dangers of nuclear tests. But until there is international agreement on these things—and may I say how pleased I am that this country is taking a leading part in trying to bring this about?—we must be right to protect ourselves in this way. I am also glad to see that we are adding ballistic rockets to the V-bombers we have already. May I ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to manufacture these weapons in this country, or are we going to take them from the United States, as stated in paragraph 16 of the White Paper?

453
The real weakness of the whole case, of all our plans, is shown in this way. Paragraph 12 states that there is no way of providing adequate protection to the public of this country against nuclear attack, and it continues to say that, however successful our fighters might be, some bombers with these weapons would be bound to get through. Yet in paragraph 16 it is stated that nuclear weapons will be delivered by V-class medium bombers, presumably (I say "presumably" because it does not say so definitely) from bases in this country. The first target of any enemy must be these bases, and if it is admitted that some bombers, possibly carrying nuclear weapons, must get through, how can we possibly defend these bases? Paragraph 17 emphasises the importance of defending bomber airfields. What is the use of emphasising this aim when it has already been admitted that they cannot be defended? So, if we cannot defend, or cannot guarantee the defence of, this country (the White Paper admits that we cannot do so; and at this particular stage I do not see any way we can), how can we site our deterrent weapons here? What is the use of having air bases, however widely dispersed, in this country if it is such a vulnerable area?
I come back to a point which I am afraid I make every time I speak in a Defence debate—I refer to the negative approach which If mentioned a few moments ago. Why do we not spread the whole of our deterrent nuclear power at strategic points throughout the Commonwealth? If an attack were made on this country, then we could make immediate retaliation at any point in the world. Surely this is the only real possibility of averting war; and that, I think we all agree, is the one thing that we must do. I would go a little further. I should like to set up a prospective wartime Cabinet able to act at a place in the Commonwealth which is secure from initial attack, a Cabinet which would come together if there was any danger of a war—and I would remind your Lordships that the next war will start without any declaration being made.
I believe that it is our duty to point out to any aggressor that the devastation to him would be infinitely more appalling than the destruction of a city like London. The only reply that I received from the Government spokesman last year when I
454
referred to co-operation with the Commonwealth was [OFFICIAL REPORT. Vol. 196, col. 732]:
"We attach the greatest importance to our agreements and our obligations in the Commonwealth countries."
That is not quite the point. It is not the obligations and agreements of the past and present that matter; it is the commitments of the future. By ourselves, we are in a hopeless position. With the Commonwealth behind us, we are in a strategic position that surpasses that of any other country, or group of countries, in the world to-day.
In paragraph 66, there appears the only reference in the White Paper to the Commonwealth. Ten lines in ten pages are all we have about the Commonwealth, and what is said is very vague and does not meet the real point. May I ask a straightforward question? Can we use strategic points in the Commonwealth now and build them up as defence points, to be used for counter-measures against any enemy that attacks either the British Isles or the Commonwealth as a whole? I do not want your Lordships to think for a moment that, by saying this, I am belittling the Western Alliance. Of course, it is of the utmost importance. Nor am I belittling our own position. But cannot we, with our Commonwealth, go as an equal partner with America in the Western Alliance? Without our Commonwealth we can be only the 49th State. I do not want to go into the delicate point of the unpopular individual political statements made in the United States from time to time. We must realise the tremendous help that the United States have been in keeping the peace of the world since the Second World War. But, in my opinion, to boost our own Commonwealth in no way minimises the importance to world peace of America; nor should it lessen our gratitude for all they have done and for what they are doing at the present time.
So far, I have touched only on general principles. May I go into one or two details of the White Paper? First of all, there is our position in regard to N.A.T.O. Our support of this Organisation is obviously of the greatest importance, and I am delighted to see in the White Paper—and this has been stressed this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft—that we are giving far more than our

455
fair share. It is made clear in paragraph 11 that, while we shall continue to pull our weight, we expect others to do the same. A strong ground and air defence in Western Europe is this country's forward defence line, but that would not in any way help us against modern nuclear weapons used against this country.
A word or two now about civil defence and the Territorial Army—and these must still play their part in the defence of this country. Because we admit that there is no adequate defence, that does not mean that we have to leave the population completely undefended and not do our best for them. We still have our responsibility to the man and woman in the street, and I think that civil defence should be tackled with the greatest energy. Unfortunately, civil defence holds no glamour to the average man—its mere name is enough to put anyone off. So far as the Territorial Army is concerned, those in it hardly know from day to day what their job is or what is in store for them; even whether, in actual fact, they are wanted. Both these organisations are based on part-time service, be it that of the middle-aged man (I suppose we have to call ourselves that) who served in the last war, or the youngster who wants to do something for his country in his spare time. Both need encouragement from Her Majesty's Government, with the promise of a worthwhile job and a real interest which will draw them away from the many pastimes, pleasures and hobbies that are so easy to come by in this modern age. But, particularly, they want to be promised continuation of employment. The Army has another term, but the politest way of putting it in your Lordships' House is to say they want no "messing about". That is exactly what they have had since the war finished. I am a great believer, as your Lordships probably know, in the Territorial Army, but I would say that it is infinitely better to give it up altogether than to leave it lingering on in its present state.
I now come for a moment to the question of a Central Reserve. After the debacle of Suez—and I refer here solely to the military and not to the political aspect—it is essential that what is laid down in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the White Paper should be completed as soon
456
as possible. Why it has not been completed yet I do not understand; but there is no doubt that last year nothing was ready. How long will it be before we can genuinely claim to have a force capable of rapid mobility? That point was raised strongly by the noble Lord who initiated this debate. It is of the utmost importance that we should have a force, however small, that can move immediately from point to point; and I mean by such a force, a composite force of personnel and equipment of the three Forces as we now know them. How long, too, will it be before we have a substantial fleet of transport aircraft ready? Have we enough transport to carry, say, two divisions? When are we going to have this? Again, it certainly was not available last year. I would agree entirely that we should encourage the continuance of the names of regiments, of ships and of squadrons—that is all-important—but I still feel that we should encourage a unified command under which they can all serve. Finally, I should like to see the three Forces coming under one full command.
Then there is the question of National Service. I think we are all delighted that it looks as if that is at last coming to an end. However necessary it may have been, it has always been uneconomical, and, in my opinion, the greatest disincentive to joining the Regular Army. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said that he wanted to see a volunteer Army, but he has never seen a way in which that could have been raised since the war. I believe that the real reason why we could not raise a volunteer Army is because we have had National Service, and it is only if we stop National Service that we may have the opportunity of again building a genuine volunteer Army. However, it is going to take more than that, because things change from year to year; jobs become easier and more well-paid. I wonder whether the plans that Her Majesty's Government have given us in paragraph 53 of the White Paper can be adopted quickly enough, and especially in regard to civilian employment after service.
I am delighted to hear that the Government have put this matter high on their list of priorities. It is not long since we had an increase in pay in the Forces but, if we are honest, we know that much

457
more is necessary if we are going to get our volunteers; otherwise the threat of continuing National Service will have to be carried out. When one considers the present pay of a subaltern, one finds it does not bear very favourable comparison even (shall I say?) with that of an agricultural labourer. To reduce the grand total spent on the Forces is not only desirable, but essential, but to withhold adequate compensation to the individual who is working in the Forces is, I feel, useless economy.
I should now like to refer to the penultimate paragraph of the White Paper, where it is said that the expense, amongst other things, is due to the
"Higher cost per man of Regular forces, and the fact that proportionately more civilians will be employed."
That last reads to me like an admission that civilians will continue to be paid at higher rate than their counterparts in the Forces. It is a dangerous thing to say. If you want your volunteers, you must pay them in exactly the same way as if they were doing the job in civilian life; otherwise you will not get them. I feel that that is one of the things that must be remedied. Industry to-day holds out tempting offers, and it will do so even more if National Service is stopped, because then it will get the young apprentice who knows that he does not have to go away for two years and that he can concentrate on the job from the day he goes in. I feel that the whole of this subject needs careful study.
To conclude, I would say that I look forward to these major reforms proving of real benefit to the country. In an ever-changing world it must be difficult to plan, and there is, no doubt, a great deal still to be done. But, with this reservation, I feel that what is proposed in this year's White Paper is far better than anything that we have had for some considerable time.
4.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, in the first place. I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his concentrated and clear exposition of the White Paper, and, equally, the Government on the White Paper and what is contained in it. Then I should like to congratulate, most sincerely—and your Lordships will not be surprised that I say this—the
458
Minister of Defence on having become a real and effective Minister of Defence, with the result, as the White Paper shows, that we now have a policy-maker for three combined Services and not a policy, or a decision given by an umpire, between three competing Services. The result is that we have a long-term plan and firm decisions on policy. I think the Minister was right when he said in another place that the policy in the White Paper is a mixture of old and new. There is nothing new in the deterrent being the dominant motif. As your Lordships will remember, the decision to base the whole of defence policy on the nuclear deterrent was accepted, as was publicly stated at the time, by the whole of the Commonwealth in the Commonwealth Conference three years ago. What is new in the White Paper is the firm and logical series of decisions to give effect to it.
The noble Viscount who spoke for the Opposition said that grave and serious risks were being taken. Of course risks are being taken; you have to take risks; it is impossible to insure against every possible contingency. However, I would say that the worst risk that could be taken, and which would be the certain corollary of what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said, would be the risk of bankruptcy and failure by attempting to carry out the impossible. Almost anything is better than to give to each Service an insufficient and ineffective ration. Therefore I would sincerely congratulate the Government on having decided to do a limited number of things, but to do them thoroughly.
I should have thought that it went without saying that we must make the hydrogen bomb. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of almost everybody in this House, was absolutely right when he decided—he was a little bit secretive about it at the time—to make the atom bomb. It is an inescapable corollary—and I think he would agree—that we should now make the hydrogen bomb. Obviously, we must have the basic weapon. People who say we could do without it would be as foolish as anybody who had said that we could have done without Dreadnoughts before the First World War.
If we must have the bomb, then I am sure we cannot risk not making it ourselves but relying upon the United States.

459
Unless we manufacture it ourselves we become limited partners and we should forfeit our right and fail in our duty to play our full part in world policy. If we must make it, then, obviously, we must test it. I am glad to say that we have not heard in this House to-day the peculiarly stupid criticisms made elsewhere—this House is too intelligent. But, really, some of the criticisms one hears and reads which are made elsewhere are rather sickening. An unlimited number of tests made by the Russians are passed over in servile silence. This country, after due announcement and with the greatest of care where it is to take place, makes a single experiment and that is greeted with a howl of execration. I think it is about time that charity or, at any rate, common sense began at home.
On guided missiles, I am much more ready to rely, temporarily at any rate, upon the United States. I hope that here, in the field of guided missiles, there can be a full and close partnership between us and the United States in design and production. I am sure that pooling of knowledge, co-operation in research and development, and in manufacture, will make for economy, efficiency and speed both for us and for the United States.
Another element in defence policy upon which we must be satisfied has been emphasised by the Minister who opened and, indeed, by the other speakers. We must be satisfied that we can and will continue to play our fair and proper part in N.A.T.O. That Grand Alliance remains the bastion of defence of the free world. As the United Nations Organisation—I regret to have to say it, but I think it should be said—proves to be increasingly irresponsible and ineffective, the importance of N.A.T.O. increases. N.A.T.O. is the one firm rock in shifting sands. Incidentally, I would add this. If U.N.O. cannot be relied upon to give an impartial judgment, should not the free nations, who really count in the defence of justice and freedom, try to make more use of the International Court of Justice?
I do not think that we or our Allies need fear the effect of this policy. It is realistic and forward-looking. It gives us a comprehensive and integrated force which is designed to be—and I believe is the only way we can get it—an effective
460
deterrent. After all, to have that effective deterrent is the main purpose of N.A.T.O. I believe that this policy, steadily and resolutely pursued—and I hope the Minister will stay in his job to pursue it—will best serve this country, the Commonwealth and the Grand Alliance.
If we accept the premises on which this policy is based and which I believe are essentially sound, we must, I think, accept the consequences to the three Services. Of course there will have to be reductions in numbers of personnel. But that, coupled with the policy which is set out in the White Paper, should mean and I hope will mean—and here I agree with the noble Lord who spoke from the Liberal Benches—an ever closer integration and opportunity for officers of each Service in the other Services.
I think there are some functions which progressively and perhaps even now can be completely unified and combined. I have never seen why there should be different medical services for each of the three Services. After all, when we get ill after we have left whatever Service we were in, we go to the best doctor we can find or afford. I am sure that we should get not only economy but efficiency and better service if the medical services of the three Forces were combined. The same applies to feeding and catering, of course always allowing the Navy to have a special rum ration at a cheap price—I must not fall foul of the chairman of the Independent Unionist Peers by suggesting there should be any infringement of that privilege: but, subject to that undue preference, I should have thought that a good deal of unification could take place in the catering services. The same is true of clothing. With regard to pay it always seemed to me that there were an unconscionable number of different pay offices and regimental records. After all, great companies concentrate their records; an insurance company does not have twenty different offices at different places writing out policies. I should have thought that a good deal could be done in combining pay. No doubt there are some functions which will be increasingly discharged by civilian personnel.
When that is all done, the most difficult and yet the most important problem is how to offer a career which will enable good officers to find their opportunities

461
in each of the three Services. As novel strategy and new tactics develop, and with these new and intensely complicated weapons, each Service will need the best men it can got. But with reduced numbers the ablest men will not opt for a Fighting Service unless they can see a wide career open to talent. I am sure we cannot today—it may be a very long time, if ever, before we can—combine or amalgamate all the three Services in one single Service. The Trinity must stand; and, indeed, there is great imponderable but inestimable value in the traditional loyalty of a man to his regiment or to his Service—not only loyalty when he is in it but the tradition which has, generation after generation, taken men into the same regiment. The problem is how to combine that individual loyalty with opportunity over the whole field to make the Trinity—I hope I am not being profane; I say it very sincerely—a Trinity in unity of these three great Services. I am sure that those who are responsible will seek, by increased combined training at every stage, to encourage interchange between the Services. That ought to be easier now, when nearly every operation is a combined operation. I am sure of this: that, whatever the march of science and these wonderful new inventions that come along, the human element will always be the most important.
At the same time, I feel it is better for everyone, both those in the Services row and new entrants coming in, that they should see what the policy is and be able to see the future clearly. I hope that real help will be given to those officers and N.C.Os. who become redundant. I have no doubt that civil aviation will give many opportunities to pilots. At the same time, when I say that, I hope that some critics will stop talking about guided missiles as if they were going to supersede the whole of the Air Force to-morrow morning. That is absolute nonsense from a technical point of view. I am glad that the noble Lord agrees with that. I am sure it is nonsense, from a technical point of view, but it is very unsettling to the people who are in the Service now, and still more to the boys who are thinking of going into it.
I would ask this question of the Government. The numbers who will become redundant have been stated. The
462
Government have a special responsibility in this matter. Cannot they find opportunities—special, exceptional opportunities—for these men in the Civil Service? The Defence Services are going to contract but, so far as I can see—I am not criticising the Civil Services—they will tend to expand. It seems to me not unreasonable that the Government and Government Civil Services should try to place some of those who become redundant in the Fighting Services.
There is one other matter that I wish to touch upon. I am sure that the creation of a Mobile Reserve and the concentration of forces in a Mobile Reserve is sound. But that Reserve must be mobile if it is to be effective. A major war is unlikely; but a cold war engenders local conflicts or emergencies. And if, as I think is quite right, garrisons and locally-stationed forces are to be disbanded or reduced, then the Mobile Reserve must be ready and able to move in. I ask, is the transport available? If not, when will it be? In a major war, of course, you can collect all the civil aircraft that there are; they can be swept in. But you cannot do that in a localised conflict or a temporary emergency. The great lines must go on, and, indeed, the other civil operations must, too. I was not quite satisfied about one point. The noble Lord did not slur it at all: do not let him think I felt that; I do not think he slurred anything in his speech; but he did say, "We rely on Transport Command but we also rely on the resources of civil aviation." If it is not pressing the noble Lord too much. I should like to know a little more about how effective Transport Command is and how quickly those civil resources upon which he also relies can be made available. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was quite right: I am not saying whether certain operations were right or wrong, but the time it took to assemble anything, whether it was by sea or in the air, to carry those forces was rather horrifying.
There is another prerequisite for the mobile force that is to be carried by air, and that is, bases and staging posts along the route. It is essential for the Mobile Reserve and for Commonwealth communications. One by one we have seen air bases on which we depended in imperial communications and in strategy I was going to say, "fade away", but certainly pass out of any possibility of our

463
making effective use of them. I know that the increasing range of aircraft to some extent compensates for that; that we do not need as many staging posts as we did; but we want enough. Even the longest-ranged animal has to come down and get a drink; it cannot stay in the air for ever. In world politics, the position of Cyprus, for example, and other strategic points, will come up. It is vitally important that we should consider where for imperial communication and for strategic needs we must have our staging posts. The Navy also is important in this regard. I think that the creation of these aircraft carrier units will be helpful to the Mobile Reserve, and also, as they can be sent at short notice to any threatened point which is, at any rate. "get-at-able" by sea. I hope they, too, are adequate.
If I have made any criticisms, they have, I hope, been constructive. They were intended to be, and intended to help, because I rejoice in this White Paper. I am sure that the Government in this matter of defence have taken the long view and the right road. For my part, I wish the Minister every success. I know that in carrying out this great undertaking he will have the full co-operation of his associated Ministers and all the Service chiefs.
4.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords. I am not competent to comment upon many of the revolutionary changes contained in the White Paper. I am prepared to accept the present opinion of the Ministry of Defence and, in the future, to judge by results. I rise rather to deal with another side of the subject, upon which the noble Earl who has just spoken has already made some observations—the human as apart from the technical side of the many problems in the White Paper. Unless the necessary number of men come forward in the next few years, the whole basis of this scheme will be destroyed. Unless the esprit de corps that now binds together the units of the Fighting Services is maintained, the Services will break up into fragments. Unless, further, there is the closest possible contact between the Regular Services and the general public, there will be no chance of making the kind of public appeal that will bring in the numbers of
464
recruits that are necessary when National Service comes to an end.
Let me, in a very few minutes, apply those principles to the Service about which I know most, the Air Force. I think that my comments probably affect all three Services, but I take the Air Force as my example. A force like the Air Force, a very technical Service, always runs the risk of becoming, shall I say, a mechanical organisation of technicians and scientists. The late Lord Trenchard saw this danger at the very start of the peace-time Air Force. In his historic White Paper, which was the charter of the Air Force, he emphasised the danger of the Air Force becoming a Service of chauffeurs. My Lords, with all these incredible technical and scientific developments, the danger that Lord Trenchard foresaw in 1919 is, in my view, becoming more and more imminent Inevitably the changes that are foreshadowed in the White Paper will weaken some of the sentimental ties that mean so much in the Service, inevitably, also, they will weaken the contact between the Regular Air Force and the general public. As the Air Force becomes more specialised, more a Service of technicians and scientific experts, and less a Service of general duty units, so the general public will run the risk of losing contact with it; and the result will be a gradual drying up of voluntary recruitment.
If these things are not to happen, the need is first to stimulate more and more actively the esprit Lie corps in the Service, and secondly, to increase by every possible means the contacts between the Regular Air Force and the general public. I am sorry to say that in recent months the Air Ministry have not only ignored these two needs but have acted in a way diametrically opposed to them. I take my example from the abrupt disbandment of the flying units in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I am not arguing whether or not the disbandment was necessary, whether or not there was a place for these units in the new dispensation that is contemplated in the White Paper: I am drawing attention to the way in which the disbandment was actually carried out. Suddenly, without warning, the squadrons were disbanded, and all flying was stopped. I do not wish to bring in my own experience as an example, but it is worth saying that I have been intimately connected with

465
these squadrons from their start, and I have been an honorary Air Commodore of two of them for a great many years. The first notice that I had of it was two days after the flying stopped. Was this the way to treat these very remarkable units? Was this the way to encourage voluntary recruitment in the Air Force in the future?
My Lords, these units were unique in the Air Force. They were formed with two objects: first, to attract into them young men of courage and of enterprise who were determined to put into them all their energies. Secondly, they were intended as an invaluable means g contact between the Regular Service and the various great centres of industry in the country. In both those respects the units achieved in every way what was required of them, in fact, looking back over many years of ministerial experience I cannot think of any instance with which I was even remotely connected in which there was not so continuous a series of success and so complete a realisation of what was originally intended.
If noble Lords need any further evidence of what I am saying—they may think me biased from the close connection I have had with these units—I would ask them to read a book which has just been published called Night Fighter. In it is told the story of the incredible achievements of one of the squadrons with which I have been connected, No. 604, the pioneers of night-fighting. John Cunningham and his operator, Rawnsley—two civilians, be it noted—were the pioneers of night-fighting. It was they who not only brought down, together with their colleagues in the squadron, 132 enemy machines, but developed the tactics and strategy of night-fighting and applied the inventions of the scientists to the conditions of actual fighting. If the late Lord Trenchard was the father of the Air Force, John Cunningham and his colleagues were the fathers of night-fighting. I quote that achievement as an example of what these squadrons were able to do. Yet not only has this chapter come to an end, but it has been brought to an abrupt end that has left behind it bewilderment, disillusionment and resentment among the 300 officers and 3,000 airmen who have been so abruptly disbanded.
My Lords, I ask you whether this is the way to attract recruits in the future and to
466
preserve a close and friendly contact between a great Regular Service and the chief centres of population in this country. Let the authorities in the Air Force (I am sorry that there is not a representative of the Air Ministry present here today on the Front Bench) learn a lesson from the events that I have just recounted; and let them, if they will, take note of a suggestion that I venture to make to them.
The flying units of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force have now been disbanded; I fear that there is nothing more to be done about the disbandment—it is finished. But noble Lords may not know that there are no fewer that 21 non-flying units of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force still left in being. I am intimately connected with one of them. These units do the radar work and the control work for the Regular Force. Hitherto, it has always seemed to me that they have not attracted much attention. They have been left rather isolated; nobody has quite known what was their exact position. I venture to say to the Air Ministry to-day: let them now look at these units; let them try to make amends, by making more of these ground units for the harm they have done by destroying the flying units. The unit with which I am connected has a strength of about 750 men and women—patriotic men and women who go night after night to the headquarters to do the plotting and planning that is now more than ever necessary. Let the Air Ministry now make something of these people. Let them be used as the contact between the Regular Force and ordinary civil life. In this way, the Ministry may be able to make some amends for the great damage that they have done by the abrupt termination of the splendid flying units.
5.3 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I know that on the occasion of a maiden speech, your Lordships always respond to a plea for mercy. I think that possibly never was your indulgence required as it is to-day. It is an extremely short time since I took my seal in your Lordships' House, and this early intervention might be looked upon as being impetuous.
But I find, on the examination of my life up to now, that a depressing portion of it has in fact been spent either fighting or involved in some form of warfare—I refer to the part of my life since I left

467
home; I should not like to give your Lordships a false picture of my life as a child or even of my younger brother. But my embattled existence began at the age of nineteen when I was appointed a war correspondent in the Spanish War, and ended, I certainly hope, when I stumbled gratefully off the Korean battlefield, nearing my fortieth year. Now, as a result of some curious twist of military administration, I find myself registered on the Regular Army Reserve of Officers, never having been qualified or even inclined for that status. I should think, in fact, that a clumsier and more unnatural soldier never served the Queen. And it is inconceivable to me, that either Her Majesty or Her Generals will find any further military use for me. I can therefore speak with feeling, but also with a certain detachment—a greater detachment than, for instance, my noble and gallant friend Lord Thurlow, who can speak of the same matters with so much greater knowledge and force.
The day after the White Paper was published I took it to Germany with me and I discussed certain points in it with officers, warrant officers and sergeants of Rhine Army. Physical courage one expects from Regular officers of our Army, but I should like to record in your Lordships' House how impressed and how moved I was by the other sort of courage, with which every officer that I spoke to commended in the most definite terms, this new policy, even though many of them thought it would, or might, bring an end to their own chosen career.
The White Paper makes it clear that many of them will in fact have to go. Even before a definite statement was made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I had no doubt whatever that this Government, appreciating their position and their tine service, would treat them justly and generously. But I think your Lordships will agree that there are other degrees of justice than the actual mathematical amount of the cash settlement. I hope that perhaps some assurance can be given that the earliest and longest possible notice will be given to those who must go, allowing them the maximum feasible time to prepare for their new life before leaving the old. My right honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State recently made this statement, which I thought particularly
468
welcome and appropriate. He said:
"I believe that just as civilians made good officers in the last war, so to-day officers who have to retire can make good civilian executives. They already know the leadership and management of men, and the problem will be to obtain the necessary technical qualifications. The War Office will help in this through re-settlement courses, but they will need the sympathetic understanding of industry, commerce and the professions."
I hope that I shall not be thought impudent if I suggest, further, that as many members of your Lordships' House are powerful and influential figures in the world of commerce and industry, such noble Lords may soon be on the look-out for talent at present in the Services, not, obviously, as a matter of obligation, and still less of charitableness, but because of those qualities. The qualities which lead a man to dedicate his life to his country's service and enable him to achieve promotion in that service are qualities which could serve industry equally well. It is a fact that the German Government are finding it extremely difficult to provide their Army with field officers and general officers, simply because, after the war, such officers were absorbed into industry, and industry is not keen to let them go.
But once merit has been recognised and rewarded in this respect, we are bound to remain principally interested in the Army that will remain—in the new Army. As I see it, the success of this whole plan (I hope I am not over-simplifying) will depend upon the success or failure of recruiting. This matter has been mentioned before to-day, but to me it seems a tremendously important point and one worth mentioning again. I have heard estimated a possible gap of 10,000 or 20,000, between the desired strength and the number of volunteers forthcoming, by the time that conscription is planned to end; a gap to be met, initially, by some limited form of conscription. If that turns out to be essential, it will have to be faced. But I cannot see any form of selective conscription which could fail to cause I feel that the most intense effort must be made to avoid that necessity. Moreover, it is not simply the numbers who come forward that matter vitally; it is also the quality of the men that come forward, which will matter tremendously to this highly technical Army. And to obtain both the numbers and the quality, the inducements of

469
to-morrow will have to be very different from the inducements of to-day.
I do not want to cover the ground already covered by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, but I should like to give it a point which, frankly, I borrowed from somebody else. One of those to whom I spoke in Germany was a regimental sergeant-major—a thoughtful, lucid man, as far removed from the legendary terror as I can imagine. He summed up the situation with a phrase which I cannot possibly better. He said:
"The Army has not kept pace with the Welfare State."
In the old days the kind of men who joined the Army were going to live, at least in peace time, in conditions equal to, or better than, those they enjoyed at home. That is positively not the case to-day. The opposite is the case. Conditions which once made it worth while to accept discipline and danger present absolutely no inducement to-day, compared with the home life of the ordinary working man in this country. Nor does the pay of other ranks offer any inducement whatever. A soldier on leave may come home to find his younger brother earning, with overtime, far more than he himself is getting, even though he may be called upon, in case of necessity, to work twenty-four hours a day. The fact that regular overtime is a permanent condition of military service should be taken into account in determining basic pay. I also feel (and this, I think, is in harmony with one theme introduced by the noble Viscount. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough) that Army pay should be linked to some form of index, just as wages and salaries are. I have spoken about the contrast between civilian and Army pay, but I am sure that the contrast obtains more or less equally in other Services.
Obviously, a great deal can be said about the very important matter of recruiting, but I believe I am right in supposing that detailed discussions should be kept for a purely Service debate. I certainly do not wish to over-step the boundaries in this debate, the first in which I have taken part. But I should like to offer this point of view, to be considered when the agonising moment arrives for some units to be disbanded or amalgamated.
The White Paper makes it clear that some will have to be "axed". The
470
sympathy of the country will go out to those regiments. But part of my sympathy will go to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who will have to do the "axeing". Heartbreaking issues will be involved. And if I may be allowed, as one who has been privileged to share, and to be inspired by, regimental pride and tradition, to make a point, it is this. The relative standards of regiments do not remain constant over the centuries. The regiment which reached its peak of efficiency and glory one hundred years ago, may not have sustained those qualities until to-day. The glory and tradition will remain; the efficiency may be in abeyance, and under normal conditions might perhaps return in fifty years. But normal conditions there are not going to be. In 1960, we must have a new, concentrated Army; and I believe that that Army must consist of the best units as they stand to-day, know that unfairness will be involved, but this Army of 1960 will be the mould of the future; and a mould cannot afford to have any cracks or weaknesses. Again, I hope your Lordships will not think this an impudent contribution from one who has served in the Armed Forces in only the most humble capacity.
I have one or two other anxieties on reading the White Paper and I believe that I am not alone in feeling those anxieties. They are in regard to the general problem of Defence. I mention them in the lively hope that they will be allayed in the course of this debate. The idea of a Central Reserve in this country, with an enormously expanded R.A.F. Transport Command to carry them out to any point, is an immensely attractive one. But one serious danger appears to stare me in the face. Transport Command presumably can be expanded indefinitely, or at least till the Treasury "scream". It is a huge undertaking. As some measure of the size of that undertaking, it may be worth mentioning that all the military transport aircraft possessed at this moment by the entire American Army are insufficient to lift one whole infantry division at the same time. All the same, theoretically, the military Transport Command can be expanded more or less indefinitely to carry light forces. There is no aircraft in existence which can carry a medium tank, and I am told that there is no likelihood that such an aircraft will be developed.

471
I see as a possible outcome of that fact a lightly armed expeditionary force, flown promptly and expeditiously to some other part of the world to engage an enemy. But if we set down a lightly armed force to operate on exterior lines against a well-armed enemy operating on interior lines, I see two alternatives: either they will be massacred a long way from home, or we shall have to drop the biggest bomb we possess to prevent their massacre. It may be argued that we shall be operating only from prepared overseas bases. What strikes me, however, in that case, is that this policy, which makes overseas bases more essential than ever, also proposes to reduce those bases. Frankly, that strikes me as a policy of losing on both the roundabouts and the swings.
Technically, we cannot put a Centurion tank into "mothballs" for three years in a tropical climate, and then fly out a crew to drive it into battle at two days', or even two weeks', notice. A regiment of Centurion tanks was sent to Korea to cope with the Josef Stalin III, the gigantic Russian tank. Those Centurions performed glorious service without ever meeting that Russian tank, for it did not choose to put in an appearance. A great deal was made of that fact by a dear and distinguished friend of mine who was trying, the other day, to argue me out of this anxiety. Dear and distinguished as he is, I rejected his argument, and continued to reject it. We cannot base our preparations on the mere fact that "they did not do it last time."
I believe that there is a rational alternative to the cost of maintaining large overseas bases and the impossible task of building a vast aircraft capable of carrying a medium tank. Ever since I first joined an armoured regiment I have heard prophetic, technically-minded officers crying out for a good light tank and for a policy which would reverse this urge to make ever heavier, huger and more unwieldy monsters, which fewer and fewer roads and bridges could carry, which block more traffic and consume more petrol. I am convinced that the best and heaviest practical tank we shall ever make was, and is, the Centurion. I am told that we are making vast quantities of a new lightly armoured highly mobile vehicle called the Hoffmann. But it is being made in British factories for
472
the German Army and to German specification.
There are two aspects of that which I would submit to your Lordships. The Germans are no fools in military matters, and they stand a good deal closer to the Russians than we do. I think we should pay careful attention to this new doctrine, which has for some time been held by certain thoughful officers in our own Army, shared, I believe, with the French Army. That doctrine was formerly based on the idea of a recoil-less gun, a weapon which, in the event, was never perfected; and that weakened the theory. But that gun has since been superseded by the development of the smaller nuclear weapons.
I believe that we can now arm a light tank with a devastating weapon. Unfortunately, we have no light tank. The only light tank we have in service—not in production—is the Cromwell, which is a contemporary of the Mark IX Spitfire and the Lancaster bomber. That is pretty dated, as I think your Lordships will agree. I believe that there is a strong need for a light tank carrying an atomic weapon and, if possible, a ground-to-ground guided missile (though I do not know the technical possibilities of that) transportable in a Beverley freighter. I think it is possible to evolve such a weapon. I hope that this debate may reveal at least some proposal to produce such a weapon, which has not yet been announced.
I feel a more parenthetical anxiety with regard to armour, if the central reserve has to be held in the United Kingdom. In that case, it bears pointing out that there is nowhere in this country where an armoured regiment can exercise or train. We have Salisbury Plain. But if an armoured regiment is deployed as it should be in modern warfare, the rear troop is entering Salisbury Plain as the forward troop is leaving it. That is not a serious military exercise. It may be said that we have available training areas in Germany. It is true that there are Luneberg Heath and other areas, but they are becoming more and more overcrowded as we begin to share them with the German Army.
What a number of armoured officers would like to see is a new training area in North Australia, where the territory is unlimited. I think we can take it that the

473
Australians would welcome such a force, and would wish to take part in it, and it would be well positioned there for any possible hostilities in the Far East. If the reply to my rather ambitious suggestion is that we are not in future to have sufficient armoured force to merit that area, if the answer is that, effectively speaking, armour is "on the way out", then I must say, with unaccustomed boldness, but I think not unjustified boldness, that in my view that concept is entirely mistaken. If we are to talk in terms of limited war at all, with or without nuclear weapons, mobility is bound to be an imperative element. Furthermore—though I confess that I am now theorising—in anything but the immediate area of an atomic explosion I should feel safer and snugger inside some armoured vehicle, than on the open ground. Clearly, if a bomb dropped on the top of a tank, one's impression of snugness would disappear.
But the burden of my argument is that after such an explosion tanks might remain in operation, whereas infantry certainly would not. There would be available some immediate force to react to an atomic-supported or atomic-prefaced attack by the enemy, from which infantry would have to take shelter. I believe that that could be a decisive factor in the battle and in the campaign; and a war can, of course, he lost by a single campaign. It may be that my theory will be confounded, in the course of the debate or at the end of it. But until it is confounded, I shall continue to hold it. It will be hard, in any case, to shake my conviction that there is no substitute for mobility in warfare—and I mean mobility over the ground, not simply mobility in the air, if we are going to consider operations overseas, we must not leave the tank behind.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, invoked Lewis Carroll to illustrate the lessons of the past which he will incorporate into the Army of the future. The last thing I want to do is to join in a literary dispute, or in any dispute, with my right honourable friend. I hold him in the warmest personal affection, as well as political respect. But my own recollection of the White Knight in Alice Through the Looking Glass is not so much that he was rendered ineffective by over-equipment but that he was so
474
engrossed in developing ever more fantastic gadgets for the next encounter that he neglected weapons he had for the fight in hand, and their best exploitation.
My Lords, I have another worry, rather off my beat, but I can speak as one who has travelled in a cargo-capacity in war time in convoys, and who has suffered certain passages of alarm. Also—like most of your Lordships no doubt—I have lost close friends through the action of enemy warships against convoys. On an occasion in London last year, General Gruenther, Commander in Chief of N.A.T.O. pronounced himself very bothered indeed by one fact; and that was the size of Russia's submarine force. The grim fact is that to-day the Soviet Union has 500 U-boats—that is ten times more than the Germans had at the start of the war—and is building at the rate of 80 a year. If we recall the German menace then, and multiply it by ten, we find that figure pretty startling. But how is that startling fact taken into account in this White Paper? Paragraph 24 of the White Paper, speaking of the defence of Atlantic communications against submarine attack, states:
"Britain must make her contribution, though, for the reasons explained earlier, it will have to be on a somewhat reduced scale."
I am bound to ask whether we can really feel satisfied about the result of this statement.
The closest I have been able to find to a reassurance on this point, was a statement made by the American Admiral, Admiral Wright, the Supreme Allied Commander in the Atlantic—and even that was not very reassuring. He said last month:
"N.A.T.O. has not got the number of escort vessels we need for furnishing direct active protection for merchant fleets, but it hopes to keep the loss rate within reasonable limits."
I feel it reasonable to ask: what room is there here for a reduction of escort vessels? No one is likely to forget how close we have been brought to defeat, in two world wars, precisely by the enemy's ability to sink our merchant shipping. No one is likely to forget what a terrible burden is laid on the Navy, and how nobly it fulfils its task. Perhaps, in those circumstances, a landlubber may ask: is it fair to make that task harder and even, perhaps, impossible? Is it not a measure of suicide?

475
My Lords, I know that I have stretched your indulgence to the limit, but I should like to speak for a moment about one aspect of the Government's determination to press on with our own development of nuclear weapons, an aspect which has been brought into prominence by the present visit to Germany of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I believe that this determination is giving great relief and comfort to our neighbours in Europe. It is clear that the interests of America are not always identical, at least in degree, with the interests of our part of the world. That comment is not anti-American; it is simply logical. The part which America is playing in the defence of Europe is beyond dispute and beyond praise. But, in a given situation, if identical information, shared between us, is fed into that great electronic brain, the State Department, it may come out with a totally different answer from ours. That has happened recently. It came out with one answer in the autumn, and six months later, after feeding-in very similar information, it has given out an absolutely opposite answer, an answer similar to the one which America so heartily condemned when we reached it ourselves.
A modern war, it is agreed, can be lost in six days, let alone six months. And, for all America's generosity, the nations of Europe are not entirely happy that she will always interpret a European issue in European terms. It was put to me in this way by a German Socialist Member of Parliament, with whom I spoke for three hours in Bonn in the Bundeshaus, last month. He said:
"We in Germany are territorially closer to Russia than anyone else. We are being asked to stick our necks out further than anyone else. We are being asked to put our trust in N.A.T.O. and the good faith and power of America. But lately we have seen two of America's closest and most dependable allies driven to a needless and humiliating defeat, by an American decision. In the light of that event "—
Your Lordships understand that this was a German M.P. speaking—
"we are bound to ask ourselves, as Germans, what may be our position, as a fairly recent enemy, in any possible agonising reappraisal of the future."
I am not pretending that all Germans are exercised by that same fear, but I am saying that I believe that this fear in some degree permeates Western Europe
476
to-day. And as we in Great Britain become more closely bound to the other nations of Western Europe, especially if such agreements as the Common Market are entered into, it is natural that we should re-assume protective leadership among our neighbours: because our problems and viewpoints are more closely interlocked with theirs than America's can be. The Government are enabling us to assume that protective leadership. I feel sure that the present visit of the Prime Minister to Germany will serve to reaffirm our readiness, and that the White Paper, after he has explained it further, will serve to reinforce the morale in Western Europe, rather than reduce it, as has sometimes been suggested.
I am of the absolute opinion that this policy we are discussing is wise and farsighted. It means that, for once, we should not enter a new war prepared for the last one. I have voiced some anxieties, not exclusive to myself. Some noble Lords may think that they are groundless and misdirected. I hope that your Lordships will recognise that they are all thoughtful and all sincere. At all events, I must thank your Lordships humbly for the notable patience with which you have heard me.
5.32 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords. I am sure that I shall be speaking for everyone in your Lordships' House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, on a notable maiden speech. He speaks with a great deal of personal knowledge and experience, and a great deal of common sense. I am sure that we shall be glad to hear the noble Lord again. One or two of his points I shall take up a little later. I do not intend to detain your Lordships long, because unfortunately I shall be unable to be present tomorrow owing to an engagement, but I should like to submit one or two points to your Lordships.
I rather welcome this White Paper, because it has a note of realism. I have seen a great many White Papers, some of them most notably unrealistic. Some of the earlier Papers were composed of essays by the three Departments limply joined together with a little mild sentiment. This White Paper hangs together much more, but we see there the two

477
perennial dilemmas of all defence questions: whether we are to have security or economic stability, and the dilemma of how much to put in the ultimate weapon and how much for smaller occasions. I am glad to see that the White Paper faces realistically the fact that, if we come to hydrogen bomb warfare, we shall not be able to carry on a war. There is no more talk about "broken-back warfare": we are just going barely to survive. In fact the only thing that belongs to that theory is civil defence. I do not think that there is much place for civil defence. In hydrogen bomb warfare we shall get a certain amount of improvisation by such people as are left, but I do not believe that any elaborate civil defence organisation will survive a hydrogen bomb.
The next thing that comes out of the White Paper, which is also very welcome, looking back to the past, is the full recognition of the fact that there is no defence whatever against the hydrogen bomb and no question of national defence. If we want to get anything like defence or security, it must be collective. To me that means that there must be the fullest co-operation with the democracies, and I do not think that we have yet attained that. This point arises on the question of tests. A test is made in the United States. We say that it is not sufficient for us; that we must have one ourselves. Why? One test should be quite sufficient among allies; but we have never yet had full cooperation with the United States on this line of country. I can carry my mind back to 1945 when we thought we almost had it; but we did not have it.
There is still far too must waste among the Western Allies. Every country pursues lines of research independently of the others. There has been a good deal of controversy on the question of tests. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said he thought it monstrous that we should not have a test. Then we are getting a great deal of disturbing information from scientists. Of course scientists, like doctors and judges often disagree; in fact they seldom agree. But some scientists think that we are going to poison the upper atmosphere and destroy future generations. Others, I know, do not take that view. I should like to give the benefit of the doubt in this matter to posterity, It is not a case of saying, "The Russians can do it, but we must not." The
478
Russians are doing it. How much they are poisoning their own people we shall probably never know; but obviously the cumulative effect of experiments done by all the Powers may lead to great danger to the human race. I cannot see that it is so urgent that we should have a test in the next few months, and I think that we are perfectly right in saying that there should be full consultation about this.
I am glad to see in recent approaches on this matter of the control of the production of nuclear weapons a more hopeful approach than we have had for some time. I have never been a believer in the idea that we could ban nuclear warfare and carry on with other kinds of war. The possession of the weapon upsets the balance between the various powers. I have never believed in any "Queensberry Rule" by which we could ban nuclear weapons. In fact, we have reached the stage in which we have either, somehow or another, to reach some agreement with regard to disarmament or face the prospect of the destruction of our civilisation. Some people seem to think that it is extraordinary to say that civilisation may be destroyed. It would not be extraordinary at all. Many civilisations in history have gone down, generally by their own follly; and it may happen again. I think that people, particularly younger people should take serious thought on this matter. I am thinking of posterity, because perhaps at my age my interest is not: so serious.
Another point is that it is futile to think of getting disarmament without some kind of political agreement. I have had plenty of experience of the difficulties of doing business with Soviet Russia, but we ought to try again; we should really try to get down to disarmament. I welcome what has been done. But I say that we shall not gel it by a mere technical agreement. Technical agreement may help to get a political agreement, but the two must go together.
Like my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough I have been rather shocked at the way in which conventional weapons have become unconventional. We usually think of conventional weapons as the kind of weapons one handles oneself—the rifle and field gun. Now, apparently, they have all become atomic; and when we consider that, we have to consider how we are going to use

479
them. It is felt by some that we could use atomic weapons discharged from the ground and yet avoid all-out atomic warfare; I do not believe that that would be possible. Then we have the question of what is called the "lesser occasions." Suppose you have what are called colonial wars, as part of the work of the policing of the world. Does anyone contemplate using nuclear weapons for trouble in Kenya, or Malaya, or somewhere like that? Obviously not. It is suggested that you might have them for holding the lines, so to speak, in Europe. But you have to look at what that means, The line does not run along the Russian frontier, but through Germany and by Poland. Are you going to get the West Germans to use nuclear weapons against the East Germans? I think it is a complete illusion. If you are going to have any banning, you must get rid of your ground nuclear weapons as well as those discharged in any other way.
We hear a good deal about the long-range rockets. I remember that when I was still responsible for affairs these things were said to be very much in the distance; the hydrogen bomb was not on the horizon, nor were long-range rockets. In fact, the scientific developments seem to accelerate, one after the other, almost as quickly as Ministers of Defence in a Conservative Government. I agree that it makes it extremely difficult for any Government. What we want our conventional weapons for is really only a form of police work. I think we should try to build up the local defence forces. It is not so expensive as having people sent all over the world. I am sure that in Australasia our main base should now be with those Dominions. They will largely have to accept responsibility there.
We talk, and rightly so, of having a highly mobile and highly trained Reserve; but that does not mean that it should be only in this country. I think we have to look out for new bases. There is a great deal of out-of-date thinking about bases. We still seem to think bases valuable which were valuable in the days of navalism but which are not valuable in the days of air warfare. Cyprus is a point. The idea in the White Paper that Cyprus should be a kind of advance launching station for long-range
480
weapons of one kind and another seems to me absolutely monstrous. The island is much too small and much too vulnerable; and, also, it is inhabited by people. I think it is quite wrong to put Cyprus up as a target, like a tied goat waiting for the tiger. In these days of great exposure to attack on any base, you cannot ask people to accept that position. If you want that kind of base, you must accept the risk yourselves. Granted that air transport is important for a Mobile Reserve, I do not think we have developed that nearly enough.
Then we come to the supervision of Forces, Air, Naval and Army. We now have a proposal, which I think is absolutely right, to get rid of conscription. In my view, we were right to have conscription when we decided for it, and we were right to carry it on: but it is wrong to carry it on in other conditions. Now the fact must be faced: are you going to get the men? I could not detect any real note of confidence in the speeches made by Ministers in another place. That is because I think we still regard entry into the Services as either a point of duty or the compulsion of necessity. We are still looking at a time when labour was an expendable commodity. To-day it is not. You must give proper conditions if you want to get people into your Fighting Services. People in the Services now, so far as I can make out, all become highly trained specialists. I look in vain for what we called the common or garden. poor old infantryman, accustomed to doing all the hard jobs. He is now a specialist of one kind or another, well trained and fit. He is not what used to be called "a stupid fighting animal".
Now the Government have the task of, somehow or other, before 1960, getting an attraction into the Services. I do not think you will do it by a bribe of money. You have to offer much more in the way of amenities, such as getting rid of the old barracks, providing decent married quarters and other things of that kind. But, above all, you have to give a firm promise of a secure job for your officers and men. It is not enough to say that there are special labour exchanges, and so on. I think you have to train these men and give them, say, a year on full pay while they are being trained for other jobs. Your modern officer is worthy of

481
a proper job. The old idea that the ex-officer was only fit to be secretary of a golf club has gone.
To begin with, they are needed, and often badly needed, in industry for personnel management. People are much more adaptable than they used to be. I always used to hear the theory from very dull people who said that no one could learn his job who had not gone in at the age of fourteen. Often the intelligent man went in at a much later age and was much better at the job. I would say this to the Government. It is no good saying that you are going to deal with this question next year. The question is: what are you going to do with the people, you are squeezing out now? I understand that there is a considerable feeling of insecurity in the Services. What are you going to do with those people now? Are you going to have people hanging on, trying to get jobs, or will a real effort be made to see that before a man is thrown out he will be worked into a job somewhere else? I think that what you are going to do now is the crucial test, if you want to get the people you need.
Now I wish to comment for a moment on organisation. The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, talked about "Trinity and Unity" and "Unity and Trinity". For years I have been rather a devout Service Trinitarian. The Government have made a fourth person in a superior Chief of Staff of the Services. I do not think that that was a good idea. I think the alternative is to continue to have a Trinity, or a Unity, with one Chief of Staff and a much bigger approach to amalgamation of the Services. I am well aware of all the sentiments one has for the Services of the past, regimental feeling and so on, and I share them all. But we have to face up to the new conditions, and I think the tendency will, and must, be towards a much closer integration, if not amalgamation, of the Forces.
I noticed, by the way, that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, talked about combining the medical services. That is something that struck me at once when I was Prime Minister, and I set up a Committee to examine it, but they reported dead against it. My noble friend Lord Nathan will be speaking later, and he may have a word or two to say on that matter. The
482
trouble is that when you investigate it, it is not so easy, failing a complete amalgamation. It is like the proposition put forward so often by Sir Winston Churchill: "Cut off the tail arid add to the teeth." When you come to look at it, you find that if you cut off all the tail you have not much teeth left and the animal cannot bite. As I say, it is not so easy. But amalgamation of a good many of the services, notably the catering and possibly the paying services, is worth examination. I think we ought to aim at that.
Finally, I would say that I do not think there is any real reason why there should not be a full inquiry into these matters again. The Esher Committee and other Committees have shown the value of a real inquiry into the Services. It has to happen outside: if you think you can do it inside the Service you are wrong; you never can. You never get away from the traditions, and you have to bring new minds on to it. We have been asking for a long time for an examination of this matter, and I think the Government will do well now to accede to that request.
5.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT CHERWELL: My Lords, as I have to refer extensively to nuclear weapons in the course of my remarks, it seems proper to emphasise before I begin that I am speaking for myself and not—I repeat, not—as a member of the Atomic Energy Authority. As has been said, we are facing a revolution in our defence policy. Briefly, it is based on the assumption that there is no way of preventing bombardment by rockets except by the threat of retaliation. This view may well be correct. For the first time, thanks to the hydrogen bomb, the West is in a position to inflict mortal injury on Russia, whose vast distances have swallowed up so many armies in the past. That is why the Kremlin is so anxious that we should promise not to use them.
It is a good many years now since Sir Winston Churchill in another place explained that the increasing power of nuclear weapons might prevent war. I will not go into the case for having conventional weapons as well: the possibility of wanting them for broken-backed war, the need for a N.A.T.O. trip-wire to prevent gradual infiltration; the possibility of having them for what the last speaker,

483
rather rashly, I thought, called colonial wars, knowing that "colonial" is a word that is a red rag to a bull in certain parts where it is not realised how much Britain has done in keeping the peace and raising the standard of life of backward nations.
Nor do I propose to discuss whether the forces that are proposed in the White Paper are of the right size or type. I will pass over—I think the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, mentioned it—the danger of having a gap between the time when our aircraft become out of date and the rockets are ready for service. It is not unknown that rockets should be a little later in their arrival than the date for which they were promised. Personally, I am old and cautious, and in the matter of weapons I think it is a good thing to be on with the new love before you are off with the old. But I feel certain the noble Earl who is to reply will reassure us about this matter.
I now turn to the main proposition, which I think everyone has accepted here—namely, that we must possess such formidable means of attack that it is not worth anybody's while to commence hostilities. Though they accept this, some people ask whether it is necessary to develop these weapons ourselves. As has often been pointed out, it is the very people who are most insistent that the United Kingdom shall have an independent policy of its own who are the first to suggest that there is no need for us to have thermo-nuclear weapons of our own, as we can rely on the protection of the United States. I do not think I need waste time with that view. If we had to rely on the United States we should become a client State—in fact, literally a protectorate. I think the noble Lord mentioned the possibility of our being the 49th State of the Union. I am not so sure that the Americans would welcome us in that form. They are a robust, self-reliant people, and I am not by any means convinced that they would like to have a Welfare State on their hands. But that is by the way.
I will start with the premise that noble Lords agree that we need a deterrent to keep the peace, and that we must have it in our own hands. What I cannot, for the life of me, understand—and I am glad to say it has not been mentioned here this afternoon as it has been outside—is how
484
anybody with a logical mind can argue that we ought to have thermo-nuclear weapons but ought not to test them. Really this displays such a formidable degree of technological innocence that it makes discussion rather difficult. People do not seem to realise that the step from fission bombs to fusion bombs involves the most colossal scientific and engineering problems. The step is much greater than that from an old steam pinnace to a modern speedboat. Of course, we all know the principle of the fusion bomb; but how to arrange it and design it so that it can be made to detonate is a very different matter. We all know that a mixture of petrol and air if ignited will explode and can be used to move a piston and drive a motor car. But it is a long step from there to making a Rolls Royce engine, or even an engine that will work at all.
Even at the risk of shocking some people, I am bound to say categorically that I hope that in the course of the next few years we shall make a number of tests, as the Americans and the Russians have found it necessary to do. It is too much to hope that our first thermo-nuclear bombs will be perfect, any more than the first cannons were perfect. After all, we had cannon at Crecy and Waterloo, and we still needed Shoeburyness. If we are making these bombs as a deterrent, they must be efficient and of the right shapes and sizes to be fitted to our rockets. We must be able to control the amount and type of fall-out. Even cost cannot be altogether neglected.
The arguments outside this House for stopping our tests, which, as I expected, have not been brought forward here, are sometimes silly and always unconvincing. Some people say that our doing so would shame the Russians into giving up tests altogether. Can any argument be more futile? For years we have not tested any thermo-nuclear weapons. Has this shamed the Russians? They let off five bombs within a fortnight only a few weeks ago. Even if they did promise to stop their thermo-nuclear tests, and actually did so, we should be left at an appalling disadvantage, for they have plenty of tested models which they can put into production. We have not tried a single one. It is exactly as though, in the early days of flying, we had proposed to deter a potential aggressor by threatening to

485
bomb his capital when everybody knew that he had a fleet of aircraft which had passed every flight test, while we had nothing but a design on the drawing board without a single prototype. Would anyone in his senses consider this a deterrent?
Other people say, "Well, at any rate, let us postpone our tests while we negotiate with the Russians and ask them to stop theirs." Nothing could suit the Kremlin better. It would leave them free to go on producing their well-tried weapons while we had to hang about waiting to see whether the bomb we had designed would explode, if and when we were courteously allowed to test it. Frankly, I find it hard to reconcile such a proposal with the normal processes of human thought. If we are to rely on deterrents we must have something we know will deter, and not something which our people think may work all right, but which everyone knows might not and is certainly not going to be the last word. Quite apart from this, the idea that one car turn bomb tests of this nature on and off like going out for revolver practice betrays an extreme ignorance of the real facts. Thousands of people are involved, and tens of thousands of tons of shipping which all have to be in the right place at the right time. Climate and weather are vital considerations. Months of preparations go into these things.
I now come to the other type of argument which has been paraded in many versions at great length and with considerable pomposity, namely, the story that our tests constitute a danger to the health of humanity. I do not think I shall hurt anybody's feelings in this House if I say that this is unmitigated nonsense. As shall show in a few minutes, these tests cannot in any circumstances cause any significant increase in the number of stillbirths or defective children or cases of leukemia or cancer of the bone. Unless we make them, we shall never get the deterrents on which we are counting to save the world from global war. Clearly, we must keep our sense of proportion. Surely we all agree that almost any sacrifice is worth while to prevent subjugation by Communism or the Communist Powers. We are prepared to sacrifice numbers of lives in Service training to avoid it; we are spending £1,500 million to help to maintain our
486
freedom; we willingly accept the resulting diminution in the standard of life of our people—more than £2 per week per family. And, if war came, we should certainly lose hundreds of thousands of men before we submitted. Yet the advocates for stopping the tests insist that we must not risk any lives, trivial though the risk is, in preparing the deterrent which is to prevent the war.
Over 5,500 people were killed on the roads in 1955 in Britain alone, and over 250,000 were injured. This could all be avoided if we stopped all the motoring. But nobody proposes that. Why? Because we think the convenience and economy of motor transport justifies the risk. Not only that, but thousands of people die every year as the result of accidents in getting in and out of their baths. Yet, nobody says that we ought to stop having baths. For we hold that the hygienic and other general advantages of having baths outweigh the occasional fatalities. The statistical evidence for a connection between cancer of the lung and smoking is much stronger than exists for a connection between radio-activity and bone cancer. But nobody suggests that we should stop smoking, though this would do very little harm to anyone except the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But the excitable, sometimes almost hysterical, people who rush forward ordering us to stop our bomb tests leave out of account altogether that to do so would prevent our having a deterrent which would probably save us from a war costing millions of lives. And we are to do this because they, in their wisdom, contrary to the best opinion, believe, or at any rate assert, that our tests might harm the health of a completely negligible part of the human race. The harm a world war would do they do not seem to care about.
But I need not rely upon this argument, conclusive as it is; it is simpler to refute the story that our tests will create risks to the world's health. As has been said, a great number of people are genuinely worried about this matter. The question has been investigated by the highest authorities, who have agreed that the risks are negligible, not to say nonexistent. But, for some reason, people tend to believe the views of much less knowledgeable men, whose assertions are widely circulated as though they were the last word. And I need scarcely say that

487
the conclusion they draw is that our tests should be stopped.
The ringleaders in this campaign are certainly a very curious collection. Oddly enough, none of them seems to worry very much about the Russian tests. These they seem to assume will do no damage to anyone. It is the British tests they insist will poison the world. The Daily Worker, of course, has been in the forefront, of the movement. A variegated lot of scientists have also given tongue. Some seem to be ordinary fellow-travellers; some are emotional pacifists; some appear to be publicity-mongers, and some are just honestly misguided.
LORD PAKENHAM: I cannot believe that so many eminent members of the noble Viscount's profession—the scientists—could be such terrible people as he has just told us they are.
VISCOUNT CHERWELL: I am sorry to say that many members of my profession are not very good when it comes to considering political matters. Many of them even vote with the noble Lord who has just sat down. All of these gentlemen are, of course, described in the Left Wing Press as "leading scientists". It is quite a joke now in scientific circles that if anyone wishes to be advertised in the newspapers as a great nuclear expert, he has only to write in ponderous terms saying that he thinks the British tests at Christmas Island ought to be stopped. None of these gentlemen had access to inside knowledge—at least, I sincerely hope not. But this does not deter them. Although the Medical Research Council appointed a completely unbiased body of the most able men in the profession, including eight Fellows of the Royal Society, who were given complete insight into all the relevant data and issued a unanimous Report (Cmd. No. 9780), these self-appointed prophets are quite ready to set up their opinions against the collective conclusions of their more expert and more experienced colleagues. The word "effrontery" seems to me the mildest term by which such action can be described.
I have no quarrel with the hosts of kind-hearted, trustful, well-meaning people who cannot bear the idea that anyone should be hurt. They seldom know very much about the subject or about the credentials of the men who
488
are spreading their propaganda from the house-tops. Nor, for that matter, do I complain about the escapists, whose hearts rule their heads and who seem to hope that, if they do not have anything to do with these naughty weapons, all will be well. All of them have just been misled. I must say I was very shocked to see that the Lancet had seen fit to countenance this campaign and had supported the views of some unofficial group which contradicted flatly the conclusions of the Medical Research Council Committee. It is amazing that such a journal should have so little regard for the leaders of the profession.
Amongst other cardinal errors, the conclusions countenanced by the Lancet are based on the assertion that one ten-millionth of a curie of radium would cause one man in 200 to develop cancer of the bone. According to the International Commission on Radiological Protection, this quantity is permissible; and "permissible" is defined as
"not expected to cause appreciable bodily injury to a person at any time during his lifetime".
"Appreciable bodily injury" is defined as
"any bodily injury or effect that a person would regard as objectionable and/or competent medical authorities would regard as being deleterious to the health or well-being of the individual".
Presumably, cancer of the bone would be both objectionable and deleterious. So the whole argument is based on an assertion flatly contradicting the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
I will mention later some of the other questionable assumptions on which the conclusions depend. All I would say now is that it is very undesirable that such tendentious views, clearly based on wishful thinking, directly at variance with the conclusions of the most distinguished men who form the International Commission on Radiological Protection, should be promulgated as though they were authoritative. This sort of thing becomes particularly obnoxious since various universally respected figures like the Pope and Dr. Schweitzer have been persuaded to intervene. How they could allow themselves to be taken in by the inaccurate propaganda of the friends of Russia is hard to understand. The true facts have been set out, both here and in America,

489
by scientists of the highest repute with access to all the secret data. Frankly, I am surprised that men in high positions without: scientific knowledge or exact information should brush all this aside and issue appeals on quantitative scientific questions which they are really not competent to judge.
Just one example of the incredible muddleheadedness that prevails in these matters. In a debate in another place a few weeks ago, the Opposition moved an Amendment asking the Government to put forward effective proposals for the abolition of H-bomb tests through international agreement. These so-called "leading scientists" might have explained to the Opposition the distinction between the fission of the heavy nuclei which does form radioactive products that might in excessive quantities be harmful, and the fusion of H-nuclei, which cannot in any circumstances produce fall-out emitting rays harmful to man or beast. To concentrate their objection specifically on the after-effects of the harmless H-component might lead people to question whether the Opposition really understand what they are talking about. The fission of uranium or plutonium, on the contrary, does produce comparatively long-lived radioactive substances like Strontium 90 and Caesium 137, some of which emit gamma rays, and those substances do fall slowly to the ground and to some extent enter into the food chain so that human beings are exposed to a minute amount of internal radiation.
Let us first consider the argument about the gamma ray isotopes which, we a-e told, jeopardise the future of unborn millions in the world. All the unborn millions have been and always will be subject to cosmic rays, which produce mesons and gamma rays, as well as to the gamma rays from the radioactive components of the rocks and the soil. This has been happening ever since life appeared on the planet. Whether or not these radiations are the cause of any of the mutations which appeared in living creatures from time to time and which by natural selection have led gradually to the emergence of the human race we need not examine. Most people seem to think that it is only a small fraction. All that matters is that for thousands of millions of years these cosmic rays have been beating down upon the earth,
490
absorbed to some extent in the air, yet reaching the ground in a measurable if somewhat attenuated form. At 10,000 feet the dosage is about 130 per cent. greater than at sea level.
The gamma rays to which we are exposed from the fission products of all tests up to date are 150 times weaker than the radiation to which everybody is exposed anyhow in the course of nature. To frighten people by making out that this slight increase, two-thirds of 1 per cent., is going to increase the mutation rate—in other words the number of malformed babies or still-births—by an appreciable fraction is deliberately dishonest. Anyone who goes to live 200 feet higher up is subjected to a greater increase in effective radiation than he gets from the result of all the nuclear tests put together. I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who lives on a tower surrounded by granite, is in a rather ominous position. As for the man who wears a luminous wrist-watch, he gets far more than all the tests put together would subject him to. Large numbers of people live and breed many feet above sea level. I have never heard that the Highlanders are notably less healthy than the Lowlanders, or that the number of still-births or of defective babies is greater in Switzerland than in Holland. Yet they are getting many times more radiation from the sky than the tiny percentage added by all the nuclear tests which have been made. Even in Tibet, where cosmic rays are four times as strong, where radiation is 40 per cent. higher, people seem to live and breed quite happily—at least they did until the Communists invaded them.
Nor is this surprising. For even the most cautious experts agree that the effect of adding an extra 100 per cent. or 200 per cent. to the natural background dose would be negligible. Yet 0·6 per cent., according to our vociferous "cranks," means danger to the human race. Everybody gets thirty times as much from the potassium contained in the human body. If it comes to that, the number of gamma rays we get from the radioactive materials in the walls of our houses is fifty times greater than the amount to which we are exposed by the nuclear tests. If the protagonists of stopping the tests had any logic in their

491
being they ought to tell us all to go and live in tents.
The lengths to which certain people will go is shown by the "whispering campaign" which seems to have been started, hinting that the radiation from the debris of our bomb tests may cause sterility or even impotence. A very effective lie! It is, of course, the height of absurdity. It would take about 10,000 times the gamma radiation caused by all the tests which have been made up to date to cause sterility in a woman, and 15,000 times for a man. To suggest that the effect of our Christmas Island tests, adding only a fraction to the radiation from past tests—not 10,000 or 15,000 times more—could have any effect whatsoever is quite ludicrous. If there were any truth in that story, anyone who lived a couple of thousand feet above sea level and who would therefore get several times more gamma rays than from all the tests put together, would be sterile. Yet there are millions of people who have been living happily in mountainous countries for generations. And as to impotence, this is not caused by radiation at all. I will not speculate as to how this lying tale started and by whom it is being put about.
Then we have the ingestion of the celebrated Strontium 90. This seems to frighten people just because it has been linked with the hated word "cancer." It is quite true that Strontium 90 is radioactive, and therefore can be detected in minute quantities. But it is equally true that in any case there is radium in the bones of everybody, and that it is much more active than Strontium. It has been known for many years that people who work with radium are apt, unless precautions are taken, to assimilate an amount greater than usual. After elaborate tests the Medical Research Council, I think it was, laid down a figure for the maximum amount of radioactive matter permissible in the bones of people working with luminous paint, which of course contained radium.
I expect noble Lords know how cautious the doctors are in these matters. For my part, I feel sure that the limit they have laid down is much more likely to be too low than too high. Yet according to the Medical Research Council's investigation, the amount of Strontium 90
492
which we have absorbed up to date, and which, like radium, belongs to the second group, and therefore tends to be deposited in the bones in a similar way, is 1,000 times less than the amount they consider safe for people working in factories where radioactive materials are used. Even if we allow a factor 10, in case infants absorb more Strontium 90. or are more sensitive than adults, we still have in hand a safety factor of a hundred.
In their determination to make our flesh creep, the people who wish to stop our tests are prepared to make use of strangely contorted arguments. As I have said, the latest version, rushed through by a self-appointed group to be in time for Christmas Island, starts from the assumption, rejected by the International Commission for Radiological Protection, that one ten-millionth of a curie of radium will produce bone cancer in one man in 200. It then introduces the hypothesis that one six-hundredth of the equivalent amount of Strontium 90 will cause bone cancer in one man in 120,000. Well, no one can be sure what will happen with radiation of such low intensity; but if anyone were to tell you that because half the people who took one grain of some poison died it followed that taking one six-hundredth of a grain would kill one person in 1,200, I think you would be rather surprised. I am riot saying it is quite impossible in radioactive things, but it seems unusual.
I will not examine all the uncertainties involved in estimating the amount which may accumulate by 1970, as they do. There is the radioactive decay of the Strontium 90; the fact that what gets into one's bones does not stay there for ever the possibility that some of it will be washed out of the soil in twelve years, and so on. The amounts of ordinary radium in the soil are sixty times greater than the amount of Strontium 90, and radium is about ten times as obnoxious as Strontium 90. Though radium does not enter into the food chain in the same was as Strontium, it is, to say the least of it, striking that 600 times the effective activity appears to be harmless.
These uncertainties are not emphasised by our clamant critics. Having started with a faulty premise and added a dubious hypothesis, they make clear assertions which culminate in Press statements that each megaton equivalent exploded in a test will cause the loss of a

493
thousand lives. I must say that I am surprised that such bald statements are allowed to pass uncorrected. Anyhow, the men who have been uniformly written up in the Left-Wing Press as leading scientists because they have said things lending to discourage our nuclear experiments cannot possibly know how much Strontium 90 will be produced in our Christmas Island test. As I have said, the fusion explosion produces no Strontium or radioactive fall-out whatsoever. Only those who have detailed knowledge of the design of the bombs and know how much Strontium is produced in the detonator or blanket can form any idea of the amount the Christmas island test will add to the atmosphere. It is monstrous that, lacking this essential datum, anyone should allow the assertion to appear in the Press that the debris of every megaton equivalent will kill a thousand people. I do not know whether our vociferous critics claim to possess knowledge of the design of our bombs. If they do, they can have acquired it only in flagrant breach of the Official Secrets Act.
Certainly, this debris will be only a fraction of the total in the atmosphere from previous tests. And that total, as I have shown, is quite incapable of causing any of the harmful effects predicted by ignorant or biased persons, however vociferous. The efficiency of the Communist propaganda machine is shown by the fuss that is being made about these few test explosions. Christmas Island is as far from Tokio as Delhi is from London a good deal farther than St. Helena from here. Yet the Japanese are running round in circles, claiming that these tests should be stopped. The Russians, who have just let off five bombs much closer to Japan, have scarcely been criticised. To say the least of it, this is a curious coincidence. I find it very hard to unravel the motives of the people who are so busy trying to stop our tests at Christmas Island. The straight Communists and fellow travellers are, of course, simply doing as they have been told by Moscow. Very cleverly have they set about it—dropping dark hints to terrify prospective mothers and murmuring suggestions about cancer to frighten the men, with whispered undertones about sterility and impotence. But it is really shameful to see how many decent, honest people are being taken in.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount once more, and no more? Would he say that the Prime Minister had been taken in? The Prime Minister said on April 17:
"I am worried about the possible medical effects of the tests in years to come. But we must not get even that out of proportion."
Does the noble Viscount share the worry of the Prime Minister in any degree?
VLSCOUNT CHERWELL: I do not think so. But then, of course, I am a professional physicist; I do not know these political phrases so well.
These well-meaning dupes forget that even if the tests did add to some tiny extent to the number of people who suffer from bone cancer or to the number of still-births, this would be a small price to pay for developing a really effective deterrent which would prevent war; and, as I have explained, the risk is quite negligible. But it is extraordinary how they take for gospel and repeat the tendentious reports of self-appointed, so-called "leading scientists" with very scant knowledge of the facts, who rush in and contradict the greatest experts in the world who have been given all the secret data. They do not seem to realise that, whether they know it or not, they are playing the Communist game.
It is because so many men and women, full of good intentions, have fallen victims to the exaggerated tales so assiduously put about, that I have ventured to detain the House so long on this rather technical scientific question. I reiterate that it is moonshine to insist that the gamma rays resulting from debris of nuclear tests will cause adverse genetic effects. Quite apart from the gamma rays—scores of times more intense than those due to fission products—which are showered on us from the soil, the rocks and even the bricks in the walls of our homes, every living being on the planet is, and has always been, exposed to the effects of cosmic rays, which anyhow increase by about one per cent. for every 300 feet we live above sea level. All the nuclear tests up to date have increased the general gamma ray dose by only two-thirds of one per cent. And our Christmas Island tests will acid only a fraction to this. Anyone who seriously believes that adverse genetic effects will flow from this extra fraction of two-thirds of one per cent.—equivalent to living a fraction

495
of 200 feet higher than we do already—should consult a psychiatrist. As to the alleged danger of cancer due to Strontium 90 accumulating in our bones, even the most pessimistic assumptions by our critics have only been able to make out that this amounts to one-hundredth or even less of the quantity which the International Commission on Radiological Protection has declared safe for industrial workers. To raise a scare because this may be increased by a fraction is, to say the least of it, irresponsible.
These questions are plain, scientific matters of fact. There is no Party issue involved—at any rate, there ought not to be. The highest authorities in the land, with all the data at their disposal, have examined them conscientiously and have published their considered views. It is from their Report that I have extracted the figures I have used. They agree as closely as can be expected with the figures and conclusions in the independent American report. And the fact that the Russians persist in carrying out tests in the heart of their own territory seems to show that the Communist propaganda against making them is "for export only." Misguided as it is, I can understand the position of the convinced pacifist, who cannot stomach the idea of the use of force in any circumstances. But he should try to achieve his ends by converting his fellow-citizens to his views by argument—not try to bring them in by a side-wind. It is scarcely honest, it seems to me, to try to stop us from making H-bombs by backing tendentious propaganda seeking to prevent us from testing them, on the pretext that this might endanger the health of the world. If anybody disapproves of the fundamental thesis of the White Paper, namely, that the best way to avert war is to build up a stock of nuclear deterrents, it is for him to say what is his alternative. But if the policy is accepted one thing is abundantly clear; we must make these weapons ourselves.
Unless we are given complete details about the American bombs—which is forbidden by American law—we must find out how; and for this, tests are absolutely essential. To give up our right to make tests would nullify the whole policy set out in the White Paper. I should be agreeable to the United Kingdom's
496
undertaking not to carry out more tests in all than the number which had been made by Russia or America. But it would be little short of criminal folly to limit ourselves to a much smaller number, and even worse to delay the tests at Christmas Island. To face the Communist world without power to retaliate against attack with nuclear weapons would be to deliver us, the Commonwealth and the Empire, bound hand and foot to those nations which possess a stock of bombs. Surely no-one who has any feelings for Britain's great traditions and glorious history would be content with this.
6.33 p.m.
LORD WEEKS: My Lords, I think I ought to declare my interest, to the extent that I am still a member of an organisation which is probably the biggest manufacturer in this country of defence equipment for the Royal Navy, the Army, and the Royal Air Force. I hope your Lordships will not consider that any of my short comments are for that reason unduly biased.
There are no doubt certain feelings of dismay in the Services and in industry on account of the White Paper. In the last ten years, vacillations of policy, often mainly due to the changing political situation, have caused a great deal of wasted work and wasted scientific endeavour in the Services and in industry; plans have been made and scrapped; new equipment has been designed and scrapped. I have had first-hand evidence of a small section of the effect of vacillating policy in the investigation (of which I am chairman) which is being carried out for the Secretary of State for War into the conduct of Works Services for the Army; and I am glad to see that this particular matter of better accommodation receives high priority in paragraph 53 of the White Paper.
Many of us have for a long time been aware that the whole of the defence set-up required a "new look", and for that reason I welcome, with certain reservations, the White Paper as a brave step in the right direction, something which will enable all of us to plan the way ahead with a little more firmness. I do not propose to argue the relation between the dropping of National Service and the nuclear deterrent. The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear in winding up the

497
debate in another place on April 17 [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 568 (No. 96), col. 2042]:
"Short of general disarmament…the end of conscription must depend upon the acceptance of nuclear weapons."
My first reservation, after accepting the fact that we are "putting our shirts (and also our trousers) on" nuclear weapons, is that I only hope Her Majesty's Government will concentrate on their ability to deter or handle properly the more serious limited wars, which not only represent the real Communist threat but in my opinion are the real danger of starting a global war. So much, therefore, must hinge on skilful diplomacy and a correct policy in development and production of the more conventional weapons, which the noble Earl, Lord Atlee, pointed out were no longer necessarily conventional. My second reservation is that I question whether it will be possible to raise even the limited numbers now contemplated without some form of call-up, more particularly in the Army. I therefore regard paragraph 53 of the White Paper as one of the most essential paragraphs in the whole document.
My third reservation refers to the guided-missile policy. I understand that, with two or three notable exceptions in the fighter class, we are jettisoning our efforts on future supersonic fighters and supersonic bombers. It may be perfectly logical to assume that guided missiles will be effective in taking the place of manned aircraft in, say, "x" years, but "x" years may be a long time—longer than the Minister of Defence estimates—and I, for one, do not believe that manned aircraft will be completely superseded, for defence purposes, for many years. It is the normal experience that every offensive weapon is overtaken by defensive equipment, and there is no reason to expect that this may not happen again; and that, to some extent, will mitigate the killing effect of guided missiles.
At the annual aircraft constructors' dinner held at Boscombe recently (it was, I think, a light-hearted affair), some interesting and well-informed opinions were expressed. May I quote from an article in Aeronautics:
"The point was put that the change to missiles might never be a complete change and that the probability was that manned aircraft
498
would always form a large part of any military force. The other point made was that, even where missiles do replace the manned aircraft, they will do so—if those who direct our defences are wise—according to a predetermined time scale set by the rate of progress with the missiles themselves and by the amount by which they can be proved to be superior to manned vehicles. These were the serious lessons taught by men, who are in a better position to know the facts than any others. We advise all who wish to launch into statements about how our future defences should be organised to heed them."
What I am trying to point out to your Lordships is not only the danger of the time scale in the development of a long family of guided missiles, but also the fact that, though we may have some very good rocket weapons from the United States, there are many other varieties of guided weapons which have to be developed: and unless we are prepared to buy them they ought to be developed here.
Another reservation I wish to make, and perhaps the most critical, is the dangerous impact of the White Paper as regards the general effect on the aircraft industry as a whole, a young and very great industry in which I have had some experience. It is true that some of the companies concerned may be able to replace their present production by turning over to some form of guided weapons, but apart from that at the present moment their future looks somewhat grim. I cannot believe that your Lordships will disagree with the fact that travel by air, apart from what I have tried to postulate as certain defence requirements, is going to increase on much the, same scale as it has done in the last decade. It seems to me vital that this country should play its part and have a healthy industry, and should not allow the United States entirely to monopolise the field.
The finance required, as in so many other fields to-day—for example, steel, super-tankers, atomic energy and transport—is immense, and if we are to keep a virile aircraft industry it must have—I will not put it higher than this—a sympathetic Government policy. We have had our temporary successes with Comets, Viscounts, and Britannias. I might say, in passing, that in my opinion one of the greatest mistakes we ever made was to "crash" the V-1000. Now we have to try to catch up. America has an enormous advantage in the fact that the Administration place large military orders

499
for different kinds of machine, which can then, without any great efforts on the part of the companies concerned, be converted to civil requirements.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Lord, in view of what he is now saying, whether he will support the request put forward from these Benches on many occasions for an inquiry into the aircraft production industry?
LORD WEEKS: I do not think it is for me to express a view on that matter, because I am one of the people concerned with this particular point. I do not suggest for one moment that I am asking for a further inquiry into the industry.
The last point I wish to make is not so much a reservation as a question mark on further integration of the Services—a matter touched on very well by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I can claim to have seen at first-hand during the war the working of the machinery of the Services and Supply and also, to some extent, the War Cabinet. Since then, I have been intimately connected with trying to provide all types of Service equipment, thus looking at the matter from the other end. I cannot believe that five Ministries—Defence, War Office, Admiralty, Air Ministry and Supply—are necessary to run Forces of the size contemplated, which are now being shaped to meet the ability of this country to pay for them.
Like many others, I have for some time been advocating that the whole of our defence organisation needs to be closely examined, working up to a Minister of Defence who has full responsibility and the power of decision. Though I am much tempted to do so, I am not to-day trying to throw a very large brick at the Ministry of Supply, who, at different stages, have done some very fine things. But I think it is fair to say that perhaps the greatest bugbear in interpreting Service requirements by industry is the fact that this Ministry is interposed between the user and industry, especially in the case of the Army and the Royal Air Force. The noble and gallant Viscount. Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein gave his views on this question of integration very clearly, in a speech which he made to the Royal United Service Institution in November, 1956.
500
under the title: "The Panorama of Warfare in a Nuclear Age." His speech is far too long to quote, and I daresay that many of your Lordships have read it. I commend it to your Lordships, as it says, in much more authoritative terms, what I am trying to say now.
The noble and gallant Viscount made some of the following points. We must not blind ourselves with Service partisanship; the trend in Service organisation to-day is towards Service self-sufficiency (I think I have noticed on several occasions that it goes further, and I would even say that there was departmental self-sufficiency); since a lot of Service controversy results from competition for the most important tasks, perhaps the rôles and the missions in force to-day need revision. The noble and gallant Field-Marshal then referred to the possibility of a single Service, though he made it clear that he realised fully that that would not be acceptable to many people to-day. He gave very good reasons why that is so. He favoured unified command, whenever possible, and the provision of more well-rounded Staff Officers, men who have a working knowledge of all Services. And this would involve a more comprehensive unified system of military education.
I am well aware that, when opening the debate in another place, the Minister of Defence announced the setting up of a Defence Administrative Committee to make a comprehensive review which must obviously cover many of these aspects of integration. In my opinion, this is another step in the right direction, and no doubt some extremely useful recommendations will come from that Committee. Those of us who were privileged to visit Greenwich last Friday were told how the Admiralty were tackling this particular plan. I agree very much with what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said earlier. Looking back over the years, the Esher Committee, in the early part of this century, did a job which laid the foundation of the excellent conduct of the last war. I believe, just as the noble Earl stated, that it would not be at all a bad policy to set up some further long-term machinery—not departmental—to examine the sort of central machine of defence that we should be aiming to achieve in eight to ten years' time.

501
I wish the Minister of Defence every success in carrying out the policy of this White Paper. I am very glad to support at the same time expressing the hope that any dangers arising from its implementation will be adequately safeguarded; and also that Her Majesty's Government will not hesitate to carry out the necessary defence reorganisation which the situation will demand, and (to quote a famous First Sea Lord) to carry it out ruthlessly, relentlessly and remorselessly.
6.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Weeks, in wishing the Minister of Defence well of his White Paper. I admire the courage which informed him in preparing it and presenting it to Parliament. And, if I may say so, I admire the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary presented it to your Lordships' House to-day. Like Lord Weeks, I have certain reservations, and I should like to make a further observation on the question of Supply, about which the noble Lord knows so much. I avow myself an opponent of the present system of Supply. I have worked with it and seen it in operation; and I believe that the Ministry of Supply is a faulty organisation and that responsibility is not properly placed. We have not had the best results from the expenditure of money on research, development and production, particularly of aircraft, that we ought to have had, owing to the defective system under which we have been working. I should like to see responsibility placed much more fairly and squarely on those who have to use the weapons, because in the interval between the ordering and the using of arms a great deal of effort and knowledge runs to waste. I think that we might well start with an examination of the Supply question if we are talking about examination of the Defence Services.
Another reservation which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Weeks, is that about guided weapons and fighters. If we are to have reduced expenditure on defence—and I do not quarrel with that necessarily arbitrary decision—it is perfectly clear that some things have to go which are highly desirable and needful; but the experience with the production of guided weapons and missiles is not happy, as the noble Viscount. Lord Cherwell, said. If
502
we are to have any effective development, I believe that we as a nation should be well advised, and that the Government would be well advised, to put a far greater effort into the production of guided missiles than apparently is proposed.
There is one statement in the White Paper with which I cannot agree. I do not believe that it is possible to have an air defence of vulnerable points. Last year's White Paper said, almost in terms, that we could not have, an aerial defence. This year it has turned up as a defence of strategic bomber airfields. That is papering a crack—and the crack is there. It would be much better to face it firmly. Perhaps it may mean sonic really concentrated work in getting a real defence. It is not for me to say—and I am not in a position to do so—what we ought to economise upon in order to get better and more effective expenditure on these weapons. Though, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, mention of broken-back "war has this year been excluded from the White Paper—at: any rate, in terms—it seems to me to turn up under naval expenditure. With respect to the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, I am not impressed by the very few fighter aircraft and the sixty submarines, either in the Active or the Reserve Fleets. If we have a hydrogen war and are subjected to nuclear attack, I do not believe that submarine warfare means very much; and even if we were to have that kind of warfare, in my limited knowledge of naval tactics, I do not see the relevance of a large submarine fleet. I would rather see the money spent in an effective defence of guided missiles.
We have had some reference to N.A.T.O. Although some of the money we have been spending in the last seven or eight years might have been better spent, I do not take the view that our policy has been misguided and our objectives misplaced. I believe that the great North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has been an effective deterrent to Russian aggression. I believe that, although we have spent a great deal of our national treasure, on the whole it has been spent economically, because we have given the country and Europe a far greater feeling of security and a smaller fear of being menaced by Communist aggression and

503
subversion. Would anybody, looking back and putting himself in the position in which we were at the time of the Berlin blockade or the invasion of Korea, expect Western Europe to feel even relatively so secure as they do to-day?
While we have been preparing, quite rightly, and concentrating upon the arming of the nations of the West, and upon our co-operative effort, many things have been happening in the world. One of these great events was the death of Josef Stalin. Although I do not place any greater reliance on the good behaviour, morals and intentions of the present rulers of Russia than I did on those of the late Josef Stalin, great developments have flowed from the release of the Russian Empire from his vice-like grip. In particular, relations between Russia and the satellites have changed. I do not believe that, with the experience of Poland and Hungary, the Russians will any longer have a keen incentive to try to communise and subjugate the rest of the Western European Nations. I think a great deal of the courage of the sorely tried nations in Eastern Europe, who have been suffering so long under Russian tyranny, for revealing that state of affairs.
If we are to reduce our contribution to N.A.T.O., as we intend to do, then we should redouble our efforts to get a far higher degree of integration, political and economic, as well as military, in Western Europe. The results of Suez may be variously estimated and according to one's political predilections. But one thing that has been shown, so far as America is concerned (the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, adverted to this in a remarkable maiden speech), is that Europe is only one of several areas that America considers to be vital. Whether or not they are right in their priorities remains to be seen—we cannot judge. But we can no longer expect that Europe will be regarded as the only object of American policy.
We are entering a phase in which the new ardent nationalists in Africa and Asia are only too ready to play off Communist Russia against capitalist America at the expense of Western Europe. When we consider the pace of events, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, the extraordinary developments of weapons, we cannot fail to notice that the inter-continental
504
ballistic missile will be upon us before very long. When that day comes—although no doubt the United States would like to have our early warning radar system—it will fundamentally alter our relations, in a military and political sense, with the United States. I believe that we ought to use that time to try to integrate Europe and to see that the voice and power of Europe are felt in the councils of the world. Surely Great Britain must take a lead in that—a really active lead. We have not too long in which to do it, and, while we admire America and regard her as our friend, we should not neglect the recent manifestations of her policy.
The hour is not late but there are a great many speakers still to come and I will not detain your Lordships much longer. On the whole. I give my support to the policy outlined in the White Paper, but I would make certain that the good intentions which are expressed therein are given effective form. It is one thing to say what you are going to do and another thing to persuade the Treasury to "ante up" the money. It is much easier for the Treasury to cut down the expenditure, and to let the Minister say what he is going to do in this direction, than it is to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the time comes for the Annual Estimates to be presented, to find the necessary money for particular projects. Unless the defence we have after these cuts take place is really effective, unless we spend money on research and development, and put weapons, instead of plans and drafts, into the hands of our men, then we shall get the worst of both worlds.
Finally, I shall regard the treatment of the officers and men who will be displaced by this new policy as an earnest of the Government's intention. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, express himself in such unequivocal terms. I must tell him, however, if he needs to be told—though I do not believe that he does—that when it comes to an argument with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury officials, every excuse will be found to cut down what he wants to do. I myself have had some experience of this. I hope that he will be "tough" with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that, if he does not get satisfaction, he will take his protest to the point of resignation.
6.59 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF KIRTLESIDE: My Lords, to save time let me say at once that to a large extent I agree with the broad conception of the White Paper on Defence, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Weeks, to whose speech I listened with great interest and a good deal of agreement, I have certain reservations. Indeed, I have considerable anxiety on one or two points, on which I must touch. To put it bluntly, I am worried about the time scale.
The White Paper envisages that Britain is setting out on a new system of defence based, in the first place, on the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons, and ultimately for the defence of our bomber bases on a ground-to-air guided missile system. As regards the method of delivery of the deterrent, it is apparently envisaged that before long the manned bomber will be replaced by ballistic rockets. I do not quarrel, with this picture, but I do ask myself when it is likely to become a reality. When shall we have these ballistic missiles for the offensive and these guided missiles for defence, developed, perfected and deployed in sufficient numbers? My experience is that designers and constructors the people that we in the Air Force call the "boffins"—are apt to be optimistic and to foresee their pet products becoming ready for practical use years before they actually do. I am wondering whether the Minister of Defence has been led a little too fast along that path. I am sure that the push-button era is going to come, but perhaps it may he further away than some of the experts, at any rate, think.
Nor, I think, can we be 100 per cent. confident that the enemy will not find some means of neutralising our ballistic missiles. They depend, I assume, for instance, for their control on radar and radio, which can be jammed. So it seems to me that there is a danger that in, say, about ten years' time we may be faced with a period when our new, highly scientific weapons are not ready, or are not ready in sufficient numbers, while our conventional weapons have become out-of-date and are, therefore, to that extent, useless. Of course, I see the difficulty: we cannot afford two systems of defence simultaneously. But I suggest that we should, as an insurance against the possibility I have envisaged, continue with the
506
development, to at least one further stage, of our conventional weapons—and I refer particularly, of course, to air weapons.
In paragraph 61 of the White Paper we are told:
"The Government have decided not to go on with the development of a supersonic manned-bomber which could not be brought into service in much under ten years."
The implication, clearly, is that within ten years we shall have perfected, developed and produced ballistic missiles which will replace the manned-bomber, and missiles, moreover, which the enemy cannot defeat. This may well happen but is it wise to rely entirely on its happening? I suggest that as a precaution, or as an insurance, we ought to proceed with the development of the supersonic manned-bomber. I am informed that the Americans and the Russians are both continuing this line of development, and we ourselves, I know, have already made considerable progress. The amount of money involved in this line of development is trivial compared with what will be the totals of our Defence Budget over the next ten years. The question of whether or not this aircraft would be put into production could, of course, be postponed for the present, and we should watch the progress of our ballistic missiles in the meanwhile.
There is a further point in regard to the supersonic manned-bomber. Undoubtedly, within the next ten or fifteen years we shall require a supersonic civil transport aircraft, both for use in Transport Command and in civil aviation. Much of the basic research and development into the supersonic bomber is applicable to the development of the supersonic transport. There is no suggestion in the White Paper that a supersonic transport aircraft will be developed, but unless this is done, and the money is provided, we shall find ourselves in some ten years' time in the same position vis-à-vis the Americans as we have found ourselves in respect of the big, fourengined, long-range, trans-Atlantic civil aircraft. Here we have lost the race to the Americans, and we have the picture of B.O.A.C. buying the American Boeing 707. Unless we are prepared to spend money on the development of supersonic aircraft we shall find ourselves in the same position in the late 'sixties in regard to this supersonic aircraft I see that in

507
paragraph 63 of the White Paper it is stated that
"increased emphasis will be placed on the development of nuclear propulsion for maritime purposes which has great civil as well as naval importance."
This seems to indicate that the Government are prepared to take civil as well as military interests into account in the development of ships, but not, apparently, in the case of aircraft.
I now turn to paragraph 62 of the White Paper, where it is stated that the Government have come to the conclusion that the R.A.F. are unlikely to have a requirement for fighter aircraft types more advanced than the supersonic P.1 and that work on such projects will be stopped. This point was also referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Weeks. Here, again, it seems to me the same arguments apply, and it may conceivably turn out in years to come that our ground-to-air guided missiles system is lagging behind and that the P.1, our only supersonic fighter, is out-of-date and of inferior performance for the task which it has to perform. One hopes that this will not be so, but, at the same time, it seems to be taking a very big chance not to develop a successor to the P.1.
There is also the point, as I understand it, that the range of our ground-to-air guided missiles, indeed any ground-to-air guided missiles at present envisaged, is comparatively short and it may well be that we shall find that we shall need a manned fighter to operate outside the range of our guided missiles so as to prevent the enemy bombers from having a free run into the vicinity of the target. Finally, on this same matter, there is the point that we have to be in a position to fight a limited war, and I should have thought that manned fighters would continue to play some part in a limited war for a considerable time to come.
I should now like to turn to paragraphs 34 to 36 of the White Paper, in the section headed "Central Reserve". In paragraph 35 it says that the Central Reserve must possess the means of rapid mobility and that for this purpose a substantial fleet of transport aircraft is being built up in R.A.F. Transport Command. I should certainly like to know what are the Government's intentions as regards the building-up of Transport Command. What do they mean by "a
508
substantial fleet"? Certainly the numbers of transport aircraft at present in service and on order for Transport Command can hardly be called substantial. I understand that some eight Comets and thirteen Britannias are in use or on order. There are a couple of squadrons of Beverleys, and some elderly Valettas and Hastings. Beyond those numbers, so far as I know, no orders have as yet been placed. This small fleet of transport aircraft is pathetically inadequate for transporting a Central Reserve even at, say, brigade strength. It is true that some civil aircraft could be brought into play both from the Corporations and the independent operators; but even with these the numbers of aircraft would be inadequate, particularly as the Corporations would have other important tasks to perform.
I think it is an essential corollary of the strategy of the White Paper that Transport Command should be increased, perhaps quadrupled, within the next few years, otherwise it seems to me it is futile to speak of the mobility of our Central Reserve. I also think that in the late 1960s we shall find that we need a proportion of supersonic transport aircraft, which reinforces my argument against the dropping of research and development into supersonic manned aircraft. One advantage—and I am treading on rather delicate ground here—of an augmented Transport Command might be that it could undertake in peace time the function of air trooping, and thereby put an end to the somewhat virulent discussions and arguments that are going on at the present time about how and by whom this function should be carried out.
To sum up, my points are that, first of all, I think it is a mistake for the sake of a few million pounds to drop the development of the supersonic manned-bomber; secondly, that, as an insurance, development of the supersonic fighter should be carried beyond the P.1 stage; and, lastly, that if our Central Reserve is to be really mobile, Transport Command will have to be strengthened in numbers far more drastically than seems to be at present envisaged.
7.13 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I welcome the provisions of the White Paper, and hope that it will mark a real step forward in

509
the evolution of the three Fighting Services. I should like, however, to make some comments upon it, more especially on those sections dealing with manpower and recruitment. Paragraph 41 of the White Paper starts by saying:
"Britain has a long and honourable tradition of voluntary military service."
That is quite accurate, but I think that we should also remember that Britain has a long and, unfortunately, not so honourable tradition of the neglect of her Fighting Services in time of peace. I hope—in fact I am sure, from the tone of the White Paper and from the speeches of both my noble friend in this House and my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence in another place—that this attitude will change. But it is so ingrained in the country that I think we must keep watching it.
We need not look back very far to see how good intentions can so easily slip. We need look only to the disbandment of Anti-Aircraft Command and the treatment that was supposed to be special treatment for the officers, especially the majors, those of an age when it is most difficult for them to find any form of civil employment. In the end, it boiled down to the fact that they were retired en the ordinary compulsory retirement terms—and nothing more. As I say, I hope that on this occasion the intentions of the Government will break through that barrier, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord De L'Isle, and which so often frustrates the best intentions. The employment of these redundant officers, some 5,000 to 7,000 we are told, will present an extremely difficult problem.
Mere money grants, as was stated by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, are not enough, and something in the nature of a training course is most important. In Germany there was—I do not know if there still is—an Army college which gave vocational training to all ranks before leaving the Army. That was of great value for the younger man, but I do not think it was much use to the man of middle age, who is much the hardest to place. There are various ways in which he can be employed, but none of them give any great scope for any great numbers. A certain number are employed as retired officers in the three Services at the larger headquarters, but
510
the scope there is not great, and they cannot be employed for too long or there are no vacancies for anybody else to fill.
The noble Earl, Lord Swinton, mentioned the possibility of bringing officers into the Civil Service. With the greatest respect to him, I believe that that is an extremely difficult thing to do, because the age at which they are wanted to go in is again this middle age, where, by virtue of their age and seniority, it is extremely difficult to fit them into the structure, not only financially, but because they would have to occupy a post at which they must have a considerable background of knowledge of the particular branch of the Civil Service in which they are serving.
May I pass briefly to recruitment in the future? That, as has been stated many times this afternoon, is a most imponderable problem, because until National Service is stopped it is impossible to tell what voluntary recruiting will be. You cannot have a half-way of slowing down National Service and of expecting voluntary recruitment to come up at the same time. National Service must be cut completely before we can really tell. That is going to be the most testing time for the Government—as to whether they have the strength of mind to stand out over that difficult period, which inevitably will come. Given the right approach and the incentives which are mentioned in the White Paper, in my opinion the recruits will come. But the inducements and incentives must be there.
I personally do not think that pay is very important now; I think the pay is reasonably good. I do not think it will ever be practicable to get it on entire equality with pay in the highly-paid civilian industries, largely because so much of Army pay is in kind and it is very difficult indeed to assess what it really amounts to. What is wanted, as has been stressed, is a great increase in the amenities in barracks. Even though they are rather difficult circumstances, I was shocked to hear this afternoon of a battalion which for the last three years has been living in tents—I suppose in more or less a peace station.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: At home?
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: No, abroad. None the less, for three years these men have been intents.

511
The young men who will volunteer are men who enjoy a communal life. Therefore the amenities in barracks are extremely important, so that the men should have a place of which they can be proud and also that they should be in a Service of which they can be proud and in which they find an interest. In order to make that so, it is essential that the training should be really alive. The point raised by my noble friend, Lord St. Oswald, on the complete inadequacy of even the largest training areas in this country, was a very real one. It will be of great importance that we continue to use the big German training areas, especially in Paderborn, where the units, indeed the formations, can train with proper realism. In addition to that, it is equally important that weapons and equipment should be provided not only up to date but also up to scale, so that never again may we have the sight of the Army playing, and not training, with wooden dummies and coloured flags representing the most vital weapons.
The next really important thing that the Army and the other Services have to face is inducing the men to take on for long engagements. I think that possibly, so far as the Army is concerned, that will be helped slightly by the stoppage of National Service. While having nothing but the best to say about the National Service man, I think that the continual coming in of these untrained men was very wearing indeed for the warrant officer or non-commissioned officer who had to train them. In addition, a great many of the men are married, and it is essential, as stated in the White Paper, to have considerable improvements in married quarters; and also, continuing what already has been started satisfactorily, there must be a loosening-up of the very tight rules about married quarters, marriage allowances and all the small helps like transport when a man is moving from one home to another.
Finally, there is one point I want to raise about the integration of the three Services. As my noble friend Lord Weeks said, it is excellent that the Defence Administration Committee should have been set up. I am also glad that it has the Service members of the three Defence forces, the Board of Admiralty and the Army and Air
512
Councils, as members of it, though only attending, I understand, when their own particular subject is brought up, so that the user will always be in front of the Committee. That integration will obviously start at the top and will affect the relationship between the three Service Ministries and the Ministry of Defence. That, obviously, will bring up a large number of complicated administrative problems.
There is one point I want to raise affecting the personnel. It is most important for the morale of each Service that the men in it feel that they have somebody at their head who is in a really strong position to look after their interests. The Trinity or the Unitarianism which will be the outcome of this Committee, I think, should take very great note of that point—the prestige of the head or somebody to whom each Service can look to guard their own interests. Lastly, the great reductions which are being made give cause for a great many qualms and warnings. I would ask Her Majesty's Government not to forget the profound value of the long-built-up traditions in each of the three Services and to think carefully, as I am quite certain they will do, how these may best be preserved
7.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, in accordance with our normal practice I, too, must declare an interest in this debate, because I am connected with an organisation which is concerned with the supply of aircraft and other equipment to the Forces. I think it is generally agreed that some reappraisal of our defence policy in the light of the hydrogen bomb and the huge cost of modern weapons is necessary. Certainly the outline given in the White Paper is a bold approach to the problems which confront us, of reconciling security with economic strength, and of preserving the balance between nuclear and conventional weapons. But in my view the changes proposed, though they are drastic and far-reaching, lack something in balance and wisdom.
When proposals are made for revolutionary changes to familiar and well-tried institutions, it is always difficult to approach them without emotion. The far-reaching changes proposed in the Defence White Paper are certainly no exception, particularly for those of us

513
who have had the privilege of serving in Her Majesty's Forces. But it is our duty, I think, to study such proposals objectively and calmly, to determine whether they meet adequately the dangers which confront us, and to judge whether they retain as much good from the past as is possible, for it is undoubtedly true that the fine traditions and high morale of our fighting men have served the cause of freedom well. No amount of money or scientific equipment can ever replace that fine spirit. I was delighted to hear the Parliamentary Secretary lay such emphasis on that point.
I must say frankly, however, that I have gained the impression from the White Paper that Her Majesty's Government decided, in the first place, that great economies must be made and National Service abandoned; and that to some extent, at least, the arguments in the White Paper have been marshalled to show that the reductions needed to achieve these targets are not only possible but logical—and, indeed, desirable. This, surely, is the only explanation for the very great risks that are being run by the policy outlined in the White Paper in the almost complete reliance on the nuclear deterrent. The relative importance of nuclear and conventional weapons has been argued at great length, and I do not want to become too involved in that argument, except to emphasise again what I believe are the appalling dangers for this country which total reliance on the nuclear weapon involves.
The result of an all-out global war fought with hydrogen bombs would be so devastating that every normal human being will shrink from any action which could precipitate such a calamity. If, therefore, we rely entirely on the nuclear deterrent, a situation can all too easily arise in which we are faced with the alternative of giving in or of starting a Third World War. We might, for instance, have to deal with Communist infiltration or interference in a number of important areas; and, because of this dreadful dilemma facing us, we should be forced to give in at every stage. For this country a series of defeats involving our vital overseas interests, but not immediately threatening the United Kingdom, could in the end be equally disastrous as a direct all-out assault.
Then, again, what is the purpose of the huge Russian submarine fleet, growing
514
every day in size and quality? The Russians could probably put at least five times as many submarines into the Atlantic as the Germans ever deployed at the height of the Battle of the Atlantic. A blockade by those submarines could be dealt with only by adequate naval forces, or by the use of the nuclear deterrent, the hydrogen bomb. Similarly, a threat in Africa or the Far East, or the fomenting of trouble in the N.A.T.O. countries, could not be dealt with solely by rockets, guided weapons and H-bombs without the certainty of converting local conflict into global war. Thus the complete reliance on the nuclear deterrent can so easily lead to capitulation and ultimately defeat in detail, with global nuclear war as the only alternative, the very outcome we are bending all our efforts to prevent.
Those who call themselves realists—all too often another name for defeatists—will no doubt argue that such situations as these are unrealistic, because if the aggression was clearly against the Western world as a whole, then it could be stopped only by the threat and, if necessary, the use of H-bombs, in concert with our Western Allies. If, however, a hostile act was directed more specifically against our own interests, then, so the argument runs, we should have to take action through the United Nations and rely on them to settle the dispute, since Suez has shown conclusively that we cannot again act alone. That is the kind of argument which is all to prevalent to-day. I am convinced that the action we took last year was right, and that the failure to achieve the success which the courageous decision deserved was due, at least in part, to the lack of the necessary equipment.
The lesson to be learned is not that independent action is no longer possible, but that we must be adequately prepared for it. If the policy of the White Paper leads to such neglect of conventional weapons that it will make independent action impossible in any circumstances, then without doubt we in England shall become just an unimportant island off the north-west corner of Europe. My Lords, it is, unfortunately, still necessary to stand up for our rights, for experience has shown that, if we do not do it, no one else, neither the United States nor the United Nations, will do it for us.

515
For these reasons I believe that many of the proposals in the White Paper give rise to serious risks. The disregarding of the submarine threat, the decision not to have a supersonic bomber, the almost complete reliance, ultimately, on guided weapons and long-range rockets, to the exclusion of aircraft—all these, my Lords, seem to indicate an "all or nothing" approach: peace at almost any price; but if not peace then global war and devastating destruction. My criticism, then, of the policy outlined in the White Paper is that it lays too much emphasis on the deterrent of the hydrogen bomb for preventing global war. It leaves us exposed to more conventional means of attack—by, for instance, the submarine menace. And a premature abandonment of military aircraft in favour of guided weapons and rockets will destroy much of the flexibility of our forces and leave them ill-equipped to defend our vital interests overseas.
It is always easy to criticise proposals, and no one has the right to do so unless he is prepared to face constructive alternatives. First, it is necessary to put the problem in perspective. The Defence Estimates for 1957–58 amount to £1,483 million. In 1956, consumer expenditure on tobacco and alcohol was over £2,000 million, an average of £40 for every man, woman and child in the population. Government expenditure on the Health Service, subsidies, National Insurance benefits, and what the Economic Survey calls "other current grants to persons" amounted to over £2,000 million. Both these items, it will be noted, are substantially more than we are spending on defence. To meet what I believe are our additional requirements in naval and air forces, an additional annual expenditure of perhaps £250 million would be needed. There is no disagreement among us that economic strength is a prerequisite to military strength, but it cannot be too often repeated, first, that all the benefits of a high standard of living will count for nothing if our security is jeopardised; and, secondly, that the economy of this country, which depends so greatly on international trade, cannot be sustained without stability in our overseas territories and sources of raw material supply. Unfortunately, in present conditions military strength is still necessary to
516
maintain that stability. It is needed in a flexible form which can be applied to local and limited conflicts, and in this imperfect world it is needed as an essential support to the moral forces at our disposal which some people so naïvely think are sufficient in themselves.
So my Lords, I cannot give my wholehearted support to the policy of the White Paper. With too great an emphasis on saving money, it relies, in my view, too much on the nuclear deterrent; and in so doing it leaves gaps in our defences which I believe will have serious consequences in the years to come. Much could be done to fill these gaps by relatively modest increases in expenditure on anti-submarine forces and aircraft, and on the maintenance of conventional air forces, both because of their flexibility and because of the existing limitations of guided weapons, to which reference has already been made.
In relation to other expenditure less essential to our survival, the amounts involved, though very substantial, are not unrealistic, and some at least could be obtained by further economies in the administration of the Services and the arrangements for the supply and manufacture of weapons, about which I should like to say a few words before I sit down. The new circumstances of defence require much greater interdependence between the Services, but while I am not in any way in favour of complete integration, because of the great damage which that would do to the traditions and morale of our forces, I sincerely believe that much could be done to improve the efficiency and economy by a greater concentration of power in the Ministry of Defence, to give the Minister of Defence and his Ministry power over the overall planning and the strategic control of our forces.
Particularly am I convinced that the Ministry of Supply should be a department of the Ministry of Defence. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the staff of the Ministry of Supply do a good job, a necessary job, to make the provision of aircraft, electronic equipment and the like, which are common to all the Services, efficient and economic; but they are working within the wrong framework. I have not the slightest doubt that their work could be much more effectively done within the Ministry of Defence,

517
where they could meet Service requirements of those equipments for which they would be responsible under the direct authority of the Minister of Defence.
I envisage the Minister of Defence with four Ministers of State under him—the three Service Ministers of State and the Minister of State for Supply, with full financial responsibility in the Ministry of Defence. That last point is of the utmost importance. Some of the delays to which the noble Lord. Lord Weeks, referred are, I believe, bound up with what has been called the dead hand of the Treasury—at any rate, Treasury interference or control in matters with which they are in no way familiar. This is not a suitable subject, certainly not at this hour, for debate; but I am convinced—
TIM EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Viscount one question? This is an interesting point. The noble Viscount is really in favour of 100 per cent. integration. He wants complete financial control at one point, and purchasing of all equipment at one point. I think that is full integration, is it not?
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords. I certainly do not mean integration of the fighting parts of the Services. There would still be the Navy, the Army and the Air Force. What I would suggest would be that the Minister of Defence should be chairman of the Defence Committee on which would sit the Chiefs of Staff of the three Services and which would have under their control the strategic planning and control of the three Services. The Boards of the three Services could sit under their own Service Ministers of State and the Chiefs of Staff would naturally be members of the Boards, so that all the detailed administration of the Service, the training and that kind of thing, would be controlled by the Service itself.
It seems to me that a set-up of that type would take away the necessity for all joint planning committees of the type that are now in being, to make sure that the Services co-operate properly. In that way, there would be great savings in money and manpower, without taking away the great traditions of the three Services. We almost have that situation now, so far as the Services are concerned, but it seems to me that it is done in a very clumsy way. So far as the Ministry
518
of Supply are concerned, the trouble at the moment is that that Ministry have a policy of their own. It would seem to me that the Ministry of Supply should merely do what they are told by the Ministry of Defence, after full discussion of all the needs of the Services which have been put in.
My Lords, may I, finally, refer to one paragraph in the White Paper? Paragraph 60 says:
"The agreement in principle for the supply of American rockets should result in savings of time and money and will enable work to be concentrated upon more advanced types."
I suggest that there is a serious fallacy contained in that paragraph. If you do not develop a weapon at some particular point you cannot skip that stage and do as well at the next stage—that just does not work. In stage two, you simply make all the mistakes that you would have made in stage one, if we take the American rockets—it may be the right thing to do—we must face the fact that we shall not keep abreast of development in that sphere. I have spoken for too long, but before I sit down, I would say that, while giving rather lukewarm support to this White Paper, I recognise that it represents a really bold and courageous approach to the problem. I have tried to indicate where I feel it is wrong, but problems of defence are greater than ever before. The stakes are alarmingly high. We have inherited great traditions, great treasures and responsibility from the past, and we want to pass them on as best we may to our children. It would be a tragedy if at this stage we lost the battle simply because we were not prepared to pay the necessary insurance premium.
7.45 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I am very conscious of the experience of noble Lords who have already addressed your Lordships, or will do so in the continuance of this debate. These noble Lords have a wide knowledge of the techniques involved in this White Paper, full of possibilities, and I enter this debate for a few minutes with such thoughts in the front of my mind. I should like to submit some observations on aircraft and the aircraft industry, with which I have been actively concerned as pilot and engineer for close on fifty years.
The Minister has given us a lot to digest and is right in telling us that the

519
whole character of the defence plan has to be revised in the light of recent scientific and technological advances. He has given us, therefore, as other noble Lords have pointed out, an opportunity of which we must make use. But I suggest to your Lordships that the curtailment of the aircraft industry's activities is in itself a mistake. For example, the abandonment of the supersonic bomber project (paragraph 61) and all supersonic fighter projects other than the P.1 (paragraph 62) is really ironical when we have this month available for the first time at the National Aeronautical Establishment at Bedford the finest supersonic wind-tunnel in the country, or for that matter in the world.
My Lords, from whence will our share come of the estimate of £5,000 million of civil aircraft business over the next fifteen years if we have not the techniques in full operation for these new designs? For defence purposes the bomber-fighter programme should, I think, not be made shorter, as now, but extended. If curtailed, as now suggested, this curtailment must mean the disappearance of any hopes that we shall ever find ourselves in a competitive position in the design and manufacture of supersonic aircraft of any kind, including the commercial types referred to by my noble friend Lord Douglas of Kirtleside.
The suggestion I have just made is surely in line with the White Paper, which states, in paragraph 58, that
"research and development must be continuously maintained."
Your Lordships know, I think, that in the United States the research and development programme directed to manned aircraft is going full steam ahead. As is natural, the abandonment of an entire generation of fighter-bomber aircraft has caused much alarm amongst the research engineers and technicians in the industry. Unless they are reassured that there is to be a continuance of the work on which they have been engaged up till now, many of our best men will go to Canada or the United States. This is a situation which we cannot afford.
Might I ask my noble friend who is to reply at the end of the debate tomorrow whether I should be right in assuming that the conclusions on which the White Paper decisions were reached
520
are based on the following assumptions: first, that guided missiles are more effective than manned supersonic fighters in defeating an attack by manned supersonic bombers—effectiveness being measured by the percentage of attackers that get through—and, secondly, that ballistic rockets are able to deliver a more effective attack than manned supersonic bombers against targets defended by guided missiles? I beg to suggest that the conclusions in the White Paper must have been reached by studying the performances and potentialities of the P.1 supersonic fighter mentioned in paragraph 62, as also the Avro supersonic bomber O.R.330, the only aircraft that complies with the reference in paragraph 61.
If my estimate of the assumptions of Her Majesty's Government is correct, then I submit that such does not take sufficient account of the great advances in aeronautical science that are being made, and will continue to be made, since the designs of the P.1 and the Avro were begun. Finally, these advances operate to place the manned aircraft in a position of superiority vis-à-vis the unmanned missile; and it seems to have been overlooked that the very characteristic which makes the ballistic trajectory superior to the horizontal trajectory—namely, its mathematical accuracy once its course and speed are established—is also its weakest point, since its predetermined trajectory reveals its target at an early stage and enables preparations to be made for its interception and destruction while it is still a great way off.
Having regard to the fact that neither a successor to the P.1 nor the proposed supersonic manned-bomber would incorporate any of the latest advances in aeronautics, the decision of Her Majesty's Government that "work on such projects will stop" (paragraph 62) is undoubtedly right; but in view of the possibilities now known to exist, the further decisions that "fighter aircraft will in due course be replaced by a ground-to-air guided missile system" (paragraph 17) and that "the Government have decided not to go on with the development of a supersonic bomber" (paragraph 61) are, I suggest, wrong, and ultimately will prove to be disastrous.
I submit that the only and the obvious policy must be to press on with research

521
on and the development of manned aircraft in parallel with that of guided missiles. We need both; but so certain are the means of destroying the ballistic rocket, that we may well leave its development to the United States of America, since, in any case, it will be superseded by the manned supersonic bomber—a military weapon which, by the way, does not commit its user to the tragic and suicidal "nuclear deterrent" (paragraph 14), since it can be used to deliver either nuclear or conventional high (explosive weapons at will.
7.52 p.m.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, I want to raise only three points. I want first to support the noble Lord who has just spoken in regard to pressing forward with research on the supersonic bomber, not only for its own sake but for the effect which that course undoubtedly will have on civil aviation in the future. A few years ago the Estimates Committee had to pass very considerable expenditure at Bedford which was largely based on the requirements of supersonic research. All that money seems at risk to be thrown away, and it appears to me a very bad moment to choose to cut out the research on this supersonic bomber that has been carried out so well.
The second point I want to raise is the question of McKinnon Road. I have been asked to raise this matter by friends of mine in East Africa. That project was put forward, I believe when a Socialist Government were in office, on the advice of all Chiefs of Staff, and £1,777,000 of the taxpayers' money was spent. Then the place was abandoned. Under this scheme in the White Paper, mention is made of reorganisation of colonial garrisons, and it is important to know who owns the McKinnon Road depôt, particularly in view of the enormous amount of money spent on the harbour of Mombasa in that connection and on improving rail and road communications between the port and the depôt.
A great many people believe that the decision to make our strategic base in Africa was the right one and that it was a mistake to cancel all that and to concentrate on Cyprus. At any rate, no explanation has been given why it was ruled out that Cyprus should not come under N.A.T.O. Had N.A.T.O. had control of Cyprus, we should have been
522
saved a great deal of money. As the First Lord of the Admiralty is here, I should like to ask him to deal with that question. The harbour and port facilities of Cyprus are deplorable, and if there is now any question—as I understand there is—of spending nearly £1½ million or even more on trying to improve Famagusta and Limassol, in spite of the fact that we have had sufficient evidence lately to show that this is not a suitable place on which to base troops that have to move, it is most important that a reassessment of the value of Cyprus as a base should be made, remembering that Cyprus was a happy, peaceful island where many of us enjoyed ourselves until it was taken over as a base. I feel that we have also had enough experience in the Canal Zone to let us realise that hostile territory is not the best place for a base. One of the most urgent matters arising out of the White Paper is to find out whether the location of the strategic base should be in Cyprus or elsewhere.
Finally, I want to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Weeks, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, about having a Committee to go into the whole question of the defence set-up, on the lines of the Esher Committee, to see whether or not great economies can be made by reorganising the set-up of the Ministries of Defence and Supply and the three Service Departments. If I may be forgiven for again quoting the Estimates Committee, I would point out that they strongly recommended, after most careful consideration, that as the Services diminished in size it was really unnecessary to retain the Ministry of Supply except as a sub-department of the Ministry of Defence. It is not without interest to note that as quickly as we reduce the uniformed members of the Forces, more civilians seem to be employed; and it is an extraordinary position that if we could now do something to release some of the scientists who have been working under the ægis of the Ministry of Supply they would either find occupation of great value outside, in industry, or would continue their work without duplication—which is so often happening at the present time.
I am very concerned about the lack of mention in the memorandum or by the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to nuclear power for submarines. There is a slight mention. The United States

523
Fleet have to-day given instructions that no vessel, whether surface or submarine, shall be constructed for the U.S. Navy unless it is nuclear powered. Therefore, it seems to me that we are in a position in which some explanation is necessary. If we are so far behind, it not only is bound to affect what we do in naval construction it also means that merchant ships built in U.S. yards will, as a result of experience in nuclear propulsion, get a great share of the large orders that are going in South America and elsewhere. I hope that before this debate ends we may have from the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty, some reassurance that we are not so far behind that we cannot easily catch up with the United States in this branch of naval construction.
7.57 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, your Lordships will be pleased to note that I hold in my hand a very small piece of paper and to know that my remarks will be proportionate. I really rise at this hour in the evening to say that I welcome the White Paper and its contents, which I have carefully read. It is now nearly ten years since I ended my service and I am therefore a little out of date; I think some of the speakers in this debate to-day and to-morrow will have even less-recent experience. But, having been away from close contact with these matters for ten years, and therefore being a little ill-informed, it is unnecessary for roe to comment on a Paper produced by he greatest experts available, in whom, personally, I have confidence.
May I make two very small points of reservation in that statement, first on a matter touched upon by several noble Lords, none better than by the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, whom I should like to congratulate, as have other noble Lords, on his maiden speech. He spoke clearly and he brought in facts, which is not always the case in speeches. And he was audible, which seems a sound basis for a speech. The point to which I refer is that of redundant personnel. I should like to put forward for the consideration of the noble Earl who will reply to the debate to-morrow what may perhaps be considered a revolutionary proposal. We have heard a lot to the effect that "everything possible will be done…", "it is hoped that industry will absorb…",
524
"compensation will be made…" and so on. That is, in principle, exactly what will be done. But I should like to suggest the possibility of ensuring that no man, whether officer, warrant officer, petty officer, N.C.O. or other rank should leave the Services until, in fact, he has a job to go to, or at least the promise of a job, and that the rate of the run-down should be governed by that factor. The rule should be that when a man can be absorbed into industry, at home, abroad or in the Commonwealth, then he can go and not before.
This would no doubt slow down the releases but it would surely be a humane way of treating these people. Otherwise, I feel that when the cold, dead hand of the Treasury is once again applied it will be the same story: "We are sorry, but what can we do?" I do not think that that excuse will be quite good enough. The noble Viscount, Lord De L'lsle, startled Lord Mancroft with the suggestion that he should press this to the point of resignation. I would not go so far as that, but it is obviously an extremely important matter. If the noble Earl who is to wind up this debate will give some definite assurance upon this matter, as opposed to pious hopes, I am sure it would be widely appreciated.
The other point has already been raised by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. It is a point he has mentioned before—namely, the deployment of forces on bases for defence in the Commonwealth. There is a tendency, I think, strategically to sit tight on a target such as Cyprus or Hong Kong and to try to defend it, as opposed to having bases somewhere from which a counter-attack may be made if the worst came to the worst. I think that was at the back of the noble Lord's mind, but unfortunately I had no opportunity to discuss it with him after he had made his speech. To me it seems a pre-eminently sound idea—this deployment of forces, where it can be done, on Commonwealth bases. In that connection, in Lord Mancroft's opening speech there was mention of Hong Kong. I was there a few months ago and I would go so far as to say that it is virtually indefensible. Perhaps with the United States Seventh Fleet in the Formosa Strait, where it is normally based, or not many hundreds of miles away, it might be possible; but without it, certainly not. Though the defence measures

525
taken by the Governor of Hong Kong are, no doubt, the best possible with what he can get, I cannot think that they would be effective for more than a few days if there was nowhere from which a counter attack, if necessary, could he made. I merely mention that because Lord Mancroft referred to Hong Kong in his speech and I happen to have had recent personal experience of that place.
Before resuming my seat, may I say that I am sorry that Lord Mancroft is not in his place, for I should have liked to put this point to him—I know him well enough to feel sure that he would not have taken exception to it. He said that the statement he made was probably the most important statement made from that Dispatch Box for a very long time—perhaps ever. If we could have had it delivered a little more slowly, the less nimble-witted Members of your Lordships House—among whom I include myself—would perhaps have been able to follow it a little more closely and to appreciate it a little better. It is a fact that on a matter of this importance the Government Department concerned is responsible for a great deal of what is said. Nevertheless, if it could have been propounded in a little more detail so that we could have taken it in better, I, personally, would have appreciated it, if this expression of opinion could be passed on to the noble Lord I am sure he would take it in good part.
8.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords. I think that any of your Lordships who may have glanced at the White Papers of last year and the year before will readily agree with Lord Mancroft that this year's White Paper is a much more important document than any of the White Papers issued in recent years. In the circumstances, that is not surprising. I suppose that one of the most difficult tasks for any layman who is in office as Minister in one of the Service Departments of Her Majesty's Government is to decide when the moment has come to sum up the arguments for and against a piece of equipment put forward by his technicians and to take the responsibility of going into production on that piece of equipment.
By and large, that has not been happening in previous years, but it looks
526
very much as if those decisions are being taken now. Everything in the White Paper points to the fact that Her Majesty's Government, for better or worse, have taken decisions not only on the risk to be taken in certain directions but on the share of collective defence which we should in future shoulder. As the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said, the fact of taking these decisions has brought the Government to a point of no return. For my part, I do not regret that. I think the time was coming when, for better or for worse, it was necessary for this country that we should come to a point of no return. I regard the circumstances surrounding this White Paper as being the right point at which to take that decision, weighty though it is, because I do not believe that any better decision would have been taken if it had been put off for another year.
We have had from different parts of the House a large measure of welcome for the White Paper; and we have had it from speakers—at least on these Benches—as widely apart in age and experience as the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, whom I should like to take this opportunity, following other noble Lords, of congratulating on his maiden speech, which showed not only great experience of the matter in hand but also how much thought he had given to the matters of which he spoke. So these decisions have been taken, and the Government have decided that the correct moment has come to settle on the types of nuclear equipment and similar equipment to be put into production.
They have taken decisions on how far nuclear weapons of different kinds can supersede the conventional weapons with their high demands on manpower. That is a point which a good many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Caldecote, have mentioned. Lord Man-croft, in opening the debate, referred, rightly I think, to the importance of keeping a balance between conventional and nuclear forces. Lord Weeks referred to the same point in rather another context, pointing out the relief that would be given to industry by the knowledge that decisions were taken which kind of equipment could go forward in production and which kind should cease to be

527
developed. I think that at this point I should say to my noble friends in front that, while there was a very large measure of welcome for the White Paper, few noble Lords, in any part of the House, were disposed to take what one might call promise for performance. In other words, while we welcome the sentiments and the intentions expressed in the White Paper, we are all extremely anxious that the action foreshadowed should be followed up with the greatest vigour.
May I now go back to this question of conventional and nuclear forces? I feel that this matter is an important one because, if we are talking in terms of deterrence, which I think are the right terms to talk in, we should bear in mind that we want not only a deterrent in the nuclear field but also a sufficient deterrent in what we may call the conventional field. It does not follow, merely because certain nations of the world have nuclear weapons, that any future war will start on the nuclear plane. In fact, I would say that all the available evidence is to the contrary. Therefore, we need to have conventional deterrents to stop any kind of small war or conflict starting by civil disturbance. The nuclear deterrent is no good at all for that sort of thing. I think that my noble friend Lord St. Oswald mentioned this point in connection with the need for having armoured fighting vehicles with our mobile forces: and there I would thoroughly agree with what he said.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, referred to the hydrogen bomb tests, and again I am sure that he is right in what he said; because if the hydrogen bomb is to be effective, it must be a real deterrent—that is to say, it must be a weapon of proved capacity. Having the hydrogen bomb without a test would be about as effective as having a dummy in our shop window. I hope we shall not have that. There is another reason why I think that these decisions embodied in the White Paper have been taken at a good time. It seems to me (and I hope I am right) that we are now at the moment when we have reached greater agreement than ever before with the United States, even if we have not reached agreement with the other N.A.T.O. countries—agreement which I hope will involve not only progress in collective defence but also in
528
something else which goes with it—that is, progress in collective research.
The disagreements with other countries were mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in his reference to Suez, but I would suggest to him that Suez was a special matter and not connected with our general arrangements for collective defence with the various regional defence organisations like N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. I hope, too, that we shall not be unduly dismayed by the rather cold reception that some proposals in the Defence White Paper have recently been receiving at Strasbourg from Continental countries. After all, let us remember that we, too, have ventured to criticise certain Continental countries over the shortness of their period of National Service. On that matter we have agreed to differ. We shall agree to differ this time; but if we are right, as, broadly speaking I think we are, then sooner or later our Continental friends will agree with us. They will come round to our opinion in time.
I do not think that in the long run these disagreements will affect in any appreciable degree our powers of cooperation with the countries in Western Europe. We may not always consult them; but, after all, since the time of Suez have we not got into the habit, when talking about consultations, of taking the line that if we consult other nations we ought to do what they advise, even though it is not what we ourselves want? I have no objection to consulting people, but I reserve my right not to take their advice if I know that in our case it is not good. So I would agree with my noble friend Lord De L'Isle, despite what I consider these minor defects, that there are still excellent prospects of future co-operation with the N.A.T.O. nations, and that that co-operation will not suffer.
I also hope—and I say this with a certain amount of thought—that my noble friends in front of me will not be too dismayed by the expressions of regret at the Government's decision to carry on with the atom bomb tests. Without attempting to minimise the anxieties which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, expressed at the end of his speech, we should remember that, while the Government and their advisers have information which is not available to people like ourselves, outside

529
the Government, other unofficial bodies and individual Members of Parliament who are obliged to consider these things are handicapped by not having enough knowledge, and therefore every now and then sentiment plays a more preponderant part in our verdict than it would if we had the full knowledge which I trust my noble friends in front of me possess.
May I come for a moment to the question of manpower and National Service? in my mind there are two separate things: National Service and national training. By "National Service," I mean operational service, as in Western Germany and Malaya; and by "national training" I mean training for a future emergency, and nothing more—as was done in the time before the Second World War, when the late Lord Hore-Belisha was Secretary of State for War. The arguments against operational service are fully deployed in the White Paper. The arguments for and against national training are not deployed at all. It is suggested that National Service has been uneconomic, but preparations for war are seldom economic in that sense, and we ought to take great care (here I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote) that we are not arguing backwards in these matters from some supposed need to save some supposed amount of money.
Whatever may be said now about National Service. I think that National Service was right at the time it was started and for the period during which it has continued. We must be very careful that, although we plan now to finish with National Service at the end of 1960, we take full account of the difficulties which might occur between now and then in realising what I believe to be a right aim. Of course, there are strong arguments for the relief of National Service, and these arguments arise not only in the industrial world, where they are particularly strong; they are also strong in the Regular Army, because only those who have been professional soldiers (this refers more to the Army than to the other two Services) know what a burden dealing with National Service men has thrown on professional soldiers of all ranks. Again, the more people who are released from handling National Service men, the more quickly will our Central
530
Reserve be formed. Against that we must remember that it is by no means a foregone conclusion that we shall realise the aim of getting rid of the National Service men by 1960. We still have to get the Regulars to make up the numbers—my noble friend Lord Templewood mentioned that point. We are also assuming, I hope and pray rightly, that the world situation will not deteriorate and make that aim impossible. So much for National Service.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I appreciate very much the attention the noble Viscount has given to that point. No doubt he noted that asked for some figures of how the proposed result in personnel is to be obtained. I think there is no doubt that we could not have got through the period of what has been called the "cold war" without the years of National Service and I am not at all sure—obviously I speak only for myself—that we are to be free of a similar period of cold (war in future and that we can get all the Regulars we need to deal with it.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I fully appreciate the remarks of the noble Viscount, and to a large extent I share his views on this matter. As I say, national training is a different thing, and if we are going to abandon national training as well as National Service—which may, or may not, he right; it has not been argued in the White Paper—we may, to a certain extent, conflict with the paragraphs in the White Paper dealing with the importance of civil defence. Here, again, is a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. Civil defence under present conditions might, I think, be described as basically a matter of keeping order, and keeping order will be much harder with people who have not been trained or subjected to any discipline.
This brings me for a moment to the point that the Territorial Army will help in that regard. Although the noble Lord. Lord Moynihan, is not here, I feel obliged to say for the record that I do not consider his remarks about the Territorial Army either constructive or entirely warranted. I have seen, perhaps at rather closer quarters than has the noble Lord, the great efforts that the War Office made to handle the Territorial Army in difficult

531
circumstances; and although I realise that noble Lords who were connected with anti-aircraft units had a rough time, I cannot entirely accept the strictures that the noble Lord made.
So we come back to the question of the importance of Regular recruits and the need to overhaul conditions, as was said. "in no niggardly fashion". Here, again, I must repeat to my noble friends in front of me that we expect performance to match promise. It is no fault of Members of this House that we are still reading White Papers which say how important these things are. One should not job back more than is absolutely necessary, but I would remind your Lordships that early in 1954 there was an important debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell. I could go back further, though I admit I have not consulted Hansard, and I have distinct recollections of asking noble Lords opposite, who were then on this side of the House, whether it was the case that housing for married men in the Army was not keeping pace with the housing scheme that was then being put forward by Mr. Aneurin Bevan. Here we are, nearly ten years later, saying the same thing. That is why noble Lords like Lord St. Oswald and Lord Moynihan were perfectly right, and why I welcome so much the thought that my noble friend Lord Weeks is now chairman of the committee dealing with these matters.
A great deal has been said about the need to resettle officers. I will not say much on that point, but merely that I spent about six months in 1921, at the time of the "Geddes Axe," wondering, what was going to happen to my own' career as a Regular soldier. I was therefore delighted to read the speech of my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour in another place and to feel that this matter was being tackled seriously. This time, as opposed to 1921, we are in a period of full employment, and, to my mind, with care, the resettlement of redundant personnel of all ranks is quite capable of fulfilment.
I would come back for a moment to the matter of the Central Reserve. I do not feel that I can subscribe to the plan if the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, of dispersing the Reserve. I feel much happier about the idea, which I think is the one in the White Paper, of a Central
532
Reserve, with proper means of transport for a relatively small force, and then, no doubt, arrangements for the impressment of aircraft now in commercial service. But it has been a great weakness of our strategic position in the last few years that we have had no Central Reserve. The Central Reserve will affect, also, our power to assist Commonwealth forces in other regions of the world. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who talked about the Commonwealth and complained that not enough was said about the Commonwealth in this White Paper. I feel that I should recall that this is a White Paper produced by Her Majesty's Government in Great Britain, and therefore it does not discuss the arrangements made by the Commonwealth countries in their own spheres.
I do not feel that there is anything in the Commonwealth sections of the White Paper which is incompatible with what I believe, and, in fact, know, to be going on in the way of discussions between the British Government and the Governments of (shall I say?) Australia and New Zealand; and it is common knowledge that my noble friend the Leader of the House was out in Australia and New Zealand quite recently attending to those important matters as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations at the S.E.A.T.O. Conference. I do not think, therefore, that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on the lack of coordination on Commonwealth matters are really justified.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, perhaps I may revert back to the matter of housing which was mentioned by the noble Viscount. I appreciate very much the efforts he made at the time when I was at the Ministry of Defence to get better housing amenities. But I would say that he was not unsuccessful, because we introduced a Bill to switch to a new basis the financing of houses for the troops. We do it now by loan, instead of depending on the goodwill of the Treasury every year. In consequence, thousands of houses have been built since that time. If troops are to be cut by half, we look for some information as to what will be the actual requirements.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: The noble Viscount is quite right, and I should not like to minimise the gratitude we should

533
feel for the Housing (Loans) Act. But that Act did not come at once, and possibly remarks on the lines of what I have just said may have had something to do with encouraging the then Government to produce the Housing (Loans) Bill, which the noble Viscount will remember we supported wholeheartedly.
I have two further short points. First, I am sorry, as I think my noble friend Lord Swinton was, that no specific mention is made in the White Paper on the extension of the powers of the Minister of Defence. I think that that extension is logical and inevitable if the full results are to be obtained from the implementation of the policy the Government now have. How far we should commit him to setting up a committee to prove what I think a number of us feel to be obvious, I do not know. All I would hope is that if such a committee were appointed it would not be used, as so many of these committees have been used in recent years, as a reason for delaying doing the things we all know are urgent and right.
Finally, a word on tradition. As so many noble Lords have said, it is vitally important that we should make these changes with full regard to tradition. However, I would say one other thing about that matter. Tradition, if it is to be properly used and if it is to be the right sort of tradition, involves not only pride in the past but a sense of purpose of the present and a sense of mission for the future. If those last two factors are absent, we shall end up by having the Services, and particularly Her Majesty's Army, not as organisations really useful for purposes of defence, but tending more and more to become a regimental museum.
8.29 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I know that all my colleagues appreciate the serious contribution of the noble Viscount who has just spoken, and while he will forgive me for not taking up all his points, I should certainly like to endorse, as the whole House has more than once endorsed, his tributes to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. I think the shortest and clearest compliment that I can pay him is to assure him that I was asked by one of my noble friends what was his, name in another place and was he a certain Under-Secretary for War. It will be appreciated that he is regarded as
534
a thorough professional in military politics, as well as a brave soldier.
We have listened to a number of remarkable speeches which no doubt will be commented on tomorrow, and the House will not wish me to speak for long, although I have been given stern advice by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, against speaking too fast, so that perhaps your Lordships will be detained for a few minutes longer than you would have been if that exhortation had not been delivered. I think that anybody must regard this White Paper as impressive, courageous and, as my noble friend Lord Attlee said, realistic and facing the future. Broadly, the pure strategy involved seems to me indisputable. It may or may not be ahead of events. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, suggested that we might be inclined to move over to something which is a little further on than we suppose; but, by and large, events must be going this way and we must give full credit to the Minister for the courage he has shown in producing the Paper. If the Government wish for any credit, let them share a little with the Minister.
There are, however, a number of points which have been brought out, and will be brought out further, which give rise to criticism. Some arise on what might be called the level of administrative implication, and we have been told by more than one noble Lord that the new powers of the Minister of Defence might have been clarified and his ascendancy might have been carried still further. I agree with what has been said from this side on that subject, and in particular I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the noble Lord, Lord Weeks, and others in desiring a Committee which could investigate the whole subject very thoroughly. I doubt myself, speaking ahead of such an inquiry, whether the time has yet come to abolish the Service Ministers, or, as I think was suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, in an interesting speech, to turn them into Ministers of State. I admit that my mind wobbles on this subject. I do not know what I have said in public, but I have not, in fact, a completely clear record in my own mind, because I think it is an extremely difficult subject.
Before abolishing the Service Ministers, we must first overcome the question of

535
loyalties involved—and those, I think, can be overcome in a sense. I do not believe loyalty to the Service Minister is the most profound aspect of the allegiance of a soldier, sailor or airman. But, even so, we have to remind ourselves that, by common consent, the Foreign Secretary is worked to death, as is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. You would be installing the Minister of Defence with two Ministers in each of the Service Departments, two Ministers in the Ministry of Supply, and an Under-Secretary of Defence. You would be equipping him with something like nine assistants, and, in practice, if that had been done for a year or two, I wonder whether you would not try to unload him as one is talking of unloading the Foreign Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is more than doubtful, in my mind, whether the time has come yet to abolish the Service Ministers. But I think this inquiry should be set up and integration must go forward, as I am sure it will. Let it go forward quickly.
I do not wish to raise many points of detail. The Navy League, as the noble Earl is aware, is not particularly enthusiastic about his White Paper. I speak as an old occupant of his office which I held for a short time, and I am full of sympathy both for him and for the Navy League. We shall be having a debate on the Navy Estimates later on, but I should like to call attention to one rather striking omission which was touched upon, although perhaps not in this form, by more than one speaker. There is no reference in the First Lord's statement to the Russian fleet, and particularly to the vast submarine fleet hitherto regarded as a supreme menace. In view of the fact that the same topic has been touched upon by others, I hope that the noble Earl—for whom I wish, of course, all success in his great office—will to-morrow say something regarding that omission. It is apparently rather striking, and we are left to wonder whether the noble Earl feels that the submarine menace—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This is nearly a charge. I can assure the noble Lord that this is a Memorandum of the Royal Navy and not of the Russian Navy. That is the only reason why it was not included. To-morrow I will give the
536
noble Lord as much information as he likes.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am afraid I shall not be here—I have a call to a remote part of the country—but I hope the noble Earl will say something on that matter, because it must be in his mind and I think some misunderstanding has occurred.
The noble Earl is no doubt aware that there is regret in many circles that there is no replacement programme. I do not know whether he will be in a position to-morrow to say why there is no replacement programme. But there is anxiety about that matter. It was always hoped, in any naval circles with which I am in touch, that the time would come when there would be a replacement programme, but there appear to be no signs of the kind which would convince naval experts. The noble Earl might care to say something to-morrow as to whether a replacement programme is to be denied us indefinitely, or whether one is contemplated. There are many other points of that character relating to all the Services which will no doubt be raised when we come to the Service Estimates.
Coming to general strategy, I would speak on only two aspects of it which have not been discussed much to-day—although I know the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, had the whole matter very much in mind and sees it all much as I do—before coming to the ethical question where the noble Viscount and I feel so strongly, as do other noble Lords. I would say one word about the diplomatic implications of the Government's exercise. It does not seem to me that the Government have been diplomatically successful. In the well-delivered, if rapidly delivered, speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft we were told that one of the main points of the Government's programme was the fact that our defence must now be regarded as part of a collective effort. That has been said ever since the war, but I cannot think of any year in which that home truth seems to have been so neglected as on this occasion. As any reader of the newspapers must know, there is a widespread disquiet in Europe about the way we have proceeded. It may be that those anxieties will be relieved, as I hope they will be, by the Prime Minister in his present visit to Germany.

537
I would offer one or two thoughts on that subject. I had a long conversation last night with a great friend of mine whom I think might be regarded as an expert observer of the European scene and who has just returned from a tour of Europe. He assured me—and this must be the information of the Government—that in Western Europe the purpose of the whole thing is misunderstood. I think the Government themselves must feel that they have not been properly appreciated that the real beauty of their conception has been neglected or underestimated in Western Europe. The Government appear to have weakened our forces in Western Europe, and although it is claimed that in some mysterious way by cutting down the bill we have strengthened our total strength—and that I will not stop to argue—the amount of strength which we are putting at the disposal of N.A.T.O. appears to have been weakened. It may be that we have decreased our strength there, and increased it in our own hands. But we appear to the Europeans to have decreased the power available to N.A.T.O. Therefore, it becomes the important task of the Government to convince the Europeans that the powers will not be used solely to deter someone from attacking us, but will be used just as honourably and just as automatically to deter the aggressor from attacking Western Europe.
I am sure that the Prime Minister is hard at work at this moment, or has been curing the last few days, trying to relieve anxieties on this subject, but I feel that to-morrow the noble Earl should say something clear and firm on that point. Are we simply saying that, in the last resort, if the Russians come to us we will hit them back with everything we have, or are we saying that we will hit them just as hard and automatically if Western Europe is invaded? The Prime Minister said something which seems to have been said off the record, though some of the more lively papers carried a summary. He seems to have said something about that yesterday, and to have drawn some distinction between minor actions and major threats. It was not clearly reported.
But what major actions can there be in Western Europe, if that is what we are talking about? One could imagine, I suppose, an invasion of some part of Western Germany by East German police. That could be dealt with by the existing
538
N.A.T.O. forces. But, leaving out that particular operation, any aggressive act in Western Europe must be major, because it would involve the use of Russian troops or satellite troops under Russian orders. Such troops cannot cross the frontiers of Western Europe without involving us all in our N.A.T.O. obligations. When our N.A.T.O. obligations become involved, is the deterrent also automatically involved—the deterrent which rests under our own control? Therefore I put this question to the noble Earl: will the defence of Western Europe under this new policy be treated just as much as a direct threat, as a threat involving automatically the full deterrent, as would any act of aggression against our own shores or soil in any way? That is the question on which I think the noble Earl could say something that might help our national cause in Europe.
Finally, I should like to come to the ethical question. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Cherwell, is with us no longer, because he spoke very sharply about almost everybody who disagreed with him. The Pope came in for castigation and so did my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. It must be the first time that the Pope and the noble Viscount have found themselves in the same "basket". Any scientist who differed from the noble Viscount, Lord Cherwell, on a scientific point was written off as a man of very inferior claims, probably a fellow-traveller. Generally speaking, rebukes were administered all round.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Scientific objectivity.
LORD PAKENHAM: Yes, that is true—scientific objectivity. I will not argue with the noble Viscount on scientific points. No doubt, many scientists will be arguing with him for many months to come. But I must try to bring home to him the fact that it is possible to feel very strongly indeed about nuclear warfare, to have the most profound anxieties without being any kind of fellow-traveller or even without requiring psychiatric attention.
I must make this plain. I suppose something like half the country is worried about the terrible implications of nuclear warfare. I do not come here as one whose own morals provide him with a basis denied to the rest of us in arriving

539
at a conclusion. I speak as a man in the street; and the noble Viscount, and many others, feel the same—that here is a new moral problem. War, we all know, is disgusting, just as the noble Earl, Lord De L'Isle—
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: I am not an Earl.
LORD PAKENHAM: I see. Those like the noble and gallant Viscount, whose military services would certainly have entitled him to an Earldom, and to a still greater distinction, would be the first to agree about the disgusting character of war, whether ancient or modern. But many of us must ask ourselves whether nuclear war, and in particular war with the hydrogen bomb, is inherently more evil than other forms of war. That is a question to which I am sure many of us address ourselves in many moments of the day. It is certainly not a question on which I would venture to offer a dogmatic answer.
Many of us must feel that there is something more detestable in nuclear warfare than in any other form of war which we have officially practised. It may be that some of the citizens are most horrified at the thought of the tests and the harm done to the human race. The noble Viscount, Lord Cherwell, may be right about the tests, and we may be able to carry out tests which in fact eliminate this particular danger. Even so, to my mind the special horrors of nuclear warfare would not have been avoided. When all is said and done, under nuclear warfare you are killing indiscriminately. It was always claimed in the last war that we did not indulge in indiscriminate bombing. I do not know whether that claim could be substantiated in every case. I do not know what other countries think about that—they may say that we did. If we did so, the only justification would be that others did it first But, by and large, we do stand for the idea that it is one thing to kill soldiers and another thing to massacre large numbers of civilians. No one can deny that one H-bomb would kill vast numbers of civilians, including women and children. For that reason, that its effects apparently are quite unforeseeable (I am talking of its use in war), to many of us it provides a great moral stumbling block.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: I am not disagreeing in the least with the perfectly fair analysis which the noble Lord is making, but would he agree that the Government of this country have to make up their mind and base their decisions one way or the other; that there is no escape from the dilemma?
LORD PAKENHAM: Yes, I agree entirely with the noble Viscount. I agree very much with what the Prime Minister said on this, in a perfectly good-tempered way: that the private interests of churches and citizens may differ but that the Government must make up their mind. To put it another way, the Opposition cannot be expected to make up its mind in such a united form because it has not the direct responsibility. But the Government must either govern or get out.
Here a decision is required. The Government must make it one way or the other. That being so, one has to make up one's mind whether one rejects it totally on ethical grounds. Some people who are not complete pacifists say that we must not use it. I myself do not take that stand. I do not think that most of my Party do, though no doubt there are some who feel that they must take a stand of that kind. However, I feel that the situation imposes a special obligation, if possible an even more urgent obligation than before, to press on with disarmament. No doubt we have all been keen on disarmament in one way or another, and have all done a little bit in that direction. But when we are faced with something so colossally evil as the hydrogen bomb, faced with the national duty of preserving our country and the free world by threatening to use the hydrogen bomb, we must redouble every effort to ban the bomb itself and to secure all-round disarmament.
If we were trying to be clever, I have no doubt that some noble Lord would put to me the question, "Are you ready to accept a ban on nuclear weapons even if we cannot get all-round disarmament?" I think that is a perfectly fair point. I do not think it is such a practical question as it sounds, because I cannot easily envisage a ban on nuclear weapons, which would involve much inspection, without a general disarmament also involving inspection. If that issue ever really became clear, that we could secure a ban on the bomb but not a ban on other armaments,

541
I should find it difficult to reject an all-round ban on the bomb. I do not think it is very likely to arise as a practical possibility in that way. Therefore, we must press on with all-round disarmament and, above all, with banning the bomb.
In the meanwhile, I agree with what was said by one noble Lord opposite (I am ashamed to say that I cannot remember who), when he argued that, from the ethical point of view, there was nothing purer in allowing the Americans to produce it and to defend us with it than that we should use it to defend ourselves. I am not arguing the point from the diplomatic point of view, whether we should have it or whether the Americans can be entrusted to deal with the situation alone. But once we agree that the bomb is necessary, until we can get this all-round ban, we must push on with it and produce it. I agree, however, with what noble Lords on this side have said: that it would be a wonderful thing for the world if we could postpone the tests.
It is very easy, if I may say so, for the noble Viscount, Lord Cherwell, to mock at any sacrifice of some small advantage, but I cannot believe that it would endanger the country. We know that the Americans have already got plenty of hydrogen bombs. I cannot believe that holding up our own tests for a few months would in any way increase the dangers to Britain. It would be a gesture. It may save a little life. It may be that Lord Cherwell is right and that the dangers are exaggerated. But that side of the matter is not the one that worries me so much. Now we have the chance. We have a little advantage coming to us. If we can say to the world, "We could test the bomb but we are prepared to forgo that and will suspend the tests for a short while," I believe that would have as good a chance of making a real impression on this disarmament situation as any step that anyone has suggested since the war.
It is easy to say the Russians are completely evil. I do not believe anybody is completely evil. Let us assume, however, that the collective mind of the Kremlin is about as evil as anything we are likely to encounter in our mortal span. Even so, they have a self-interest,
542
and they are capable of watching their self-interest. It might be that, if they saw we were ready for this ban, they might realise that they too would have an advantage. I do not think the Russians believe that a world war is in their interests. I am not crediting them with any virtues, though we all have a few virtues; but it is not in their interest to have a world war. How could it be in anybody's interest to have a world war with hydrogen bombs floating about? I feel that, in their own interest, the Russians might seriously be ready for a suspension of tests all round. That would be some gain, leading to a ban on bombs and, it may be, a general disarmament.
I am simply saying that it rests in the power of Her Majesty's Government to give a lead. It is a propitious moment. The advantage lies with us. We can do it or not do it. We can deny ourselves something or not deny ourselves something.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Just how long does the noble Lord want to postpone the test? Supposing the negotiations fail, at what time do we authorise the Government to make the test?
LORD PAKENHAM: I would say three months would he the minimum. It the talks seemed to be leading somewhere, I would not say that because the three months were up we must proceed: I would certainly give them a proper chance. I mention three months as an absolute minimum. I do appeal to the noble Earl—he cannot, of course, reach an epoch-making decision by himself—not only to think how he will reply to me to-morrow but to discuss the matter once more with his colleagues before the die is finally cast. We do not pretend on this side to have higher ethical standards than noble Lords opposite. But we do in this debate, I think, speak for a great number of all Parties whose consciences would be very much clearer if a further effort were made to avert this terrible development. Therefore, respectfully approving many things in the White Paper and wishing the Government nothing but good in their efforts to defend the country, I implore the noble Earl to consider, with his colleagues, whether, even now, it would not be possible to suspend the tests.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
8.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, before the House adjourns, perhaps it will be convenient to your Lordships if I make the following announcement. It has been arranged through the usual channels that we shall not now ask the House to meet on Monday next to open the Committee stage of the Rent Bill. We understand that we may expect the co-operation of the Opposition in concluding that stage of this Bill on Tuesday evening, even though we do not begin it till that afternoon at 2.30. It may be necessary to ask your Lordships to sit
544
late and have a dinner adjournment, in the same way as we did so successfully last night.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day) and read 1a.

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at five minutes before nine o'clock.