Sitting of 20 May 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Lords Amendment considered and agreed to.
BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Rural Electricity Supplies
    Mr. Kimballasked the Paymaster-General if he will give a general direction to the Central Electricity Authority to speed up the development of electrical schemes in rural areas.
    The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The boards are well ahead of their programme for rural electrification and no such direction is needed.
    Mr. Kimball: Whilst congratulating my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made, may I ask him if he is aware that recently there have been many complaints from farmers in my division that they are unable to get labour for some of the outlying farms, that they get no priority for electricity unless they intend to install grain dryers, that many small farmers on the wolds do not want grain dryers and cannot afford them, but that they would like priority for their milking equipment?
    Mr. Maudling: I am aware of these difficulties and so are the electricity boards. In fact, in the East Midlands and Yorkshire areas, which are the areas concerned, about 85 per cent. of the farms have been connected compared with the
    832
    national average of 69 per cent. That shows that the boards are well aware of the problem, but I can understand that in individual cases difficulty remains.

    Collieries (Undistributed Stocks)
    Mr. Owenasked the Paymaster-General how much coal was undistributed at collieries at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Maudling: At 4th May, 1957, 2·7 million tons with a further 1·5 million at opencast sites.
    Mr. Owen: Is the Minister aware that there is an increasing accumulation of coal in colliery sidings, particularly in a section of a Northumberland coal field, and that this is causing some concern to the mine workers of the area? Is it not possible to produce some additional incentive for consumers during the summer months so that this increasing quantity of coal can be removed?
    Mr. Maudling: This is really a matter of administration for the board in which I should not intervene. I know that the board is aware of the difficulties that may arise if undistributed stocks become excessive, but so far I have not heard of congestion at the pithead. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases in mind and will send me details of them, I will convey the facts to the board.
    Mr. Robens: Is it not the case that the problem is with smalls? Would not the Paymaster-General consider permitting an even greater amount for export in order to relieve the collieries of the large accumulated stocks they now have?
    Mr. Maudling: There is a later Question on the Order Paper about exports. I do not think it is a matter of "permitting" exports. We should he glad to see increased exports of small coal.

    Fuel Oil (Emergency Surcharge)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Paymaster-General what progress he has made in his discussions with the oil companies about removing their surcharge on petrol.
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Paymaster-General what has been the result of his consultation with the oil companies in regard to the emergency surcharge.
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Members will have seen from the announcements of the oil companies that, following consultations with my noble Friend, they have taken off the remainder of the emergency surcharge. My noble Friend has now decided that it is no longer necessary to ask them to consult him before making changes in prices.
    Mr. Lipton: Is not the Paymaster-General aware that petrol is still 2—½d. a gallon more than pre-Suez, which means higher fares and higher prices? Why did the previous Minister of Fuel and Power tell the House on 10th December last:
    "I have every reason to believe that when the emergency is over the emergency surcharge will disappear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 16.]
    Was the Minister tricked by the oil companies, and is that why he misled the House and the public?
    Mr. Maudling: I think the hon. Gentleman has failed to distinguish between the cost of carrying oil and the cost of buying it from the Gulf. The price has risen by 2½d. a gallon, but this country has no control over Gulf prices, which must continue to be reflected in the price to the consumer.
    Mr. Nabarro: In view of the great variations in the statements made from time to time as to the amount by which petrol is now higher in price than it was at the onset of the Suez crisis, namely, last July, can my right hon. Friend say whether the 2½d. referred to in the last supplementary is correct or not?
    Mr. Maudling: My impression is that the higher elements in the price of petrol since before Suez are the increase in the basic price at the Gulf of about l½d. a gallon and the increased cost of 1d. a gallon in the retailers' margin, agreed between the oil companies and the retailers, which are not a responsibility of the Government.
    Mr. Lewis: While appreciating that the price may or may not have gone up—because we hear different stories about that—may I ask whether it is not a fact that these companies are turning over millions of pounds of profits? Surely it would be far better if the Minister were to advise them to cut prices, if need be out of their profits, and so help to reduce the cost of living? Why should they keep
    834
    on making these millions of pounds of profits?
    Mr. Maudling: To pay for the development of their industry.
    Mr. Robens: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? Did I understand him to say that in future the oil companies will not consult the Ministry when they wish to change prices? If so, can we look forward now to some competition amongst the oil companies and a difference in oil and petrol prices to the consumers? Secondly, will he say by how much now petrol has increased since the pre-Suez situation?
    Mr. Maudling: I thought I said earlier that the higher price of petrol of about 2½d. a gallon since the pre-Suez crisis was the effect of the increased price the companies have to pay to producers, plus the retailers' margin. As to the right hon. Gentleman's other question, I think that if he will look into the oil business a little more closely he will find that it is in fact a very competitive industry.

    Coal Allocation Scheme
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Paymaster-General if he will now free the supply of household coal from the present system of allocation.
    Mr. Holtasked the Paymaster-General when he anticipates that there will be sufficient house coal available to free it from the allocation system.
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot add to the Answer I gave on 6th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper).
    Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so far as East Anglia is concerned, this allocation is based on the assumption that the climate of Norfolk is the same as that of Bournemouth, which, climatically at least, is not correct, and that as long as the existing allocation continues East Anglia will suffer from a sense of injustice?
    Mr. Maudling: I will certainly consider the comparative statistics of East Anglia and Bournemouth, but, of course, it is not possible in these allocation schemes to produce exact differentials for every area. Our claim is to remove the whole scheme as soon as possible, but I

    835
    am afraid that in present circumstances, with the continuing need to import large coal, it is not possible to foresee the end of allocation.

  UNITED NATIONS

    Technical Assistance (Staff)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will propose to the United Nations the establishment of an international pool of experienced administrators from whom newly independent Governments could select personnel for employment in technical duties and to train citizens of the territories concerned in such duties.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): No, Sir. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards a civil service under international responsibility was made clear by my noble Friend the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in a speech to the 22nd Session of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in July, 1956, a copy of which is available in the Library. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government wholeheartedly support the supply of experts and advisers to States requesting their services, under the Technical Assistance programmes of the United Nations and the Specialised Agencies.
    As regards the last part of the Question, the United Nations, the Specialised Agencies and the Extended Technical Assistance Programme allocated in 1956$1·4 million for the training in public administration of national civil servants and other suitably sponsored and qualified persons.
    Mr. Brockway: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that very full reply, may I ask whether he will urge upon his right hon. and learned Friend some reconsideration of this position for two reasons: first, that if there is an international panel Governments may be able to select from it, without any feeling that there are national political reasons behind it, and secondly, that it will be a big, positive, constructive step towards peace?
    Mr. Harvey: I appreciate the points which the hon. Gentleman has put, but there have been no great demands in that
    836
    direction by the newly-formed Governments concerned, and so I do not think there is any great need to bring these points to my right hon. and learned Friend's notice.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that we remember with regret the speech made in Geneva by the noble Lord a little while ago, and will he represent to the Foreign Secretary that Technical Assistance is really a major British interest, and that the lack of a properly trained, long-term service, pool of experts is a major difficulty? Will he support the proposals made by the Secretary-General under this head?
    Mr. Harvey: I do not think that what I have said contradicts in any way what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is merely a question of a primary organisation. As I have indicated in my Answer, there is no great demand for this central organisation.

    Economic Development
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the attitude expressed by the United Kingdom delegate on the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East to the statement of the International Confederation of Free Trades Unions in which they call for the early establishment of a Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: There was no discussion in the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East of the statement made by the International Confederation.
    Mr. Brockway: Can we expect some change in the attitude of the British Government when the United Nations Assembly meets next autumn? Have not thirty-two Governments now endorsed this scheme, and could it not be put into operation if the British and American Governments agreed?
    Mr. Harvey: I cannot at this point add to the very full statement which we have already made, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are reports expected on this subject at the present time at the United Nations. Obviously, when those reports become available we shall study them.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will Her Majesty's representatives in the Economic and Social Council in Geneva take a more constructive attitude about this than they have done in the past?
    Mr. Harvey: I have no doubt they will examine these reports as and when they come forth.

  EGYPT

    British Property
    Major Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the property of Israeli nationals in Egypt has now been desequestrated; and what steps he is now taking to ensure that the property of British nationals is returned to them or compensation paid.
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the property of Israeli nationals in Egypt has now been de-sequestrated, to what extent discussions are now taking place to lead to similar action in regard to the property of British nationals.
    The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Commander Allan Noble): I have seen these reports, but upon inquiry it seems that these measures have the effect of removing from sequestration the property of persons arrested or placed under supervision by the Egyptian police, and I understand that this affected Jews of nationalities other than British and French, including Egyptian Jews, but it did not relate to citizens of Israel.
    As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in the House on 13th May, discussions are to be held with the Egyptians in a neutral capital. The possibility will then be explored of securing satisfactory arrangements to cover the financial claims which we have against Egypt.
    Major Wall: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say whether he has any information about the private property of British subjects in Egypt? Has it been sold or otherwise disposed of?
    Commander Noble: I am afraid I have no further information on that, but, as the Prime Minister has said, all this will be borne in mind.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind in approaching this matter that the best results are likely to be obtained by using the utmost diplomatic skill and business acumen rather than by more doubtful methods?

    Suez Canal
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the British representatives at the meeting of the Security Council on Suez to support the French request that the Egyptian Government should be required to conform to the six principles laid down in October, 1956.
    Commander Noble: Her Majesty's Government certainly support the view that the Egyptian Government should be required to conform to the six principles of the Security Council agreed last October. We shall continue our efforts to this end. The Security Council is meeting today and we await the outcome.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman not only emphasise the purely provisional nature of the present Canal arrangement, but use Her Majesty's Government's influence at the United Nations to do something to restore confidence in that organ as one capable of ensuring respect for international rights?
    Commander Noble: We will certainly do everything we can.
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) in view of the Security Council Resolution of 13th October, 1956, what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the sending of a ship by the Government of Israel through the Suez Canal as a peaceful test;
    (2) whether he will instruct his representative at the United Nations to propose that the Security Council should implement their Resolution of 13th October, 1956, urging full freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal by calling on the Government of Egypt not to interfere with Israeli shipping passing peacefully through the Suez Canal.
    Commander Noble: As my right hon. and learned Friend said on 13th May, we believe Israeli ships share the rights of all

    839
    countries to freedom of passage of the Canal. And as the Prime Minister said during the debate on 15th May, we shall do all we can, through the United Nations and with our friends, to see that these rights are assured.
    We stand by the Resolution of September, 1951, and by the six principles of October, 1956. The Security Council is discussing the Canal question today. Whether there should be a peaceful test voyage by an Israeli ship must be a matter for the Israeli Government.
    Mr. Henderson: In view of the official statement made in Cairo last week by a Government of Egypt spokesman to the effect that they would stop any Israeli ship seeking to pass through the Canal, would the Minister of State at least make it clear that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, any interference by the Government of Egypt with an Israeli ship on a peaceful occasion would be contrary to all international law?
    Commander Noble: I think that my original Answer made that quite clear. Should the situation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just mentioned arise, it would be a matter for Israel whether to take the question to the United Nations or the International Court.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will my hon. and gallant Friend think again? In view of the terrible results that might ensue from any untoward circumstance arising out of a test voyage, will he revise his view that this concerns the Israeli Government alone? It concerns the whole world. Will he attempt to prevent the Israeli Government acting single-handed?
    Commander Noble: I think I made the position of Her Majesty's Government quite clear. The actual decision to take a ship through is for the Israeli Government, but thereafter it would be a matter for the United Nations or the International Court.
    Mr. H. Morrison: In those circumstances, cannot the Minister of State make it clear that if the Israeli Government should exercise its undoubted right to take a ship through the Suez Canal, that would receive the sympathetic support of Her Majesty's Government? Cannot he make it clear now that if Israel should do that we would say that Israel was
    840
    within her rights and that we would, at any rate, give her moral support in so doing and support in the United Nations?
    Commander Noble: Yes, Sir. I think Her Majesty's Government have always made that quite clear.

    U.S.S.R. (TSARIST DEBTS)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when last our Ambassador in Moscow discussed the question of repayment of Tsarist Russian debts to this country; what were the results of such discussions; and what he now proposes to do.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: In spite of repeated representations, the most recent of which was made last year, the Soviet Government have not yet agreed to enter into negotiations for a general settlement of outstanding British claims against the Soviet Union. We shall lose no suitable opportunity of pressing this question.
    Mr. Teeling: Does my hon. Friend not think it strange that whereas the Russian Government today are known to pay their debts promptly and probably better than most other countries in the world they do not seem to want to do so in the case of debts incurred only shortly before the Revolution for the building of railways and other developments in Russia, from which they are benefiting today? The sum is very small, but large numbers of people in this country are still suffering from not having received any interest on the money, and certainly no return of their capital, over these many years.
    Mr. Harvey: Her Majesty's Government do appreciate the position of those people, and we shall make every effort to get this matter settled, but it is not quite so simple as my hon. Friend would suggest.
    Mr. G. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman well versed in history, and would he remember the days when those loans were first made, and that the Social Democrats of Tsarist Russia issued a warning to the world that if ever the Tsarist régime passed away the debts would as well and that they would refuse to recognise them?
    Mr. Harvey: I am reasonably well versed in history, but I think I should be out of order if I were to answer that today.
    Mr. Jeger: Try. It would not be out of order.

    UNITED STATES (VISAS)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that British citizens resident in the United Kingdom who visit the United States of America have as easy facilities in the matter of passport visas and entry permits as United States citizens visiting the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: None, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by making representations to the United States Government on this subject. Since Her Majesty's Government abolished visas for United States citizens in 1948, the United States Government have abolished visa fees and progressively extended the validity of visas for United Kingdom citizens resident in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hurd: Will my hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to look at this again, because there is a good deal of feeling about it? There would be very wide support on this side of the Atlantic if the Foreign Secretary pressed for complete reciprocity between the United States and ourselves in the matter of passport conditions and visa charges. There is not complete reciprocity today.
    Mr. Harvey: I appreciate the point that there is not complete reciprocity, but these matters are for the internal arrangements of the Governments themselves; and the adjustments made have to a large extent met many of the criticisms made up to now.
    Mr. Crossman: Is it not a fact that since we abolished visas for the Americans they have introduced fingerprinting for us? Is that complete reciprocity?
    Mr. Harvey: The timing in the hon. Member's suggestion is not quite correct, but I entirely appreciate the position about fingerprinting.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Will my hon. Friend not agree that the greatest barrier to
    842
    travel to the United States is the non-availability of dollars? Will he have conversations with the American Government, or see that his right hon. and learned Friend does, to see whether tourist dollars could not be made available at a reasonably cheap rate so that, for example, tourists would not have to pay £2 for a steak in New York?
    Mr. Harvey: My hon. Friend's proposal is attractive, but at the same time has nothing to do with passports.

    BRITISH REGISTERED SHIPS (REFUGEES)
    Mr. Reevesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of refugees living on British registered ships; the average length of time of their sojourn there; and what steps he is taking in the United Nations or elsewhere to reduce or eliminate entirely the number of such people on British ships.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 27th February by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary to a Question tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Moss). In view of the terms of that reply, I do not consider that any action in the United Nations or elsewhere is called for.
    Mr. Reeves: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present Nobel Prize-winner stated recently that there are literally thousands of seamen in this unfortunate position? Could not something be done, because they are virtually prisoners on board ship? Is it not an outrage that such a thing should occur?
    Mr. Harvey: I have not actually seen that statement, but my information is not quite to that effect. In any case, the matter is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

    SUEZ CANAL USERS' ASSOCIATION
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he intends to make to the United States Government concerning the future of the Suez Canal Users' Association.
    Commander Noble: Any such proposals would appropriately be put to the

    843
    Suez Canal Users' Association Council, which reviews from time to time the work of the Association. As the Prime Minister said on 13th May, the Association will be a valuable instrument, which the user countries intend to keep alive. It provides a means for the major user Governments to consult and concert policies in the coming months, when they will be closely watching the operation of the Canal.
    Mr. Peyton: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that it would be appropriate to remind the American Government or the Secretary of State—who, after all, was largely responsible for the formation of the Association—of the existence of the Association and also of his responsibility to make the Association an effective one?
    Commander Noble: The United States Government are, of course, well aware of the existence of the Association and agree that it should be kept alive.

    MIDDLE EAST (ANGLO-AMERICAN POLICY)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he now proposes to take to concert a common policy in the Middle East between this country and the United States of America.
    Commander Noble: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated on 1st April, we and the United States have identical aims in this area even if there are at times divergencies on how to achieve them. The process of close consultation, which is the best method of ensuring common policies, is continuous.
    Mr. Peyton: Now that the Suez controversy has been well argued into the ground, does my right hon. and gallant Friend not feel that in looking to the future there is a very grave danger that Western policies will continue to be frustrated and thwarted by their own divided counsels? Will he not suggest to the American Government that in the Middle East, to start with, there should be some attempt at official level to concert in detail a policy for this extremely vital part of the world?
    Commander Noble: I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on the first part of his supplementary. As
    844
    he knows, these matters were very fully discussed at Bermuda and since then there has been close and continuous consultation.
    Mr. Younger: While accepting the value of consultation with the United States in these matters, will Her Maejsty's Government be careful not to begin regarding the Middle East as an Anglo-American preserve? Will they consider having co-operation not merely with the United States, but on a very much wider basis, notably with countries in Asia, probably under the leadership of India?
    Commander Noble: We shall certainly consult about the Middle East with those countries we think oppropriate.
    Major Wall: Is it not a fact that American public opinion seems to be far ahead of the opinion in the American Administration on this subject?

    SPAIN (GIBRALTAR FRONTIER RESTRICTIONS)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received to his note of 16th April to the Spanish Government on the subject of Gibraltar frontier restrictions.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: No reply has yet been received. At the same time, no further incidents have been reported on the frontier.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his information from the frontier regularly varies from the information I get, and that my latest information, which is only two days old, is that the situation on the Gibraltar frontier is exactly the same as it was when we discussed this matter and which caused the Government to send a note to the Spanish Government? Is he determined to allow both ends of the Mediterranean to get into the same mess?
    Mr. Harvey: If the hon. Gentleman would care to discuss his information with me, I should be very glad to take appropriate action, but I can only say that the information available to me at present is that there have been no further incidents on this frontier since our debate in the House before Easter.

    EAST-WEST TRADE
    Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the failure of the China Committee of the Consultative Group to reach agreement, he will now reduce the China embargo list to the level of that applying to the Soviet bloc.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the stalemate in the China Committee of the Consultative Group, Her Majesty's Government will now exercise their right to act in the matter of China trade contracts according to the economic interests of this country.
    Commander Noble: A meeting of the China Committee of the Consultative Group took place last Friday in Paris. Agreement was not reached, Her Majesty's Government are now considering what action they should take, and a further meeting of the Committee is being held this week.
    Mr. Lewis: But Her Majesty's Government are always considering it. Is it not time that they did something, because this Committee will obviously not reach agreement? Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman explain why he told my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) last Thursday that the Government would not agree to make a statement in the House before reaching any agreement? Will he reconsider that and promise that he will make a statement before agreeing to anything which the American Government may put forward?
    Commander Noble: I realise that hon. Members feel strongly on this subject. Her Majesty's Government, of course, realise that this is a problem which cannot go unresolved, but it is right that we should attend this meeting this week, and if there is no agreement, we will, of course, have to reconsider the whole position. The House will be told at the appropriate time.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that the feeling that there is something ludicrous about discrimination in trade between Communist China and Communist Russia is by no means confined to one side of the House?
    Commander Noble: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the reply of the President of the Board of Trade to me last Thursday showed that the Chinese surplus with the sterling area was now about £70 million? What will he do about employing this amount of money? Is he to "footer" about with this problem until this surplus is turned into other currencies which take the matter altogether out of our hands?
    Commander Noble: I think that my last answer makes it quite clear that we shall not "footer" about with this problem and that we will consider the position and make a statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the number of procedures and control lists now governing Britain's exports to China and the Soviet bloc, he will now reconsider the advisability of publishing a White Paper to make the relevant information available to British exporters.
    Commander Noble: No, Sir. The details of the procedures governing exports to China and the Soviet bloc are confidential. As far as the lists are concerned the items under control for the Soviet bloc were published in the Board of Trade journal of 16th October, 1954, and those under embargo for China were published in the Board of Trade journal of 23rd June, 1951. As I have just said, discussions are continuing in the China Committee on the scope of the China trade controls.
    Mr. Allaun: But if a White Paper were published, would not it show that our export policy is no longer being decided in the British Parliament but in the American Congress, and are not Parliament as well as the exporters themselves entitled to the whole of the story?
    Commander Noble: It is really the principles that are confidential. I do not think that exporters, if they go to the Board of Trade, have any doubt about the methods they should adopt. if those lists are changed they will be re-published.
    Mr. Bevan: Whatever may be the outcome of the discussions now taking place in Paris, surely it will be necessary to inform the House of the situation which will have arisen? Therefore, I should

    847
    have thought an application for a White Paper on the subject, including what may happen and the contemporary lists, was perfectly reasonable.
    Commander Noble: I will certainly bring that point to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that, within the limits of the strategic embargo, those who are trying to promote the exports of this country find the present differentiation between China and Russia both illogical and irritating?
    Commander Noble: Yes, that is really why we wish to get this matter resolved as soon as possible.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is it correct to say that the United States representative on the China Committee is the only representative who is against the liberalisation of trade with China?
    Commander Noble: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, these meetings are confidential.

    GULF OF AQABA
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to a reference to the Court of International Justice for its ruling as to whether the Gulf of Aqaba is an international waterway.
    Commander Noble: My right hon. and learned Friend certainly has in mind the possibility mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend told him on 17th April, British ships are in fact exercising the right of free and innocent passage through the Gulf of Aqaba. In general, the present position seems reasonably satisfactory.
    Mr. Henderson: Would the Minister of State make it clear whether British ships passing through the Gulf of Aqaba have every right to go to the Port of Elath if they so desire?
    Commander Noble: I think we have always made that quite clear. I myself referred to it in the General Assembly earlier this year.
    Mr. Bevan: Is not it a fact that where rights of passage are normally exercised by maritime nations, if a riparian nation wishes to interfere with that right that nation itself should go to the International Court; it should not be the obligation of some nation interfered with to assert its rights, but for the interferer to assert the right to interfere?
    Commander Noble: I think that from the British point of view the situation is reasonably satisfactory. We have declared that we look upon this as an international waterway and our ships are using it.
    Captain Pilkington: Is not it now up to the United Nations to say that all ships shall have free access to both these waterways?
    Commander Noble: Yes, Sir.

    WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (DEFENCE COMMITTEE REPORT)
    Mr. Youngerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to remedy the state of affairs revealed by the report of the Defence Committee of Western European Union, especially the failure to secure adequate standardisation of equipment, mobilisation plans or logistic systems of the various national contingents.
    Mr. Ian Harvey: The recommendation and Report of the Defence Committee have been received by the Western European Union Council today. They will be considered by the Permanent Representatives shortly.
    It would not be proper for me to anticipate their conclusions.
    Standardisation of equipment is not a field in which spectacular results can be quickly achieved, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that good progress is already being made as to standardisation in the appropriate organs of the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, namely the Standing Armaments Committee and the Defence Production Committee.
    Mr. Younger: While welcoming that statement from the Joint Under-Secretary, may I ask him whether he is aware that what is alleged in this Report is not a

    849
    failure to make spectacular progress but virtually an allegation of a failure to make any progress at all? As this is spelled out in black and white and has been before a Parliamentary Assembly in Europe, with no answer of any kind being given by any Minister of the member States, it had a very damaging effect. Is not it extremely important, if these things are true, that they should be put right and that, if they are not true, they should be denied?
    Mr. Harvey: One readily accepts the views of the right hon. Gentleman on the second part of his Question, but I think, at the same time, that possibly the picture he has painted is rather more black than it actually is. As I have stated, this is being considered, and it would be improper at this stage to anticipate any conclusion.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Government give us a White Paper on the result of this discussion, so that we can see where we are?
    Mr. Harvey: I do not think it is necessary to call for a White Paper, but certainly a statement will be issued in due course and when the proper proceedings have taken place.
    Mr. Robens: Will the hon. Gentleman say how it is possible to have something more black than black?
    Mr. Nicholson: Can my hon. Friend say whether his right hon. and learned Friend has read this Report, because it is so shocking that, if it is true, it is plain that the defence of Western Europe is nothing more or less than a mockery? It is a very serious Report which deeply shocked all members of the Western European Union Assembly.
    Mr. Harvey: I admit that the Report does contain some very disturbing details. My right hon. and learned Friend has, of course, read it; but it is being considered at the moment and it would be premature for any statement to be made.

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Aircraft Industry, Coventry
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that, as a result of the change in Government defence policy, Armstrong Siddeley Motors,
    850
    Coventry, have been told by his Department to reduce their proposed development vote by 45 per cent.; and what steps he proposes to take to provide alternative contracts so as to avoid the dismissal of the skilled experimental labour force involved.
    The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): The cancellation of the supersonic bomber project announced in the Defence White Paper involves the cancellation of the contract for its engine, and this together with some running down of other work will bring the firm's expenditure this year on research and development work for my Ministry down to about two-thirds of last year's figure. There is little likelihood of my being able to find alternative work to fill this gap.
    Miss Burton: As the Minister, on 8th February, gave an undertaking to try to find alternative work to offset the cutback in defence orders, and as that policy was further put forward in this House by the Lord Privy Seal on behalf of the Prime Minister on 20th February, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what value he expects the people of Coventry to put upon the word of this Government?
    Mr. Jones: Whenever possible I certainly will do my best to find alternative work, but I must remind the hon. Lady that the aircraft industry expanded unduly as a result of the Korean rearmament boom and some measure of contraction is now unavoidable. We ought to be realistic about that.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask whether the Government accept responsibility for finding alternative employment for those who are rendered unemployed by the cuts in the defence services? Do they accept that?
    Mr. Jones: No, Sir. My responsibility, as far as this Question is concerned, is limited to endeavouring to find alternative defence work and alternative civil work in the aircraft field, and that I will most certainly do. It is unrealistic to expect civil work to offset a reduction in defence work.
    Mr. Griffiths: As the right hon. Gentleman himself approved the plans for the reduction of defence expenditure, with the consequent result in unemployment, has

    851
    he consulted the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour to see if something can be done to provide alternative employment?
    Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir. Consultations with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour are always taking place.
    Mr. Crossman: When the Minister said that the industry had expanded unduly as a result of Korea, is he solemnly telling us that we did something wrong in Coventry in making the aircraft that we were asked to make? Are we to take the blame for that? What does the Minister mean by "unduly"?
    Mr. Jones: I meant that in the course of the Korean rearmament boom the aircraft industry expanded to a point which can no longer be sustained.
    Mr. Crossman: Then the right hon. Gentleman does not mean "unduly"?
    Miss Burton: On a point of order. May I ask what redress a Member has when a statement is made by the Prime Minister in this House which is specifically repudiated by another Minister? Furthermore, this figure was reached because the Minister of Supply gave this company the money because of the excellence of its technical organisation?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady could raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, if she gets the opportunity.
    Miss Burton: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Stores Sale, Ruddington
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Minister of Supply why the items shown as signals vans, ambulances, platform trailers, and radio-equipped cars were not offered to the Home Office for Civil Defence use before being offered for sale by auction at Ruddington on 14th to 17th May, 1957.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: The items referred to were offered to the Home Office.
    Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in certain parts of the North-East, Civil Defence forces are unable to undertake their proper training because,
    852
    in the words of a letter to me from the Under-Secretary at the Home Office a few days ago, "the despatch riders ought to use their own motor-cycles"? Having regard to the fact that motor-cycles were on offer at this sale, ought there not to be closer co-operation between the Departments concerned?
    Mr. Jones: The fact that these items were for sale was known to the Home Office, and, from the Home Office point of view, there was no requirement for Civil Defence purposes. I therefore had no alternative but to proceed with the sale.

    Aircraft (Passenger Flights)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Supply if he will now revise the security regulations which have permitted a Conservative Member of Parliament to fly in the Victor bomber and not a Labour Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: I am anxious to gratify the desire of the hon. Gentleman for a flight in the Victor as soon as I can, but I would ask him to curb his impatience for a little longer until the flying programme is further advanced and more aircraft are available.
    Mr. Beswick: While not complaining at all that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was able to fly in this aircraft, because I am quite certain that the safety of the country was in no way diminished by that fact, is it not the case that the refusal to allow me to accept an invitation was not based upon expedience or on the flying programme but on security grounds? In view of the fact that commercial airline pilots were able to fly in this aircraft, why should there be discrimination against myself?
    Mr. Jones: I have no objection, on purely security grounds, to the hon. Gentleman flying in this aircraft, but I would ask him to appreciate that if I give him permission to fly in this aircraft, then by the same token I should have to give permission to other Members of Parliament. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not asking me to discriminate in his favour. The point I am trying to make in this is that the number of aircraft is at the moment limited, that they are scheduled for test flights for development,

    853
    and to open the door to many passengers would impede this work of development, and that, I think, would be undesirable.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: In reply to the supplementary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), the Minister has said that he had no objection on security grounds to my hon. Friend flying in this aircraft. Was there anybody else who had such an objection, and, if so, why? Since one hon. Member of this House has already been permitted to fly, why is the right hon. Gentleman refusing permission to my lion. Friend?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. and gallant Gentleman on this side of the House who has made a flight happens to be the deputy-chairman of the company which is making the aircraft. There are all kinds of cases in which some Members of Parliament have advantages over others, and we cannot possibly eliminate all these natural advantages.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Is not the Minister aware that by allowing my hon. Friend to fly in this aircraft he is not opening the door to any other hon. Members? Matters of this kind can always be dealt with through the usual channels, and may I ask him to suggest to his right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal that this question of flying in the Victor should be taken up in that way?
    Mr. Jones: I shall be perfectly happy to see this matter discussed through the usual channels, but I would ask the hon. Member for Uxbridge to have some appreciation of my difficulties. If I allow one hon. Member to fly it means that I must allow others. I think there is a special difficulty in the case of my hon. and gallant Friend, but I should be very glad to see the matter discussed through the usual channels.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have been an executive and a director of this company for a number of years, and that I flew in this aircraft in the course of my duties with that company? Would it not be a good thing if more executives of companies flew in their companies' aircraft? May I say that my firm would be very glad to take the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) if he can be cleared, but, on the other hand, may I
    854
    be allowed to fly in the Vulcan, the aircraft of our competitor?
    Mr. Speaker: This matter is to be discussed through the usual channels, and I think it is better to leave it there.
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Supply under what security regulations German journalists are permitted to fly in British military aeroplanes but not British journalists.
    Mr. Aubrey Jones: There is no regulation giving such a preference.
    Mr. Beswick: Is it not the case that in the last fortnight a German journalist has flown in the Hawker 7, and that permission has been refused to British journalists? Is not this another example of how the security regulations—and it was a matter of security in the other case, and nothing at all to do with the firm, because the reason given was that it was a matter of security regulations—is not this another case in which security regulations can be put on one side when commercial expediency so decides?
    Mr. Jones: It certainly is the case that within the last fortnight a German journalist has flown in this aircraft. It also happened that in exactly the same flight four British journalists took part, too. As a matter of fact, the security objections to journalists flying in this aircraft were removed as long ago as last autumn.
    Mr. Beswick: Quite apart from the fact that it was quite impossible for six men to fly in this aircraft, can we now take it from the Minister's reply that other British journalists who want to make this flight will now be permitted to do so?
    Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir. There is no objection to other British journalists taking part, and, in this instance, they took part in flights on exactly the same day.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Hospital Doctors
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health what representations he has received on behalf of doctors serving their interim year in hospitals; and whether he has any proposals to make to improve their conditions of service.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): My right hon. Friend has received no representations on behalf of these doctors. In common with other junior doctors in the hospital service they have had an increase of 10 per cent. in their pay as from 1st April last, as an interim measure pending the report of the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists' remuneration.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great anxiety that has been aroused about the hours of work being done by many of these staffs, and is this not due to the restrictions which his own Department has imposed on new appointments for more senior staff in hospitals?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: No, I do not think so. I think the hon. Gentleman may he raising the matter as the result of an article in the Observer. As regards living conditions and the organisation of work, these are primarily matters for the hospital authorities and the senior medical staff. The other matters, other than those to which I have referred, are really matters for the appropriate Whitley Council.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have personally received representations on this matter, quite apart from the article in the Press, and will he not at least consider something more, as far as family allowances or something of that kind is concerned?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: That really is a matter for the Whitley Council.

    World Health Organisation (Malaria Eradication)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health whether he will now recommend that a contribution should be made by Her Majesty's Government to the special fund for malaria eradication established by the World Health Organisation.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I have nothing of substance to add to the reply given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Labour and National Service on 14th November, 1955, when he pointed out that provision for malaria eradication is included in the regular budget of the organisation to which the United Kingdom contributes,
    856
    and that in these circumstances it is not proposed to contribute to the special fund.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is that not a quite disgraceful reply in view of the fact that it is common knowledge that there is a race with time against this disease because of the growing immunisation of some of the carrier mosquitoes against the new insecticides? Is it not desirable that the very minute funds of the Organisation should not be used up on this project when countries all over the world could be invited to make their contributions? Why cannot we make some modest contribution to this proposal?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: That raises much wider issues. The Organisation is held up more by lack of the necessary technical personnel than by anything else.

    Mental Illness (Report)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health when the Report of the Royal Commission on Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency will become available.
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am informed that it is likely to be presented towards the end of this month.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the House will be grateful for anything he can do to speed up publication, in view of the fact that we desire to press forward with legislation based upon a real assessment of the facts rather than upon emotional feelings?
    Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I would point out that the end of this month is not very far away.

  PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Retirement Pensions
    Mr. Lewisasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he is aware that the present rates of the retirement pension of 40s. for a single person and 65s. for a married couple were fixed in April, 1955; that in comparison with the £ sterling being worth 20s. in 1945, these pensions only had a purchasing value of 27s. 3d. and 44s. 3d., respectively, on 25th April, 1955; and, using

    857
    as the basis of calculation the retail price indices, what would be the relative purchasing value of these pensions today in comparison with 1945.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, sir". On the basis of the Cost of Living Index for the period up to June, 1947, and the Retail Prices Index from that date, the amounts required in 1945 to equal the purchasing value of 40s. and 65s. today were, respectively, 25s. ld. and 40s. 8d. The hon. Member will no doubt be aware that in 1945 the old-age pension was 10s. for a single person and 20s. for a married couple.
    Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that hon. Members and most people in the country agree that old-age pensioners are having, and have had for some years, a very shabby deal, will the hon. Lady not promise to do something to help these people because, as we know, many of them are passing away? Every hon. Member would be only too pleased to vote any money that is necessary. Can the hon. Lady please hold out a little hope that something will be done for these people?
    Miss Pitt: The hon. Gentleman fails to make his case by taking 1945 as a basis when, as I have explained, the pension payable was quite different and was under a different Act of Parliament. Today's pension is still worth much more than was paid in 1945 under the old Act.
    Mr. Lewis: Will not the hon. Lady answer my supplementary question?

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Canned Meat
    Mr. Wileyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what losses have occurred in the storage of canned meat by his Department; and what steps he has taken to avoid such losses.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): The total loss to date represents about 7¾ per cent. of the total cost of acquisition and maintenance of the
    858
    reserve of canned meat. The greater part of this was due to the elimination, before the end of State trading in meat, of certain packs unsuitable for long-term storage. The remainder have been placed in humidity-controlled storage which should prevent deterioration from rust.
    Mr. Wiley: While welcoming the fact that this canned meat is now subject to better storage, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can explain why it was not in better storage from the beginning? Was it not made quite clear from the beginning that, as these were strategic stocks, they would probably be held for a long time?
    Mr. Amory: There must always be some loss on the turnover of these stocks. At the time that this was bought, meat was not in very plentiful supply, and it was expected that it would be easy to turn the meat over quickly and sell it without appreciable loss. In fact, meat came into much more plentiful supply. At that time there was also a very inadequate amount of humidity-controlled storage. That position has been rectified since.
    Mr. Royle: Is it not a fact that canned meat is regarded in the main as an emergency store? In those circumstances, would it not always be advisable to see that preparation is made for a long period?
    Mr. Amory: I agree, but at the time there was not humidity-controlled storage available for the whole stock. At that time, in 1953, it was very much easier to sell turnover canned meat because the supply of fresh meat was much less than it is today.

    Eggs
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stocks of frozen egg his Department still holds; how long such stocks have been held by his Department; how far they have been tested for salmonella infection; and with what results.
    Mr. Amory: My Department still holds about 260 tons of frozen whole egg, nearly all of which is of Commonwealth origin and arrived in this country at the end of 1955 and the beginning of 1956. All the consignments concerned were

    859
    sampled by the appropriate health authorities and this balance still on hand represents residual stocks, in samples of which some small degree of salmonella infection has been found.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the fact that previous outbreaks of food poisoning have been traced to frozen eggs, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that every precaution will be taken before these stocks are released?
    Mr. Amory: I can give that assurance. These stocks will be disposed of under suitable safeguards to public health and in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.
    Mr. Hastings: How long can salmonella infection remain active in eggs and be capable of producing disease in human beings when the eggs are eaten?
    Mr. Amory: I am afraid that I have not that information, but it is relevant and I will write and give it as well as I can to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Nabarroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take in view of the size of the subsidy arising from the guarantee for eggs.
    Mr. Amory: The guaranteed price for hen eggs was reduced after the last Annual Review by l¾d. per dozen. I cannot, of course, anticipate decisions which must be taken after the next Annual Review when all appropriate factors will be taken into consideration, including the long-term assurances to the industry. I think, however, that it would be right to warn producers now that, unless there is some major change in circumstances between now and next February, a further reduction in the level of the guarantee, within the long-term assurances, must be expected. Clearly, in present circumstances, when we are self-supporting in eggs, the Government cannot encourage any further expansion of production—indeed, some reduction from the quantities in prospect is desirable.
    Mr. Nabarro: Could my right hon. Friend confirm that during the last few months when there has been this prodigious output from the hens of this country the Treasury has actually been subsidising egg production to the tune of
    860
    more than £1 million a week? Can he say what rearrangements are to be made in the future to enable British producers to export their subsidised eggs to Western Europe, which seems to be a profitable outlet?
    Mr. Amory: The figure that my hon. Friend has mentioned was certainly the figure at which the subsidy was running during the peak of the flush, but the peak has passed now and the present figure is very much lower than that. The real explanation is that the British hen. like hon. Members in this House, has recently been performing prodigies of productivity.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us who are egg producers to what extent he wants poultry keepers like me to cut down production? It is no good saying "cut down"; to what extent does he want us to cut down?
    Mr. Amory: I am anxious that poultry keepers should produce as economically as they possibly can and that they should cull their flocks with that object in mind. As regards the export of eggs, that matter is being discussed at present with the representatives of the Danish authorities who are either here or are coming tomorrow.
    Mr. Willey: What was the consumption of eggs over the last financial year compared with the previous financial year? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the loss has largely occurred through the right hon. Gentleman's failure to even out the production of eggs?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Nabarro: We got only one "squiffy" egg per week under your Government.
    Mr. Amory: No, I would not agree with what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said. I agree that there is considerable scope for increased consumption of eggs in this country. In America, consumption of eggs per head is about 50 per cent. higher than in this country. So we have scope. At present prices, eggs are very good value.

    Milk
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the consumption of full price fresh milk for the month of April.
    Mr. Amory: It is provisionally estimated to have been 104 million gallons in the United. Kingdom.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the substantial decrease in the consumption of milk, will not the right hon. Gentleman review his price policy? Does he realise how absurd it is to expect the Milk Marketing Board to advertise the sale of milk when he is preventing the sale of milk by his price policy?
    Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman is off the beam a bit. Consumption for April is not down on consumption for March. There were thirty days in April and thirty-one days in March. The retail price of milk was reduced on 1st April from 8d. to 7½d.
    Mr. Willey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the figures he has given show a decrease of more than three million gallons compared with April of last year? We have to compare month with month. That is a serious decline. Surely he should recognise it, and recognise also his own responsibility for that decline.
    Mr. Amory: I fully recognise my own responsibility, but again, comparing 1957 with 1956, I would point out that in the current year the whole of the Easter holidays fell in April.
    Mr. Wiley: In view of the unsatisfactory reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I will endeavour to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Wing Commander Bullus: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you assist me with Question No. 47? I put it down to the Paymaster-General, who answered Questions first today, but it was transferred at the request of the Prime Minister, who likes to answer Questions on this subject, but as he is not here today he has asked the Paymaster-General to answer the Question. In those circumstances, do you think I could have an answer to it now?
Mr. Speaker: Only in the form of a Written Answer, which the hon. and gallant Member will receive in due course.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 142.

Division No. 105.]

AYES

[3.32 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Cole, Norman

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Aitken, W. T.

Conant, Ma]. Sir Roger

Green, A

Alport, C. J. M.

Cooke, Robert C.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Cooper, A. E.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Arbuthnot, John

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Ashton, H.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Balniel, Lord

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Barber, Anthony

Crowder, Sir John (Flnchley)

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Barter, John

Cunningham, Knox

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

Beamish, Maj, Tufton

Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hay, John

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

Black, C. W.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hicks-Beach, Ma]. W. W.

Bossom, Sir Alfred

du Cann, E. D. L.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

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

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

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Braine, B. R,

Errington, Sir Erio

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fell, A.

Hornby, R. P.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Finlay, Graeme

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Fisher, Nigel

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Bryan, P.

Fort, R.

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Freeth, Denzil

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

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

Godber, J. B.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Campbell, Sir David

Goodhart, Philip

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Cary, Sir Robert

Gough, C. F. H.

Keegan, D.

Channon, Sir Henry

Gower, H. R.

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Kerr, H. W.

Kershaw, J. A.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Kimball, M.

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Kirk, P. M.

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

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Lagden, G. W.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W)

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Leavey, J. A.

Page, R. G.

Summers, Sir Spencer

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

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Partridge, E.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Pitman, I. J.

Teeling, W.

Longden, Gilbert

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Temple, John M.

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

Pott, H. P.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Powell, J. Enoch

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

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Raikes, Sir Victor

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

McAdden, S. J.

Redmayne, M.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Vane, W. M. F.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Remnant, Hon. P.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Renton, D. L. M.

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

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

Rippon, A. G. F.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Robinson,Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Wall, Major Patrick

Maddan, Martin

Robson-Brown, W.

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

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Marshall, Douglas

Russell, R. S.

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Mathew, R.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

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

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Mawby, R. L.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Medticott, Sir Frank

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Speir, R. M.

Mr. Oakshott and

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Mr. Hughes-Young.

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Hale, Leslie

Paget, R. T.

Albu, A. H.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Paling Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hamilton, W. W.

Paton, John

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Hannan, W.

Pentland, N.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Popplewell, E.

Balfour, A.

Hastings, S.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Hayman, F. H.

Probert, A. R.

Benson, G.

Healey, Denis

Rankin, John

Beswick, Frank

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Redhead, E. C.

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

Herbison, Miss M.

Reeves, J.

Blackburn, F.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Reid, William

Blenkinsop, A.

Hobson, C- R. (Keighley)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Blyton, W. R.

Holmes, Horace

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

Houghton, Douglas

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Brockway, A. F.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Burke, W. A.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Ross, William

Burton, Miss F. E.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Royle, C.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hunter, A. E.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Carmichael, J.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Skeffington, A. M.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Chapman, W. D.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, David (The Hartiepools)

Sparks, J. A.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Cove, W. G.

Lawson, G. M.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Sylvester, G. O.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Lewis, Arthur

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Lipton, Marcus

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Davles, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Mabon, Dr. j. Dickson

Tomney, F.

Donnelly, D. L.

MacColl, J. E.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

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

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Viant, S. P.

Dye, S.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

West, D. G.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Mason, Roy

Wheeldon, W. E.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mellish, R. J.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Fienburgh, W.

Messer, Sir F.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Fletcher, Eric

Mitchison, G. R.

Wiloock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Moody, A. S.

Willey, Frederick

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

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

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)

Moss, R.

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

Gibson, C. W.

Mulley, F. W.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Woof, R. E.

Grey, C. F.

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

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Oram, A. E.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Orbaoh, M.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Owen, W. J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Deer and Mr Wilkins.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
9.0 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, at the beginning to insert:
" Subject to subsection (5) of this section ".
Would it be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we discussed the Amendment in page 3, line 43, at the end to insert:
(5) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section shall not apply in relation to such offences in addition to those specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section as may be specified in the order, and any order under this subsection—

(a) may vary or revoke any previous order thereunder; and

(b) shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been approved by resolution of each Home of Parliament.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that that would be for the convenience of the House.
Mr. Simon: Matters relating to the scope of the Clause were raised, on Second Reading, by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), and in Committee, by a number of hon. Members. It was argued, first, that the procedure which the Bill lays down, with the general approbation of the House and the Standing Committte, ought not to apply to offences which involve moral turpitude or which might have serious consequences for the defendant, or at least—this was the alternative put forward—that the Secretary of State should have power to specify offences to which the Cause should not apply.
970
In point of fact, when we discussed the matter at considerable length in Committee there were three proposals before us. The first one excluded specific offences from the scope of the Bill. Secondly, there was a proposal to give directions by Home Office circular as to the sort of offences in connection with which it was inappropriate to use the new procedure under the Bill. The third proposal was that of taking power to exclude by Statutory Instrument.
When we discussed the matter in Committee it was quite clear that the general sense of the Committee was that of these three proposals the third was the one which found most favour, if it was desirable to limit in any way the scope of Clause 1. As the Bill stands, the Clause applies to all summary offences where the proceedings are initiated by summons, except those which are triable on indictment as well or for which the accused is liable to be imprisoned for a term exceeding three months.
These Amendments now before the House give the Secretary of State power to exclude other offences from the scope of the new procedure. The argument for doing so is not that offences involving moral turpitude, or those which might have serious consequences for the defendant, ought to be dealt with only in the accused person's presence, because in any event a defendant is not bound to attend, even if those offences are excluded from the scope of the Clause.
As I understand the argument in favour of the Amendment, it is rather that such offences ought to be proved in evidence before the court—particularly offences such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport mentioned, such as travelling without a ticket, which involve the necessity of establishing a dishonest purpose—and that to dispose of them in any other way than by evidence before the court might lead to their being regarded as trivial offences.
It has never been intended that the procedure which the Bill lays down should be used for all offences within

971
the scope of Clause 1. The Departmental Committee, in Paragraph 28 of its Report, said:
" It would be best to confine the operation of any such new procedure to those cases which the experience of the courts has shown can safely be dealt with in the absence of the defendant."
The Government agreed with that view. Indeed, we were prepared, under the Bill as it was introduced, to leave to the good sense of the prosecution and the court the determining of the limits of Clause 1, but I promised to consider the arguments put in Committee and, as this is a new procedure which we are trying, I am bound to say that I recognise the force in the argument that there is advantage in giving this power to the Secretary of State, by Statutory Instrument, approved by affirmative Resolution of Parliament, to exclude certain offences, if it is found that the new procedure is inappropriately being applied to these offences.
It is in deference to the views which were urged in Committee, and particularly the conclusion of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who thought that of the three procedures to which I have referred this was the best way of dealing with the problem, that I venture to move the Amendment.
Sir Frank Soskice: I should like to thank the Minister very cordially for the change he has proposed to introduce into the Bill. He mentioned three possible alternatives. Speaking for myself, I should have preferred, if it were practicable, which I gather it is not, that the offences not to be included in Clause 1 should be specified and set out in the Act. I gather that that would be a task of great difficulty, in that there would be a very large number of offences which would have to be included in any Schedule to the Bill for that purpose.
The second course which the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, namely that of issuing a circular from the Home Office, is one which, speaking for myself, I very much dislike. Although there may be cases in which such circulars are necessary and useful, that sort of thing savours of something like an interference by the Executive with the discharge by judicial bodies of their duties, and unless it is absolutely inevitable in a case where there are exceptional circumstances, I
972
must confess that I should very much dislike anything of that sort. I am glad, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has rejected that second alternative method.
The Home Secretary has adopted for this Bill—and I am grateful to him for it—the procedure by way of Statutory Instrument to be subject to the affirmative Resolution. I think that he is right in so doing. The danger which many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee feared has been obviated by this method. Personally, I think that when we are dealing here with a Bill which dispenses with the necessity of proof in criminal causes, we should foresee the possibility of the danger of involuntary abuse, if I may use the term. I think it is necessary that offences should be excluded from the scope of the Bill where there is some element of moral turpitude or where there are some potentially serious aspects to the offence.
I should like to ask the Minister this question. It is no good just taking power for the Secretary of State to exclude from the scope of the Bill particular offences or categories of offences by Statutory Instrument if that power is not going to be used. I feel sure that this is not intended merely as window-dressing, and that the intention of the Government is that there should he some use made of the power for which the Minister now asks. I would be grateful if he would give me some indication what kind of use the Secretary of State has in mind for this purpose. What sort of offences does he intend to exclude, and has he in mind that this Bill, when it becomes law in the fairly near future, should lay down any categories of offences in a Statutory Instrument?
I hope the Minister will be able to say that he and his right hon. colleague are carefully considering what offences should be excluded, and that we will soon see a Statutory Instrument which does have the effect of removing from the scope of the Bill, so far as it is possible to do so, the type of offences which moth sides of the Committee had in mind in pressing the Government to make this change. If he will answer that question, I should be grateful, and I would like to repeat that I am grateful to him for proposing the change which the House is now considering.
Mr. Ede: I want to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for accepting the view that was taken, by and large, by the Committee which considered the Bill. It is still a very bad Bill, and nothing that could be done to it could improve it, but this makes it a little less bad than it was originally.
Mr. Simon: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, may I say that I know that I cannot hope to satisfy the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) by anything which I say in regard to this Bill, except marginally.
If I may answer the question put to me by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), may I say that we have taken the view all along that there are certain offences which are inappropriate to be dealt with by the new procedure, hich, nevertheless, do fall within the scope of Clause 1. I nave already referred to one type of offence, which is that involving the proof of a dishonest purpose; for example, travelling without a ticket.
Although we regard it as inappropriate that the new procedure should be used, it is not the intention of the Government to introduce a Statutory Instrument before the House at an early date. We want to see—this was the consensus of view in the Committee—how the Bill will work. Only if we find the procedure used in a type of case where it is not appropriate, such as bad cases of careless driving verging on dangerous driving, or offences involving a dishonest purpose, would my right hon. Friend be bound to consider the framing of a Statutory Instrument for the consideration of the House. This is not window dressing, but a real power which will be kept in reserve until we see how the procedure works in practice.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Raymond Gower: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, at the end to insert:
" by a magistrate or by the clerk of the court ".
The House will recall that in cases of the type referred to in the Clause it will be possible for magistrates' courts to deal with offenders in the absence of the accused, and indeed of the prosecutor, in certain conditions provided for in the Bill. One of these involves service by the prosecutor upon the accused of certain notices
974
and concise statements of the facts of the case, and of the procedure whereby the court can accept a plea of guilty. This is the only place in which the prosecutor comes into the matter. The other proviso is that the magistrates' clerk should receive a statement from the accused of his desire to plead guilty without appearance at court.
The Bill provides that the statement of facts served on the accused and the notification from him, including any submission which he wishes to make in mitigation, shall be read out in open court. As was said during the Committee stage, there is a need for the small but not unimportant addition which is contained in the Amendment. It is most undesirable that the documents should be read out by the prosecutor, for example, by a police officer. It is particularly important, and I think permissible, to repeat here a cliché, by saying that, in the absence of the accused, justice should appear to be done. The Amendment therefore suggests that in practice these documents should be read to the court either by the clerk to the justices or by a magistrate. It includes a magistrate because in certain instances the clerk may not be able to read the document for health reasons, or it may not be convenient for him to do so. The Amendment provides an alternative.
The Amendment will ensure that the prosecutor or the police shall not appear to be conducting the case in the absence of the defendant. In Committee this point was very much stressed, but my hon. and learned Friend did not think it was desirable that the words should be inserted because it was a proper matter for the magistrates themselves to decide. Nevertheless, he promised that he would give the matter consideration in the light of the suggestions and submissions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) and myself.
9.15 p.m.
We appreciate the argument about the courts having discretion in arranging their own business, but we feel that this is something which is of such importance as to outweigh the leaving of the management of these things to individual courts. I should be the last to suggest that in cases of this kind police officers are likely to do anything that is not correct, but

975
when I have appeared in some of the smaller country police courts I have found that the mere presence of the police is sometimes overpowering. If there they are to be entrusted with this duty it might create the impression that this is part of the literature put before a court by the prosecutor.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to recast his attitude towards this Amendment. Since the matter was raised by my hon. Friend and myself in Committee, it has become obvious to me that it has a very wide degree of support, not only from hon. Members who put their names to the Amendment in substantial numbers, but also from the Standing Joint Committee of the R.A.C. and the A. A., and other organisations. It is not perhaps a tremendous, epoch-making Amendment, but I believe that it is of some substance and concerns one of those not unimportant matters in which appearances are of importance.
Sir Frank Medlicott: I beg to second the Amendment.
I find it a little difficult to understand the reluctance of my hon. and learned Friend to accept what appears to be a desirable Amendment, if only for the reason that it would make the position clear. This is one of the matters on which I should have thought Parliament should make up its mind, so that when these statements are before the courts there is no doubt or discussion or query as to who is to read the statement, but it is laid down clearly by Parliament on whom that duty should rest.
As has been said already in other words, there is no reflection whatever on the police in what we are proposing. We know that in this country we are fortunate in having a police force of unquestionable integrity, and of great experience in all matters relating to the prevention of crime, but I do not think this is a responsibility we ought to place upon them. In a different context, and, of course, without any relation to this Bill, a statement was made by a most experienced judge of the High Court last week, and I venture to quote his words, because they are appropriate in this case. He said:
"The duty of the police is to bring a mat, to court They"—
That is, the police—
" are not entitled to do anything in the nature of a trial "
976
That is a point we might bear in mind here as giving us some help. It is no part of the duty of the police to do anything other than bring the accused before the court so that the court may come to a proper decision. On grounds of clarity and so that there shall be no suggestion whatever that the evidence placed before the court comes with any added authority from the prosecution or the police, I ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider very seriously what has been said on this matter and to accept what we propose.
Sir F. Soskice: I should like to support the Amendment, and to do so shortly, because the views which I desire to represent to the Government have been precisely formulated by the two hon. Members who have already spoken in support of it. I would emphasise, as they did, that not the slightest reflection is intended on the police who prosecute these cases, but surely the function of reading out a statement of facts of this sort is the function of the court itself or the officers of the court. It is not desirable that it should be left to the prosecuting party, which is an interested party in the litigation before the court. We are here setting up a new procedure, and I submit to the Government that it must be either for a magistrate or, preferably, for the officer of the court, the clerk to the court, to be asked to read out what will be presumably in most cases a short statement.
The Bill is very much improved in its present form in that it requires that the statement is to be read out, and I am glad that that change has been made in it. I very much hope that the Government will go a little further and accede to this proposal in order to make sure there there is no informality about this procedure. This should be the formal action of the court itself, either through one of its members or through the clerk of the court. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the change which is now proposed.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I rise also to support the Amendment. It seems to me that this is a matter of some importance. When a defendant makes a submission to the court, it is not right that the police should read ut his submission. My experience of these matters is very rusty and goes back a long way, but I never remember the evidence of the defendant—because that is

977
what this is—being read out by a police officer. It was read out either by the solicitor or the counsel for the defendant, or, if he was not represented, by the magistrates or by the judge in a High Court case. It seems to me that it is wrong for the prosecutor, who in this case is the policeman, to read out this statement. In the absence of the defendant, it should be read by the magistrates or the clerk.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State will give some thought to this matter and see whether he can meet the House on this point, because there is a lot of feeling on both sides of the House that it would be proper for this Amendment to be made.
Mr. Ede: I, too, would support the Amendment but for the fact that it introduces the chairman of the court. It is no part of the job of the chairman of the court to read out these statements. It is the job of the clerk. If the Amendment were confined to having the statements read by the clerk, I should support it. I think that is the proper way this should be done.
The chairmen of magistrates' courts take far too great a part in the proceedings now and I do not want to encourage them to get worse. After the magistrates have retired and returned, the chairman's job is only to say "Guilty" or "Not guilty." If the verdict is guilty, he turns to the senior police officer present and asks, "Anything known?" In the event of an affirmative answer being given to that in some detail, he has then to consider with his colleagues the sentence to be pronounced.
To give the chairman this additional chance of displaying his elocutionary powers is wrong. He would have the advantage of reading out two comparatively long statements and then announcing at some later stage the decision of the court on sentence. That seems to me to be quite wrong. The clerk is the officer of the court who should be able to read the statement in an impartial way. While the clerk is reading it, the magistrates can listen without wondering how many more h's the chairman of the court will either omit or unnecessarily include in the statement.
978
I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment in the form of imposing this duty—not of leaving it—on the clerk of the court. I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott), that in initiating a new procedure which is regarded, in one quarter at least, with some suspicion, there should be no doubt as to how this work is to be done in the court. I hope that this will not be made an occasion for giving the chairman of the court a legal right to spread himself, but will impose on the clerk the duty of seeing that the statements are read out in a clear voice, with impartial emphasis, so that the court may get such little advantage as there is for it from the new procedure.
Mr. Simon: If I may say so with respect, this Amendment has been moved with great lucidity by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), supported by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), and some part of it has had the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Of course, if any proposal relating to this Bill, or any part of that proposal, engages the support of the right hon. Gentleman, I think that any proponent of it can congratulate himself.
I must say that, accepting entirely the premises from which my hon. Friends proceeded, the Amendment which they propose really controverts what they have in mind. We are not here concerned only with what the defence has to say, but also with what the prosecution has to say. We are concerned with two sorts of documents; first, the statement of facts, which is the prosecution's case, and secondly, the statement in mitigation, if I may so term it, which is what the defence has to say.
The Sharpe Committee said that at the hearing the statement of facts should be read out by or on behalf of the prosecution, although not necessarily by the informant. It is envisaged that a single representative of the prosecution will read out the statements in a succession of cases. There is no need to make an express provision to that effect because, in the normal course, the prosecution will be expected to read out what there is in the statement of facts.
The Amendment requires the statement of facts to be read out by a justice or by

979
the clerk. To my mind, and I hope that the House will agree with me, it is quite wrong to require a justice or the clerk to associate himself in any way with the statement on behalf of the prosecution, which would be the effect if we were to require any justice or the clerk to read out the statement of facts. For that reason, it seems to me that this Amendment really strikes at the very root of what I know my hon. Friends have in mind, which is, that the court shall not appear to be identified with the case for the prosecution. So much for the statement of facts.
There is also the accused's submission in mitigation. I entirely agree that that ought not to be read out by a police officer, but under the present form of the Bill there is no reason why it should be. There is every likelihood to believe that it will not be so read. The natural course will be for the clerk to read out the submission, because it will be he who will have it. It will be sent to him. I entirely agree, with great respect, with what the right hon. Member for South Shields said; that it is the clerk, not the chairman of the justices, who should be charged with that task. The prosecution will not have it in its possession. It will not know its contents until it hears it read out. Therefore, in my submission, there is no need at all to deal with the point in the Bill. In any event, as I argued in Committee, I submit that it is inappropriate to deal with a procedural provision of that sort in a Statute.
I am anxious to meet my hon. Friends and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport in this matter. As I say, this is a procedural provision, and I know what the House now has in mind, which is that so far as the statement in mitigation is concerned it should be read out by the clerk to the justices. I am prepared, if the House would think it appropriate, to consult the Rule Committee on the question whether it is necessary to make a rule to that effect, and if my hon. Friends are satisfied with that, I would ask that the Amendment be withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Ede: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with this point? What guarantee has the defendant, who will not be present, that if the prosecution reads the document it will be the actual
980
document that he saw? Might there not be a suspicion that on certain occasions something might be inserted or left out which would have altered the defendant's view had he known the actual document which was going to be read to the court? One is relying on the infallibility and integrity of the prosecution in the line that the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken.
Mr. Simon: I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. One is not entirely relying on that fact because under Clause 1 (2, iii), which is a proviso,
" if the court proceeds under this subsection to hear and dispose of the case in the absence of the accused, the court shall not permit any statement to be made by or on behalf of the prosecutor with respect to any facts relating to the offence charged other than the statement of facts aforesaid except on a resumption of the trial after an adjournment."
There is a statutory safeguard against any matter being interpolated.
Mr. Gower: I would respectfully suggest that my hon. and learned Friend's remarks about the prosecutor reading the statement seemed to be at variance with one of the main objects of the Bill. One of the main objects of the Bill is not only to prevent defendants wasting their time in court but to prevent the prosecutor and police officers having to go to court at all. In that sense I think the remarks of the Joint Under-Secretary of State were at variance with one of the basic purposes of this Bill.
In any case, my hon. Friends and 1 are certainly not attached to any particular wording. and we accept what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said. We desire that the clerk should in all cases read the documents to the court. I certainly hope that at a later stage, possibly in another place, consideration will be given to the possibility of inserting in the Bill some provision to ensure that the document in mitigation shall in all cases be read out clearly by the clerk to the court.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir F. Soskice: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after "detention", to insert:
" or impose a fine in excess of fifty pounds"

981
The object of moving this Amendment is to ask the Government to consider once again the circumstances in which it should be obligatory upon the court to adjourn the proceedings. When the matter was before the Standing Committee, the proposal which we on this side made was that the court should not convict in a case in which it felt disposed to impose a fine in excess of £25. Our purpose was to prevent convictions in the absence of the defendant when there was a possibility of a substantial fine being inflicted, and we fixed upon the figure of £25 in order to give, in effect, a statutory definition of what we had in mind as a substantial fine.
The Minister has rejected that. I ask him to consider whether it would not be desirable, at any rate, to limit the possible fine to be imposed in the absence of a defendant to some larger sum. The Amendment speaks of £50. I do not know whether it is possible at this stage for the Minister to change the figure to £50—probably not—but I do ask him to accept the figure of £50 as indicating in statutory form that cases in which there is a possibility of substantial fines are not cases in which there should be convictions without the accused being present.
If my recollection is right, the hon. and learned Gentleman, in Standing Committee, said that this was a case which could be dealt with by some kind of Home Office directive. I should have thought that it was very undesirable that the Home Office—if this be what he has in mind—should circulate courts to the effect that they ought not to convict when they intend to impose a substantial fine. I should have thought that that is just the sort of thing which the Executive should not take upon itself to indicate to courts in the form of a directive circular. If there were to be some such limitation on the discretion of the courts, it should appear clearly in the terms of the Statute and not be embodied in the terms of a circular which is not made public.
I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider this alternative change which we propose in an endeavour to secure that cases, broadly speaking, in which the penalty is a really serious one are not cases in which this procedure is to be invoked, a conviction
982
recorded, and a penalty imposed in the absence of the defendant.
Mr. Simon: In another place, an Amendment relating to fines was moved, and in that case the limit was £5. When we considered the matter in Standing Committee, the limit was raised to £25. Today, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has doubled it and suggested £50. The fact that it has been raised in successive Amendments illustrates the difficulty in fixing any limit to the fine which a court may impose without adjourning. If a small fine such as £5 is fixed as the limit, the difficulty is that the purpose of the Bill may be defeated: there will be either a large number of adjournments or the courts will impose inadequate fines in order to avoid adjournments. On the other hand, if a large amount is fixed as the limit, the impression is given that Parliament does not think it necessary for a court to adjourn before imposing a fine of a lesser amount.
The difficulty about fixing a figure in the Bill is that the weight of the fine does not depend upon its intrinsic amount but upon its relation to the defendant's means. For example, if the court were dealing with a lorry driver, it might think it desirable to adjourn before imposing a fine considerably smaller than £50. When we were in Committee, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I think, suggested that, in relation to a working man, the limit of £25 then under discussion was far too high.
In fact, the limit of £50 is quite unreal. For example, in motoring offences the only motoring offence within the scope of the new procedure for which it is possible to impose a fine in excess of £50 is a second offence of careless driving. It would be highly inappropriate to use the procedure under this Bill for a second charge of the offence of careless driving. Quite clearly, in such a case the court ought to consider disqualification and adjourn on that ground.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we should indicate in statutory form the intention that cases where a substantial fine is considered by the court should be adjourned. For the reasons I have given, I suggest that to fix a limit in the Statute is quite inappropriate and would defeat the object which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind.

983
I gave an undertaking in Standing Committee that we would bring this matter to the attention of justices by a circular. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it will not be done in any way in which it might be thought that the Executive was trying to influence the courts in their procedural or sentencing policy. What we propose to do is to draw the attention of benches of justices throughout the kingdom to the passage in paragraph 45 of the Sharpe Report, in which that Committee said:
" We think that the courts will also adjourn, and summon the defendant, where they have it in mind to impose a large fine, or where they regard it as desirable to have information about his means."
If we do that, it will ensure that without any constitutional impropriety the courts will be seized of the considerations which the right hon. and learned Gentleman urged.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 3, line 43, at end insert:
(5) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section shall not apply in relation to such offences in addition to those specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section as may be specified in the order, and any order under this subsection—

(a)may vary or revoke any previous order thereunder; and

(b)shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Mr. Simon.]

9.42 p.m.
Mr. Simon: I beg to move, That the Bill he now read the Third time.
We discussed the Bill in detail on Second Reading. It is a Bill in which the details are important, because we are embarking on a new procedure in our criminal courts, and it has the momentous change that we are not requiring the presence of witnesses for the prosecution in all cases. In view of our detailed discussion on Second Reading and the way that the Bill was discussed in Standing Committee, the House will not expect or require a lengthy speech from me on Third Reading.
The Bill has had very general support and now emerges as the result of the collective wisdom of the House, if that phrase is not inappropriate to any Measure from which the right hon. Mem-
984
ber for South Shields (Mr. Ede) dissociates himself; indeed, his attitude has not been so much of disapproval of the provisions of the Bill as disapproval of the motor car civilisation which gives rise to the necessity of the Bill.
I have been expecting the right hon. Gentleman all along to embark upon the words of Horace in one of his odes, which I think goes like this: the age of our fathers, worse than that of our grandfathers, bore us still more wicked who are soon about to bring forth a yet more vicious progeny. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has day-dreamed his way through the proceedings on the Bill, driving coach in hand and hoping that we may escape from some of the consequences which the internal combustion engine has brought upon us. Otherwise, apart from the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill has had very general support throughout the House as a useful improvement in our procedure.
Three quite important changes have been made to the Bill during its passage through Committee and on Report. First of all, the Government accepted the view that was generally expressed on Second Reading, that the procedure whereby the notices were read silently by the court before it announced its decision was cumbersome and inappropriate for a number of reasons.
We have also made an Amendment, now the new Clause 4, restricting the power to arrest to cases where there is a real necessity to bring the defendant before the court; and we have just made an Amendment on Report to bring in a sort of long-stop whereby, by statutory order, we can take outside the new procedure any offence for which experience may show it to be unsuitable.
I should like once again to express my indebtedness to the Departmental Committee on whose Report the Bill is founded, and to hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House whose suggestions have lead to the improvement of the Measure as it has made its way through the House.
9.46 p.m.
Sir F. Soskice: At this stage in the history of the Bill there is very little I should like to add except to thank the Minister for having given the fullest consideration to matters urged from both

985
sides of the House. I always feel that I am completely wrong when I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) but, in spite of that, I remain unrepentant in thinking that this is a useful and sensible Measure. I am not sure that my right hon. Friend's opposition is solely grounded on the dislike to which the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department referred, because I remember having spent a pleasant afternoon in close proximity to a throbbing internal combustion engine owned by my right hon. Friend Therefore, I do not think that his dislike can be so violent as the Joint Under-Secretary suggests.
I am grateful to the Minister for the changes which he has made. Whilst we realised, when we first saw the Bill, that it was useful and, pace my right hon. Friend, an essential Measure, nevertheless there were some features in it that caused us anxiety. In particular, I am glad to see the change made today to make it possible for the Secretary of State to exclude various categories of offence. As I understand the Minister, his purpose is in effect to see how the Measure works before he makes use of that power. I hope that he will watch very closely the actual functioning of the Measure in the courts and that, should it appear that the courts are not dealing with cases in the broad spirit of the Measure, he will be ready and vigilant to exclude those offences by Statutory Instrument, which he can make, subject to the approval of the House.
The change made requiring that the two documents to which the Minister referred should be read out before the court is a useful and salutary check. The alteration in the powers of arrest is also useful and necessary. I am a little disappointed by the Minister's attitude towards my proposal about severe fines. The argument was that it was no use if we made the limit too small and it was no good if we made it too big. All I had hoped was that the Minister would make the limit where it ought to be— in the middle. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member has not been able to do that, but he has given his reasons, and I am sure that he is anxious to see
986
that the Measure works as it is the Minister's intention that it should do.
We shall watch the working of the Measure in the coming years and I hope that the Minister will use his powers to change any provision in it that is found to be unsatisfactory. I thank the Minister and the Departmental Committee on whose work the Bill is based, and I wish the Bill every success in taking its place among our criminal statutes.
9.50 p.m.
Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Gentleman has completely misrepresented the motives of my opposition to the Bill. I think that modern youth is a great deal better than the youth of my own time and a great deal better than the youth of my grandfather's period. But certainly the laws ought to be eternal, and the processes of justice, hallowed by time, ought not to be departed from without very serious reasons being given.
The only real reason given for the Bill is the convenience of the police. In my opinion that is not adequate. I am thankful, now that the Bill is shortly to become law, that in four months' time I shall retire from the bench under the age limit. I have always liked to see and to hear the actual witnesses. No written document can convey to the bench the same impression of the facts stated as does careful observation of the witnesses giving evidence.
Neither do I like the incitement in the Bill to people to plead guilty when it may very well be that their defence, if stated to the court, or their statement made to the court, might reveal a defence which they had not themselves suspected. I do not think that this departure from tried practice ought to have been undertaken with the lightness of heart in which this Bill has been undertaken. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has appeared as a supporter of the Bill, subject to many reservations. I am in the position that my reservations go so far that I feel that I cannot support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
  considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL

    Clause 1—(CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE.)
    3.43 p.m.
    Mr. H. A. Marquand: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, at the beginning to insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section."?
    The Chairman:It would be convenient if the Committee considered the first two Amendments together. The second is in page 2, line 15, at the end to insert:
    (4) Regulations may provide that in discharge of any liability of a person under subsection (2) of this section there shall be credited to that person, in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, the amount of any payments made by that person during the fifty-two contribution weeks immediately preceding the occurrence of the liability, being payments made in respect of charges under section one of the National Health Service Act, 1951. or under sections one or two of the National Health Service Act, 1952.
    Mr. Marquand: I agree, Sir Charles. The first Amendment is only a paving Amendment for the second.
    The Clause embodies the main principle of the Bill, namely, the establishment of a separate contribution for the National Health Service over and above the contribution which everybody makes, whoever he may be, however young or however old, in the form of taxation. Everybody in the country pays taxation of one form or another. Over and above that, we are asked to approve a special contribution from those who are insured under the National Insurance Act.
    One is in difficulty in moving these Amendments, because they appear to accept the principle of the Bill to which we are opposed. I must explain, for although hon. Members will be aware of it those outside may not, that it is simply because of our procedure that I have to move the Amendments in this way at this stage. When we come to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," we shall be able to
    866
    make clear what are our objections to the Clause.
    For the moment, we have to assume that the Committee has accepted the Clause, although we hope it will not. On the assumption that the Clause be accepted, which, we hope, will not eventuate, we move, in effect, that the contributions which any insured person is expected to make to the National Health Service shall be offset by any charges which he may have been required to make for services rendered by the Health Service to him.
    If the Clause were accepted, it would provide that in future there should be three forms of payment for the Health Service: payment from taxes, which all citizens pay; payment by contributions from the insured; and payment for particular services under the general service in the form of charges on the Health Service. Our Amendment suggests that if there is to be a contribution and if we are to have this new form of tax to pay part of the cost of the Health Service, at least it should replace the third form of payment to which I have alluded, the charges which are levied on the particular parts of the Service.
    We dislike the contribution, but we dislike the charges even more. If we were forced to have the contribution we should at least find our opposition modified a little if, in the process, we could get rid of the charges. We suggest that persons who have had to pay charges ought not to pay contributions.
    In commending the Bill to the House on Second Reading, the Minister of Health, as reported at col. 992, of HANSARD, said:
    " 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569 c. 992.]
    I agree with the principle which he enunciated that it is reasonable that people should pay when they are fit and well and: should not pay when they are sick, and the Amendment gives the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to incorporate in the Bill that principle which he himself enunciated. I believe that it is a

    867
    good principle. Indeed, I believe that it is the principle upon which the Health Service was mainly founded when the Acts establishing it were introduced in 1946.
    The idea is that we should pay while we are fit and well and earning wages or other incomes, and then, when we need the Service, should receive it at that time, when we are unable to earn our incomes, without being asked at that point to pay. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that principle. If he does, this is an apportunity to incorporate it in the Bill.
    The charges under the National Health Service Act, 1952, are charges for dentures, spectacles, surgical appliances of various kinds, dental treatment and prescriptions. Let me remind the Committee that all these charges are in force today by virtue of the Act of 1952, an Act introduced by a Conservative Government and passed through the House with the help of their majority in the last Parliament.
    It is true, of course, that the original charges for dentures and spectacles were introduced by an Act of 1951 to which we have, for technical reasons, had to make reference in our Amendment. Though we have had to make that reference, it is, of course, indubitable that the charges levied by the 1951 Act are in operation today solely by virtue of the 1952 Act. By the 1951 legislation, the charges for dentures and spectacles would have come to an end in April, 1954. They have continued since, and are at present in permanent form, by the Act of 1952. Therefore, we no longer have any responsibility for those charges being enforced. Though they remain enshrined in the Statute Book for 1951, they would not any longer be enforced had not the 1952 Measure been passed.
    This, therefore, is the only Amendment which we could devise to provide that people who are now required to pay these charges while they are sick and ill should be relieved, to the extent of the charge that they have paid, of the liability to pay the new Health Service contribution. It is not, I agree, a perfect Amendment, because the Health Service contribution is levied upon those who pay insurance contributions, whereas the charges themselves, as we all know, bear
    868
    most heavily not upon people who pay those contributions, but upon the children, the mothers and the old people who are not required to pay contributions under National Insurance.
    I recognise that the charges do bear most heavily upon those people, and the right hon. Gentleman might say in criticism of the Amendments that we are now considering that they would not relieve the most deserving cases. I admit that that is true, but, as I have already said, I am under the difficulty of having to propose Amendments to a Clause to which, in principle, I object in any case. What I hope we shall have, as a result of the Amendment, is serious consideration by the Minister himself of the principle which he enunciated on Second Reading, and which I have already quoted; the principle that he introduced this Bill partly to ensure that, as he put it,
    "… there should be a contribution from everybody during the period in which they are fit and well …"
    and not when they are sick and ill.
    That is the purpose of the Amendment. Its clumsiness or lack of complete satisfaction is due simply to procedural difficulties. Though the Minister may well say that he cannot accept the Amendment as it is, I hope he will say that he now recognises that he is proposing to have a general contribution in addition to tax contributions from insured persons and that he ought to get rid of the charges; that it is quite illogical and absurd to introduce a Bill for a contribution on the ground that we should pay when fit and well, and then continue to exact charges from persons who are not fit and well—persons who require medicines, or spectacles, or appliances, or whatever it may be.
    If he would go so far to meet us, he would do a good deal to remove our objections to the Bill. If he were to say, "I cannot do it under this Bill, but I will introduce another Measure and will get rid of the charges," then, indeed, much of the objection that we have, not in principle but as practical citizens, would be removed.
    If, on the other hand, he can say nothing of the kind, but says, "I shall continue with this totally illogical situation—which I have myself described as illogical; I shall continue to have special

    869
    contributions and taxes paid while people are fit and well, but shall, in spite of that, continue to impose on the old people, the children, and the mothers of large families this heavy burden of having to pay for medicines, drugs, and sometimes for appliances which they need when sick," we must then press our Amendment and indicate our dissatisfaction with the Government's attitude to the whole business.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel, when he deals with this Amendment, that he can come some way to meet us. Let him, at least, say that he will get rid of some of the charges. If he were to say, "In this particular year I cannot go so far as that, but I will get rid of the most objectionable of them," he would be going some distance towards it. The most objectionable charge of all, of course, is the charge last imposed by the former Minister of Health—the charge of 1s. per item on the prescription instead of 1s. for the single prescription.
    As we have said many times, that is an abominable charge. It is the worst and most loathsome of all these charges, and could not be justified by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor except by saying that it was the only way he could raise £5 million or whatever the amount was. It was a comparatively small sum of money—I do not recollect exactly what it was, but the Minister must know. It was a miserable amount of money, saved in the most objectionable possible way.
    I hope that the Minister will at least leave us that, and say, "I cannot get rid of all the charges at the moment, although I agree that there should be no charges and have said during the Second Reading debate that people should pay when fit and well, but not when sick". If he would say, "I should like to get rid of all the charges", that would make people think that the Government believed in some of the pledges which they put out at the last General Election.
    If he could say that, and then add. "Though I am not able to go so far as that, since I am imposing this new levy I will at least offset it by abolishing this prescription charge altogether," that would give hope and comfort to the thousands, nay, millions who voted for the Conservative Party at the last General Election because of its promise to provide a better Service for the same money.
    870
    That was the promise contained in the Conservative Election manifesto.
    Therefore, however clumsy this Amendment may be—and I realise that it has imperfections—it does provide the right hon. Gentleman with a golden opportunity, as Minister of Health, succeeding the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), really to make a mark today, if he wishes, in the way in which he deals with it. I hope that he will seize that opportunity with both hands and make the best of it.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: I think that both sides of the Committee will recognise that the main objective that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and his colleagues have in mind might be deemed a very good one, but it is not by any means clear whether this Amendment would achieve that objective. Indeed, as he himself admitted, it is doubtful whether it would bring relief to those who are most in need of help. It may be that to help people who are in particular need other remedies might be more appropriate.
    The right hon. Gentleman specified certain categories of persons, such as the older people, and widows and mothers, and it might reasonably be argued that the more appropriate way of helping such people would be to confer upon them the necessary increases in other National Insurance benefits which they receive from time to time.
    4.0 p.m.
    I am open to correction from my right hon. Friend, but I imagine that there may be another objection to this form of words. The Amendment seems to identify the contribution and the charge together, and, although I may be wrong, I imagine that the contribution is something which is devoted to the whole Health Service, while the charge is specifically attached to a particular aspect of the Service.
    We all recognise that the contribution is used in toto to sustain, among other things, such matters as the hospital services, while the charge is appropriated to a particular aspect of the Health Service. It may be objectionable—although, as I have said, I am open to correction—that an attempt is made to identify a part of the Service with something which is more appropriately related to the whole of the Service.

    871
    If I may say so respectfully, I thought that the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East made some remarkable party political points. He said that he dislikes the contributions, and he then said that he dislikes the charges even more. It seems peculiar that he should say that, in view of the fact that he was a member of the Government which introduced the principle of the contribution. Indeed, he was the Minister to introduce the Measure which first established the principle of the charges.
    The right hon. Gentleman also said that he agreed with the principle that we should pay the doctor while we were well but not when we were ill. He and his hon. Friends have constantly advocated that more and more of this burden should be attached to taxation, which, of course, includes indirect taxation. It might be argued that when a person is ill his indirect taxation continues, whereas the actual contributions may he held in abeyance. In other words, the remedies which hon. Members opposite seek are more difficult to relate to illness than are the remedies which are in the Bill as it stands.
    The right hon. Gentleman attributed the charges to the Act of 1952 passed by a Conservative Government, but I submit that that is a specious form of argument in view of the fact that the principle was definitely laid down by a portion of the party opposite in which the right hon. Gentleman was a leading light. Indeed, he introduced the Measure, rightly or wrongly, which established that principle. I agree that the motive for helping those in need is very good, but I doubt whether the instrument chosen in this Amendment is appropriate.
    Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I am very glad indeed to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) in his contentions. While in detail there may he some alterations that hon. Members may wish to make, the principle of the matter is clear enough.
    I was not quite clear from the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) whether he objected to the general principle of the Amendment or whether he thought that the wording needed tidying up. If he feels that the wording needs to be altered, we will welcome his help, his
    872
    further suggestions and possibly support later in our discussions. If, on the matter of general principle, the hon. Member feels that charges should he imposed both while people are ill and when they are not. that we should have in a sense a duplication of the charges for which the National Health Service Bill provides, then we oppose his point of view.
    I wish to emphasise. in particular, the very strong objections which are being expressed in my constituency, as in many others, about the effect of some of the charges. Like my right hon. Friend, I agree that we might very well have adopted a more friendly attitude to this Bill had it linked with its Proposals the abolition of the charges. at any rate, in some part. The feelings that are being expressed in my constituencv—and I do not pretend that they are peculiar to my constituency—relate to the effect of the prescription charges and particularly the addition which has recently been made to them.
    I am glad to see the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) in his place. I have had a great number of representations from pharmacists in my division concerning many cases which they feel indicate extreme hardship due to the operation of these 1s. charges. Only the other day a further case was brought to my attention by a local pharmacist. He said that a lady in my division had brought to him a prescription that was clearly a few days old, although the prescription was very urgent. The lady said that she had not been able to bring it earlier because she could not afford the charge.
    It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to scoff at the fact that these difficulties still arise, although admittedly people with average wages are able to meet certain payments. But the fact is—and it is demonstrated every week of the year—that these things are happening, and that there are many people who cannot immediately meet these charges. It is not just a question of 1s. sometimes the charges amount to quite a few shillings, and many people feel that they have to delay going to the chemists for some days. The effect from a medical point of view can be serious.
    The pharmacist in the case to which I have just referred told the lady that she

    873
    should have gone to him in any case and that he would have dealt with the prescription whether she had the necessary money or not. I am sure that there are many pharmacists who hold that point of view. Nevertheless, these difficulties arise. There are other cases. Pharmacists have been reporting to me cases of people who omit items from their prescriptions in order to reduce the charge that they have to pay.
    These are ridiculous matters for any responsible service. It is a disgrace that the Service should be reduced to this position. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have seized the opportunity of trying to put an end to this miserable charge as some kind of alleviation of the Health Service contributions that are now proposed. But not a bit of it. He is apparently welcoming both the charge and the contribution with open arms.
    I should have thought that the Minister would have considered some of the points referred to by the Guillebaud Committee. We have the Committee's very clear views, in this case unanimous views, about dental treatment, for example. The Committee recommended a new approach to the question of charges for dental treatment. I am not saying that I regard that as sufficient or satisfactory, but at least it would be something. The Committee suggested that once people had a clean bill of dental health, from that date onwards they should not be expected to meet any further dental charges. It was the Committee's view that the charges for dental treatment constitute a very real hardship to the community and interfere with the value of the Service.
    In fact, the Guillebaud Committee used these words:
    " It seems to us that the charge for dental treatment is impeding a number of people from making use of the general dental service…"
    So far as the existing charges are concerned, the Report goes on to say:
    "…we would regard the reduction of the incidence of this charge as having the highest priority when additional resources become available."
    I agree that the Committee inserted that saving phrase.
    Presumably right hon. Gentlemen opposite will always say that the additional resources are not available. They
    874
    always say that, but I thought that the Bill was making resources available and that that was part of its purpose. If the Bill is making any financial resources available, why should they not be used for this first priority which the Guillebaud Committee suggests? Surely that is a quite reasonable proposition. I do not see, therefore, why it should be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider the basis of the case which we are putting forward.
    The same point arises not only on dental treatment, but on charges for spectacles. The Guillebaud Committee, not merely a minority in this case, but the whole of the Committee, said:
    " It seems to us that the level of the charge for spectacles is such as to constitute a barrier to a proportion of the people who need to make use of the service; and we recommend that, when the resources become available, a fairly high priority (second only to an adjustment of the dental treatment charge) be given to a substantial reduction in the amount of the charge for spectacles."
    The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing to show that he regards that as being as important as the Guillebaud Committee regarded it.
    I should have thought that he would have been glad to sweep away some of the other disgraceful charges, for example, on appliances, which are effective today. This would have been an opportunity for him to have done just that. Let him not imagine that there is not very strong feeling in the country on this subject. Many people seem to give the impression that because the average level of earnings is, we are glad to know, relatively high, charges do not constitute a barrier to very many people in a community. But very many among the lower-paid workers and many others who, for one reason or another, may not be able or not want to claim National Assistance, find them a barrier.
    The other factor which we have had so prominently brought to our attention, even if we did not know it before, has been demonstrated by an investigation into the care of old people in Salford, in which it was found that many people, even though they could have claimed National Assistance, do not do so. There are very many people who do not want to make claims and who are caused additional hardship by the health charges. Again, one would have thought that the

    875
    right hon. Gentleman would have regarded that as a useful lever in his arguments and discussions with the Treasury.
    One knows that the right hon. Gentleman is not an entirely free agent in matters of this sort and that the Treasury has very strong views on them. That being so, one would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have attempted to use some diplomacy and would have agreed to a proposal of this kind, for an additional flat rate contribution, only if he could get, on the other side, some remission of charges which are already becoming intolerable. One would have thought that as Minister of Health he would have taken an opportunity of this kind.
    It is very disappointing to hon. Members to find that he has either attempted to do so and failed, or has not attempted it. Many hon. Members feel that it would have been better if the whole wretched Bill had been handled by the Treasury rather than the Minister of Health. It is very disappointing to find the Minister of Health having to discuss questions of this kind rather than important health matters which we are all eager to discuss. I can only reinforce the case made by my right hon. Friend again urging that even if the wording of the Amendment does not prove satisfactory, the right hon. Gentleman will give serious thought to the general principles.
    I very much hope that the hon. Member for Putney will feel able to comment on, or to reinforce, some of the things I have said. Certainly, our experience of pharmacy and the other evidence which comes to us is in the same direction, that the position for many people in our constituencies is becoming very serious. After all, it is the pharmacists who are, as it were, almost in the front line and who receive evidence perhaps even before it comes to hon. Members. On those grounds, I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to show his willingness to consider our proposal.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Philip Bell: It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East
    876
    (Mr. Marquand) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) made it quite clear that this is not merely a Committee point, but involves a big difference of principle between the two sides of the Committee. I found it very disappointing that neither hon. Member should have said how much the proposal will cost. However much we may think that something is desirable, we must find out from where the money is to come. The Amendment involves more money being spent.
    Let us take an extreme example. Supposing that the proposal in the Amendment costs £100 million—I know that it does not—would the same arguments be used? Would hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they do not mind whether the proposal costs £100 million, that they must have it because of a grave injustice, and that the country is suffering under these charges? It would not have been said if the cost had been £100 million, so there is very little justification for the elaborate statements that everybody is groaning under these charges.
    Let us find where we can agree. We can agree that there are some people who are so poor or so ill that they must he assisted and not charged anything. However, there is already provision for that in National Assistance benefits and for repayment of the money paid under the recently imposed charges. At any rate, that will help the people who are poorest.
    Now comes the division. The Opposition say that irrespective of whether someone can afford it, irrespective of whether he is getting £20 a week, £200 a week, or £2 a week, he must have his aspirins paid for by all the taxpayers.
    Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I thought that hon. Members opposite wanted the classless society which they are always advocating.
    Mr. Bell: I do not know what the hon. Member means by "classless society". Perhaps we can discuss that on another occasion.
    I was saying that that is a point of view, that everything should be paid for irrespective of means. I can understand it, but I am bound to say that we have to consider where the money will come from. We must still look at the cash. There is no top limit to what can be spent on

    877
    medicine. We could have people X-rayed every week, if we had the money; we could have their doctors visit them every fortnight, if we had the money; we could have their teeth inspected every month. if we had the money. I have no doubt that everybody would be better off if that were done, but, in fact, we have to have a practical limit.
    We take a view different from that of the Opposition, not because of a slogan about a classless society, but because some of us think that first things should come first and that, on the whole, we are more likely to help the urgent needs of the Service. more likely to have more money for hospital beds and new hospitals for large numbers of people, if we do not spend too much on people who can, without any inconvenience, afford to spend it for themselves. That is why we have heard this half-hearted nonsense that some people object to the Amendment.
    It is a matter of whether it is better for the whole of the people to charge a few of the people for some things, so that money is not simply thrown away, or whether to make the payment irrespective of means. This is an honest and genuine disagreement. One person thinks one way and another person thinks differently, but it is a genuine matter of difference. I regret very much that it should be suggested that our attitude is dictated by anything except a difference in weighing up what is better for the Health Service.
    It was once pointed out by a distinguished right hon. Gentleman opposite, in a phrase which most of us remember, that torrents of medicine were being poured down people's throats. [HON. MEMBERS:" Cascades."] There is another argument—
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that rather more cascades are now going down, in spite of the charges?
    Mr. Bell: That is the interesting thing. It shows that the charges do not seem to be putting people in the grave distress of not being able to obtain the attention that they need. Although the amount of medicine now going down people's throats is greater, I doubt whether people's health is improved as a consequence.
    878
    The Clause, which raises the question whether charges should be made, involves the payment of money. We need to know what amount is involved by the Amendment and to weigh it against the hardship that is being caused. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East did not state the amount involved and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can tell us. The hon. Member told us something of the inconvenience which people suffer, but I did not find his argument really strong. I have not noticed any desperate condition which must be relieved.
    If, however, a proposal on the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East is accepted, I hope people will face up to the fact that there must be either increased payments or higher taxation to deal with it, and not merely to deal with it but to enable a lot of people who can now well afford a few shillings not to pay these few shillings. I should have thought that in the present state of our economy we are not behaving like realists if we accept what are well intended but, when looked at closely, only sentimental points.
    Mr. W. Griffiths: The Committee should be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Bolton. East (Mr. Philip Bell), who has reminded us once again of what one might call the classical philosophy of the Conservative Party in its approach to social security. There were many Tories —and they were in the House of Commons—who disapproved of the whole principle of the National Health Service, for they voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and at the end of the day, after many hours of anxious inquiry in Committee, when the Bill came back to the House they voted against the principle on Third Reading. From their point of view, why should they support such a policy of redistribution as envisaged in Measures like the National Health Service Act?
    Many Conservatives who speak just as the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East has spoken this afternoon have never been worried about having to pay for medicine or professional advice in their lives. They might have had to pay for lawyers, but payment for doctors, dentists, chemists, ophthalmologists and

    879
    opticians has never been a matter of concern to them. We are grateful, therefore, for a restatement in 1957 of the Conservative case.
    I support wholeheartedly the intentions underlying the Amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said, it has been extremely difficult within the procedure imposed upon him to frame an Amendment which would adequately meet the case he has put forward. However, I do not know whether he is any more optimistic than I am. I doubt very much whether we can hope for anything more from the present Minister of Health, the latest in a melancholy line since 1951. All of them have imposed a further cut upon the National Health Service during their occupancy of that office.
    Sir Frederick Messer: All except Crookshank.
    Mr. Griffiths: Crookshank did not last long enough.
    Of course, the great occupant of that office was the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Labour. He was promoted to stardom on the basis of revealing from the back benches a knowledge about the minute details of the National Health Service which nobody in either the party opposite or this party suspected. The party opposite was so astonished that the right hon. Gentleman at once had his meteoric rise to fame and was promoted to the Front Bench.
    Even that right hon. Gentleman, however, in an unguarded moment, added his testimony to the philosophical approach of the Conservative Party to the National Health Service. He did not say that the charges were necessary merely for an interim period, as my right hon. Friend was obliged to say in 1951 and as he rightly reminded us today. Those charges would have expired and been finished with but for the action taken by the present Government.
    The present Minister of Labour did not seek to justify the charges on the grounds of the economic difficulties facing the nation, to which the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East has referred. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of charges not only on financial grounds, but on social and
    880
    ethical grounds. If the Minister of Health really wants to know what are the social and ethical consequences of these charges which he seeks to perpetuate, let him go, for example, to the chain stores.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) referred to the recommendation by the Guillebaud Committee that as a second prority there should be a removal of the charges on spectacles. Very well. Let the Minister of Health go to the chain stores, to Woolworth's, and observe the people who are trying to choose far themselves a pair of spectacles. He will see that the vast majority of them are elderly people. He will find, if he troubles to make inquiries, that the sales of such spectacles have boomed considerably in the past six or seven years. He will find, also, in his Department an abundance of qualified advice that this may well be a contributory cause to the incidence of blindness.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Dennis Vosper)The Minister of Health (Mr. Dennis Vosper) indicated dissent.
    Mr. Griffiths: There is such opinion. I do not want to argue it in detail, but it is the opinion of many experts that that is a contributory cause, and I will say why.
    A person who has reduced visual standards seeks to remedy those reduced standards of his own volition and without skilled professional advice. It is quite possible that that person may be in the early stages of a serious pathological condition which would be detected if skilled advice were sought. The reason these people do not get the skilled advice is that they cannot meet the charges entailed in obtaining it. Let the right hon. Gentleman deny that if he can.
    There are very large numbers of people who are really burdened by the charges. It is no use for the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East saying that the worst-hit people can have recourse to the provisions of the National Assistance Act. This is quite extraordinary. The hon. and learned Member really does not know what is happening in Lancashire, part of which he and I represent in the House of Commons. The fact is that there are a large number of sick and aged people, and people who are temporarily off work, who do not have

    881
    recourse to National Assistance and who, if they applied to the National Assistance Board for such help, would be refused it. That is quite apart from the fact that the lower-paid wage earner is nothing like on the scale to which National Assistance applies. It is not true that this is a very small thing. Anyhow, on this side of the Committee, we reject this business of applying different standards in a National Health Service to different sections of the community.
    4.30 p.m.
    We support the principle of a free National Health Service because we believe that the £200 a week man, the wealthy man, should have appliances free like anybody else, but we reckon that in our system of taxation we shall see to it that he makes an appropriate contribution towards the whole. This is the social gulf between the two sides of the Committee. We, on this side, believe that the highest priority should be granted to the weakest in the community and that the strong should make the maximum contribution.
    As to the "cascades of medicine "and the level of expenditure that the Health Service has reached, we should remind ourselves that much of the control of the public money is vested in the hands of professional men and women who are employed in the Service. It should never be forgotten that the cost of drugs is related to the prescribing done by the general practitioner. If the general practitioner had had the courage and integrity —as I am sure many of them have, though some certainly have not—to bear that in mind in treating the sick we should not have had much of the expenditure that we have had in the past.
    We, on this side of the Committee, will continue to put forward, when opportunity and time permit, the kind of proposals that we have put forward today to restore the Health Service to the free service that its designers produced and had in mind to expand, and, as soon as possible, take it out of the hands of this melancholy series of Ministers of Health whose function, in the past few years, has been to mutilate what was a grand idea.
    Sir Hugh Linstead: The hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) used the phrase "a cut in the National Health Service" in relation not
    882
    only to my right hon. Friend, but to his Conservative predecessors as Minister of Health. I am fairly certain that the costs of the Service have steadily increased over recent years and that there has been no sign of a cut in the ordinary financial sense in the financing of the Service.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that there has been a cut in real terms and a very serious cut in the earlier years of this Administration's life in capital expenditure on hospitals, for example.
    Sir H. Linstead: If the hon. Member defines "cut" in such a way as to give it a specialised meaning, I have no doubt that he can make a case, but from the ordinary point of view of the use of the word "cut" one would assume that the statement made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange meant that expenditure on the Service had been cut. I am certain that in the past four or five years expenditure has steadily increased. If hon. Members define "cut" in a highly specialised way they can make it prove what they like, but "cut" in the ordinary sense surely means spending less money than previously.
    Mr. W. Griffiths: I will define very simply what I mean. There are, in 1957, a number of services which were available to all without charge and which now bear a charge as a result of action by Conservatives.
    Sir H. Linstead: In that case, the hon. Member will disagree with my further comment on his speech. As I see it, these charges do not constitute a cut in the Health Service. They constitute providing that Service with funds in a manner that will enable us to expand its services. The practical effect of the Amendment would be to reduce the amount of money which would be available for the expansion of the Health Service. By any ordinary interpretation of "cut", the cut will come if the Amendment is accepted. It will not come if the provisions of the Bill are left as they are.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) asked me about reports of individual cases of hardship. I have no doubt that here and there in the country there are still cases of hardship and of pharmacists who, out

    883
    of a general sense of charity, are providing medicine without collecting the shillings, but I personally have not had brought to my notice any cases of hardship in recent months. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper), both of whom are here, and they told me that in the last two or three months they have had no such cases of hardship brought to their notice. I do not say that they do not exist, but I am objectively reporting my personal experience in the light of what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East has said.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that pharmacists in many parts of the country have passed very strong resolutions urging the Government to reconsider this very point.
    Sir H. Linstead: I have no doubt that such resolutions were passed when the charges were originally introduced, but in the last three or four months cases of hardship have not been brought to my notice.
    Mr. Blenkinsoprose—
    Sir H. Linstead: No, I am sorry. I do not think that I should give way again. I think that we have disposed of that point.
    We are discussing, on the Amendment, our priorities in the Health Service. The case for the Amendment is based on the fact that the first priority in the Service is to remove the charges. I cannot see that this really is the first priority. Suppose the Amendment had the effect of handing back £5 million, £8 million or £10 million by way of refund of charges. I cannot feel that that would be the best way of spending £5 million or £8 million if the Minister had that money available.
    It seems to me still that in the Health Service, ahead of a refund of charges, I should put the mental health service as the first priority for' any money the Minister has available. I should put second the tuberculosis service, because of its impact upon the young and upon public health generally. I should put third the condition of some of our hospitals, particularly those for the chronic sick.
    884
    Until I had those three priorities out of the way, I do not think that I should come to refunding money to those who are in work, because it would be those in work who would get their money back. It would be only somewhat low down in the scale of priorities that I should put a refund of several millions of pounds to those people.
    This question of priorities dominates the discussion on the Amendment. I am quite clear that the priorities of mental health, of the treatment of tuberculosis, and of the provision of hospitals for the chronic sick should come before refunding charges to those who are in work.
    Mr. Douglas Houghton: I think of most matters in terms of taxation. This scheme of National Health contributions is a form of taxation. In fact it is a Budget tax which was announced before the Budget. The only additional tax in the Budget was the television duty. This scheme is just as much part of the budgetary framework as anything else that the Chancellor announced at that time.
    The Amendment seeks to provide a form of tax relief. The idea is that those who pay charges in one year shall receive either a refund or a set-off against National Health contributions in the following year. The Minister, among other criticism of the Amendment which he may make, will probably tell us that this would be an administrative nightmare. Of course, it would. We do not like this Amendment any more than the Minister does. We would have preferred to achieve its object in a different way; but since we cannot bring forward an Amendment under this Bill to abolish charges, we thought that to have a "back-hander" at the charges, if we could do so within the rules of order, was a perfectly logical standpoint.
    We take the view that the charges were introduced into the Health Service at a time when it was thought that the total expenditure on the Health Service was getting too big to be borne out of general taxation. It was the prevailing thought for some time that the two methods of financing the National Health Service were Exchequer grant out of general taxation and the health charges.

    885
    Now we have a third leg of support to the National Health Service—the National Health contribution. We think that if we are to have National Health Service contributions then the charges ought to go, but as we cannot propose their abolition as an Amendment to the Bill, we think that it is only right that those who pay contributions and also pay charges should be relieved of the payment of charges by a refund or setoff against the contributions for the following year.
    The charges which may be made under the Health Service may. I know, be used as a kind of contribution to the other parts of the Health Service in need of expansion. The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) said that if he were looking at the priorities of the Health Service, the abolition of the charges would not be the first one. if I were to say that we would make it the first priority, that is not to deny the need for expansion of the Health Service in other directions. especially in regard to the treatment of mental health.
    Charges run counter to the very principle on which the Health Service was introduced. That is our objection. It really does not matter whether they are large or small, over a wide area or a narrow one. We think that it is in conflict with the principles of the Health Service that a charge should be made for the services when they are required. We believe that payment for the Health Service should be made at all other times except that at which the services are required.
    There may be a difference of opinion as to whether the Health Service should be wholly financed out of taxation or partly financed out of taxation and partly out of a National Health contribution of this or some other type. We should certainly enter into debate on the relative merits of the methods of financing the National Health Service. Those of us who believe in the principle of the original National Health Service are certainly united in the view that we should not make charges for services when required, whether in sickness or in health. There is really no difference between the two. That is why we shall, in due season, be opposing the Motion "That the Clause stand Part of the Bill."
    886
    We ask the Minister to consider the conflict in principle between levying charges alongside contributions.
    I wish it to be clearly understood that in opposing charges and wanting a rebate of them through contributions we are fully conscious of the need for an expansion of the Health Service in a number of directions, but we do not think that that should be obtained, by means of prescription charges or charges for appliances, etc., provided for under the existing scale of charges under the Health Service.
    4.45 p.m.
    This is, therefore, perhaps a clumsy way of ventilating our point of view on the relationship between charges and contributions, but it is the only way in which the rules of order enable us to do it, and we hope that when the Minister replies he will have something to say about this important conflict, as we see it, in principle between the levying of charges, the imposition of contributions and the general levy of taxation overall. We ought to get the financing of the Health Service straighter than it is and not drift into a collection of levies and impositions and a kind of empirical hand-to-mouth approach to the National Health Service, which was founded on a noble conception and, as we thought at the time, on very firm financial principles.
    Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) underlined the objection that we have to the point raised by the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). The hon. Member for Putney used a rather peculiar phrase—and I listened very carefully to him, because I thought that he would be one of the first Conservatives to announce his complete conversion to the idea of a Health Service devoid of charges. I can say that he has managed, in his pronunciation of sentences in that passage, to avoid saying that.
    The hon. Member has only argued the point that as a first priority there are other things that come before the abolition of charges. He gave me the impression that as the conscience of the Conservative Party he secretly believes that the charges ought to go some day. I hope that that is the case. I would hope to see a gradual conversion in the ranks opposite that we would wish to see

    887
    the day when charges would go no matter what priorities are in the minds of hon. Members opposite at present. I do not think that would be a fair assumption to make at the moment, when one considers the speech made earlier by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell).
    The hon. Member seemed to be advancing in the true light of the former Minister of Health, but one who claimed that the charges were sound not only for financial reasons but also for social reasons. There is, therefore, now a split in the Conservative Party.
    Sir F. Messer: Only one.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: One among many others.
    I have no wish by any means to discourage the part of the split with which I agree, that is, the part which seeks to try to get the charges abolished. The hon. Member for Putney argued the case about the sequence of priorities. It may well be true that charges from all points of view may not occupy the first priority. I personally do not agree, but it may well be true. I put this to him. If one is to look at priorities within the Health Service and come to that rather awkward conclusion, would it not be fairer to lift one's eyes a little higher and see priorities in their national sense, throughout the whole compass of the Exchequer?
    How is it possible to argue that charges, while not being a first priority, are so well behind in the list and are beaten by the Surtax payers? If the hon. Member comes before us as the disciple of priorities—and I submit, that, as a right hon. Friend of mine has said, Socialism is the language of priorities—and maintains that the charges are not first priority, he has to look at all the priorities throughout the system. Does he honestly think that Surtax payers come before health charges? There are numerous other items that could be mentioned in the recent concessions which have been made and in the concessions which have been made over the last five years. They cannot be said to come before health charges.
    I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman, occupying the position which he does, can really have health charges so well down the list of priorities with
    888
    mental health, tuberculosis and the care of old people just slightly above the health charges, but still below the Surtax payers. The more one analyses the argument about priorities the worse it gets. All these fine and commendable things to which I have referred should stand before the concessions which have been made in favour of the better-off sections of the community.
    I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can honestly hold to such an opinion. I believe that, since he is a believer in priorities, he will look at the matter again. It may be that he will find himself supporting our Amendment. After all, being in the position in which he is, he will, I am sure, shortly receive from the many pharmacists throughout the country excellent testimony about what is going on as a consequence of the charges imposed last December.
    Reference was made earlier to the fact that many hon. Members find that people are asking their chemists to give them only one medicine of the four or five medicines prescribed. In the back of a chemist's shop I have seen E.C.10 forms bearing four items, but three of them have been scored out because the person concerned is unable to pay the extra 3s. Since this has happened in my constituency and I know many of the cases, even knowing them professionally, I can say that many of these people are doing without medicines which they ought to have. It vitiates medical practice badly when a patient decides which medicine out of the three or four medicines prescribed for him will be most valuable for him.
    The hon. Member for Putney must know that the ordinary person cannot judge reasonably and accurately which of the medicines prescribed are vital to his well-being. Indeed, one assumes that all the medicines prescribed are well meant and that all should be taken. Where even one or two are discounted, how is the person concerned to know which he must have and which he may leave? Also, should a chemist assist a patient in discounting medicines prescribed by a doctor? I wonder what the ethical position of pharmacists is in consequence of such a thing happening.
    This matter vitally concerns the hon. Member for Putney and his profession. The Amendment is redemptive in character. The hon. Gentleman can save his

    889
    pharmaceutical soul if he supports an Amendment of this kind. He can join the Minister in this matter, because he, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) said, has the opportunity to tell us that he will accept the Amendment, or some form of words embodying the substance of our claim.
    Surely the right hon. Gentleman will, in this redemptive mood, say that he realises the imposition placed on many people by the charges, and that, because the National Insurance contribution is to rise in this regard, he will be able to reduce charges in some other sphere. The spheres from which he can choose include surgical appliances, drugs, spectacles and dentures.
    The right hon. Gentleman has before him the Guillebaud Report, now the bible of the National Health Service. He now has a wonderful chance to be the first really sound Conservative Minister of Health. The rest have all been good in the financial sense. for they have suited the Conservatives and carried out their philosophy well, but they have been damaging to the National Health Service, which has been the prisoner of the Treasury since 1951.
    The Minister will probably tell us that he has argued this with the Treasury and has failed miserably. or he will put it in such a keenly diplomatic way that even though he does not say that to us direct we shall all know about it. The political commentators will say, "Here is a confidential agent for the Health Ministry working against the Treasury."
    Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend is taking too much for granted in respect of the Minister of Health. The right hon. Gentleman is not the only Minister responsible. There is also the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that the Minister of Health will say that he was in favour of accepting the Amendment, but the Secretary of State for Scotland just would not have it all.
    Dr. Dickson Mahon: Knowing the Scottish Ministers responsible for health matters, I am delighted to be able to deal with Scottish affairs through the Minister of Health. I much prefer to deal with the right hon. Gentleman. I find it more
    890
    awkward to deal with my own people. Whatever I say to the right hon. Gentleman about health services applies for the purposes of this argument not only to England and Wales, but to Scotland as well.
    If he has had negotiations and has failed, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say something which will allow the political commentators to say, "We have a Minister of Health with a backbone. Here is a man who is able to stand up to the Treasury. On this occasion he has been unsuccessful in securing a concession from the Treasury, but we have high hopes that if the Treasury puts any more pressure on the Ministry of Health the Minister will stand firm or resign.
    On the other hand, it may be that the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to do so because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East suggested, he has not argued the case with the Treasury. If that is true, the right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself and has no right to be Minister of Health. He would be completely blind to the reports of his officers if he did not know that there is a great deal of anguish over the prescription charges.
    There is the British Medical Association, with whom the right hon. Gentleman is on such friendly relations at present. What is its opinion about charges? Is it against the charges solely on administrative grounds because the doctors do not want to operate such charges? Not at all. The resolution passed by the B.M.A. stated that, in relation to the practice of medicine, the charges are unsound and unworthy of the country. The Medical Practitioners' Union is also on record against the charges. In fact, the two bodies representative of doctors are against the charges on strictly professional grounds. I cannot believe that there is not already in the Ministry sufficient evidence to show that the charges are wrong, and I am convinced that the Minister ought to make a concession.
    The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) said that the amount involved might run to about £100 million.
    Mr. Philip Bell: I did not say that. I asked whether, supposing it went to £100 million, the hon. Gentleman would use the same argument. All he said was

    891
    that it would not be £100 million. and he did not answer the point. Would he say that it would cost £100 million?
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. and learned Gentleman has rescued himself now by making the point hypothetical. but at the beginning I did not get the impression that it was hypothetical. He referred to £100 million, and his subsequent words suggested to me that he was as remote from the problem itself.
    5.0 p.m.
    The fact is that these charges cost about £5 million, which is the estimated charge for prescriptions plus a very small amount for surgical instruments and other services of different kinds. We are dealing with what are, in fact, infinitesimal amounts compared with the Votes for the Army and the Navy or, indeed, compared with the large tax reliefs given in the recent Budget.
    These are such fiddling amounts that the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to wonder whether they are worth while arguing about in relation to the social misery consequent upon them. If he feels that, socially and ethically, the charges ought to remain then, surely, he would admit that there are certain charges, such as prescription charges, which hit the community harder than others. Therefore, I hope that whatever pressure he can put on his Minister he will put in order to get a remission of a charge of this kind.
    I hope that the Minister will look at the Amendment reasonably and will be able to say that he can see his way towards meeting it, at least in some respects. If he cannot, he will simply be adding his name to the other two Ministers of Health who preceded him and who have done such a lot of damage to the whole concept of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Vosper: I am certainly not going to take the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) to task for referring to what he called the inadequacy of the Amendment because I realise the difficulties involved in framing an Amendment of this nature. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that, of course, its weakness lies in the fact that it would not help those who are
    892
    the most deserving because such people either do not pay contributions or get a refund of the charges from the National Assistance Board.
    Persuasive as the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends were, he will not be surprised when I tell him that I do not intend to accept the Amendment because it is contrary to the intention of the Bill, which is that contributions should be paid by all insured persons, irrespective of charges. I am not quite certain whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite realise that the Amendment apparently does not include prescription charges as being subject to refund. if they have prescription charges in mind, it would, I am advised, be necessary to refer to the 1949 Act as well as to those Measures referred to in the second Amendment.
    I gather that the purpose of the Amendment is to include prescription charges as well as charges for spectacles and dentures and dental treatment. Therefore, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) pointed out, it has to be considered in reference to the cost. The estimated yield for the current year, 1957–58, is, for spectacles, £6·3 million, for dentures and dental treatment, £9·5 million, hospital charges other than bed charges, £·5 million, prescription charges, £13·8 million, making a total for the current year of £30·1 million. If the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) considers that to be a fiddling amount, then he is a wealthier man than I thought he was. To me, as the Minister of Health responsible for the Service, it is a large amount.
    Mr. Ross: Is that for England and Wales or for England, Wales and Scotland?
    Mr. Vosper: The figures refer to Great Britain as, indeed, do all my arguments.
    It therefore follows that if I accepted the intention of the Amendment it would reduce the money available for the Health Service by the equivalent amount, or, alternatively, would increase the burden on the general taxpayer by the same amount.
    In my Second Reading speech, I pointed out to the House that the Financial Memorandum to the 1946 National

    893
    Health Service Bill anticipated that the contribution from Exchequer funds towards the Service would amount to 72·4 per cent. of the total. In 1949–50 that percentage rose to 76·3 per cent., and last year to 80·2 per cent. of the total.
    The point that I wish to make to the Committee is that the total income from contributions under the Bill in a full year, together with the total income received from charges, would make the Exchequer contribution 74·1 per cent., still well above the figure envisaged in the Financial Memorandum to the original National Health Service Bill and not much below that for the first full year of the working of the Bill.
    As a result of this Bill, contributions in a full year will bring in 11½ per cent., and charges, which are the subject of the Amendment, will bring in 51½ per cent. The point that I particularly want to make is that those two items together come to just over 17 per cent., which will still be less than the 20 per cent. anticipated in the Financial Memorandum to the original Bill. As I have already said the Exchequer contribution will be more than the anticipated figure.
    The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East quite correctly quoted my reference on Second Reading. I said that, generally speaking, I was in favour of the principle that those who were fit and well should pay for those who were sick. I agree. If the imposition of the charge meant that those who are sick would have to meet a large proportion of the cost of the Service, I would, of course, have to accept the Amendment. But the proportion falling on the Exchequer is still nearly three-quarters of the whole, those who are fit and well pay a further 11½ per cent and the proportion borne under the charging scheme by those who are sick is still only 5½ per cent. of the total cost. Therefore. I do not think that my Second Reading speech is invalidated because I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.
    If the right hon. Gentleman had gone a little further and suggested that instead of doubling the contribution, the Bill should treble it to cover the loss of £30 million from removing charges, I should. of course, have had to consider that request. But the Amendment does not do that, It merely asks me to remove the charges. The hon. Member for Sowerby
    894
    (Mr. Houghton) used the words "administrative nightmare." I had not thought of that, and I wondered why I had not, but the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, who has been Minister of Health, will realise that, even had I been in favour of the Amendment, it would be administratively almost impossible to do what it requires. The patients would have to keep a record of their charges and the contributors would have to incur either different rates of contributions or else the same rate of contributions for a differing period. In any case, to administer a scheme of this nature, or anything approximating to it, would be a matter of extreme complexity. Therefore, for this further reason, I feel unable to accept the Amendment.
    There is a further point, which is that the provision of finance was, I think, not the only reason for the introduction of charges under the scheme. Both my predecessors and right hon. and hon. Members opposite have made this point on previous occasions. The charges under the scheme, as well as being a means of raising revenue, are a means of canalising the available resources, which we accept are limited, to those sections of the Service which need expanding— the point so well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead)— and, furthermore, of preventing abuse such as over-prescribing or, perhaps, over-concentration on dentures at the expense of dental treatment.
    I do not believe that the policy in that respect has been unsuccessful, because for the year just ended the number of dental courses, as opposed to the provision of dentures, was 10 per cent. higher than the figure for the year prior to the introduction of dental charges. I think the Committee knows that children, the all-important class, are now getting 30 per cent. of the total dental courses as compared with only 7 per cent, before the introduction of the charges. As a result of charging, there has been a tremendous switch of resources to the priority and needy classes.
    Mr. W. Griffiths: Can the Minister tell us how charging the patient could prevent over-prescribing?
    Mr. Vosper: So far as dental treatment is concerned, the charging policy has

    895
    meant a switch of resources away from dentures to the more important work of conservative dental treatment.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: That has nothing to do with the question asked.
    Mr. Vosper: The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) is that the charging policy was designed in part to switch the resources to where they were most needed.
    It was the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange who raised the question of sight testing. I would agree that we should not at this stage anticipate what may or may not be in the forthcoming opticians' Bill. He made the point, and I accept it, that there may be cases when old people are deterred from going for sight tests because they can get cheap pairs of spectacles, but in the last year, 1956–57, the number of sight tests in this country—I am speaking of the United Kingdom— was an all-time record. There was a concentration on the most deserving categories.
    Prescriptions have been the subject of several speeches. I must disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Greenock that the prescription charge is causing grave hardship, because the advice that I have received— and I have taken great trouble to get this advice— is to the contrary. There have been cases of hardship, but, as I have told the Committee, I will always take up individual cases. That, as one hon. Member knows, is not always unsuccessful. Though there have been cases of hardship, I believe that they are exceptions, not the rule, and I have no evidence, unpopular though the prescription charge is, that it is at present causing hardship.
    The number of prescriptions on a per capita basis in December, 1956, the first month of the new charging policy, was exactly the same as the average number of prescriptions, on a per capita basis, in 1949. In 1949 hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were tending to suggest that there was over-prescribing. What was right in 1949 is surely right now. I do not accept that prescriptions were unduly limited in the first month of the new charging policy.
    For all these reasons—because money is needed to develop the Service, because
    896
    the proposal would be an administrative nightmare, because there is sense in having a charging policy to divert resources to where there is the greatest need—I am unable to accept the Amendment, and I ask the Committee to reject it.
    Mr. Marquand: The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was, I am afraid, very much as we expected. Of course, we are bound to agree with him that technically what we propose would be administratively, if not impracticable, at least very difficult. We are bound to admit, as I did in my previous speech, that it would not help the most deserving. Nevertheless we are very disappointed at the rejection of the main idea that we have put forward, that if we now introduce a special contribution to be paid by persons fit, well and working, we ought to take the opportunity at least to reduce some of the charges which have been found in practice to be unfair and most objectionable.
    We hoped that the right hon. Gentleman could have advanced a little way towards us. We have had an excellent debate, and my hon. Friends behind me have put some extraordinarily interesting arguments and examples of the way in which these charges are opposing the purposes of the National Health Service. In reply, the Minister treated us to what was very largely a Treasury argument. It was not a health argument. It was a Treasury argument, the argument of what percentage should come from taxes and what percentage should come from charges or contributions. It was purely and entirely a Treasury argument.
    5.15 p.m.
    Even on that ground we challenge it, but we feel that the arguments that we have put in favour of immediately beginning to reduce charges which are in existence are overwhelming. They have not met with an adequate response, and we must divide the Committee. We no longer accept the argument, though, I admit, it can be quoted from speeches that we have made in the past, that charges would divert the resources—or, as the Minister put it, would canalise the resources—of the National Health Service into the right channels. We do not believe that any more. We believe it possible to find other methods, like Lord Cohen's various committees, through, for

    897
    instance, the issue of advice to general practitioners about prescribing. There are far better ways of avoiding any abuses which may have occurred in prescribing than by levying charges on the old, sick and infirm. I could go on, but I shall not, because I think we have had a good debate on this subject, and that we have succeeded in establishing very clearly
    what the difference is between the two sides of the Committee. We feel that we must divide the Committee on the Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 162, Noes 207.

    Division No. 106.

    AYES

    [5.16 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Paton, John

    Albu, A. H.

    Hale, Leslie

    Pearson, A.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Pentland, N.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hannan, W.

    Popplewell, E.

    Balfour, A.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Hastings, S.

    Probert, A. R.

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

    Hayman, F, H.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Benson, G.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Rankin, John

    Beswick, Frank

    Herbison, Miss M,

    Redhead, E. C.

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

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Reeves, J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Holmes, Horace

    Reid, William

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Houghton, Douglas

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Ross, William

    Broekway, A. F.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Royle, C.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercllffe)

    Short, E. W.

    Burke, W. A.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Janner, B.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Carmichael, J.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Chapman, W. D.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Lewis, Arthur

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Cove, W. G.

    Moban, Dr. J. Dickson

    Tomney, F.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S,)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    McGee, H. G.

    Viant, S. P.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Weitzman, D.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Mainwarning, W. H.

    Welts, Percy (Faversham)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Mallaliou, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Welts, William (Walsall, N.)

    Deer, G.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    West, D. G.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Mason, Roy

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Mellish, R. J.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

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

    Messer, Sir F.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Dye, S.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Wigg, George

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J, C.

    Moody, A. S.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Moss, R.

    Willey, Frederick

    Fienburgh, W.

    Moyle, A.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

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

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

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

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

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

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Gibson, c. W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Oram, A. E.

    Woof, R. E.

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Orbach, M.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Owen, W. J.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Grey, C. F.

    Paget, R. T.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

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

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Barter, John

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Aitken, W. T.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Boyd-Carpenter, R. Hon. j. A.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Ashton, H.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, 8.)

    Braine, B. R.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

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

    Barber, Anthony

    Body, R. F.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Brooman.White, R. C.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Page, R. G.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florenoe

    Pitman, I. J.

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

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Pott, H. P.

    Carr, Robert

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Profumo, J. D.

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Chiohester-Clark, R.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Cole, Norman

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Redmayne, M.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Cooke, Robert C,

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Cooper, A, E.

    Keegan, D.

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, col. O. E.

    Kimball, M.

    Robson-Brown, W.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Cunningham, Knox

    Lagden, G. W.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Russell, R. S.

    Davies, Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

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

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Doughty, C. J. A.

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

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Spearman, sir Alexander

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

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

    Speir, R. M.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne.N.)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Fell, A.

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

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Finley, Graeme

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Stoddart-Scott, col. M.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Storey, S.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)

    Fort, R.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Freeth, Denzil

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Godber, J. B.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Cower, H. R.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Teeling, W.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Temple, John M.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

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

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Green, A.

    Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

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

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Grimston, sir Robert (Westbury)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Maddan, Martin

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Gurden, Harold

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Mathew, R.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Harrison, Col. t. H.(Eye)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M' lebone)

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

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

    Hay, John

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Nieholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

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

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hill, John S. (Norfolk)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Mr. Wills and Mr. Bryan.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Miss Margaret Herbison: We have attempted to amend Clause 1, but we have failed. None the less, we want to have a discussion on it, because it is the Clause which carries out the principle of the Bill. During the Second Reading debate, I made it clear that we on this side felt that it was a Bill which should not be handled by the Minister of Health, but that the proposal which it contains ought to have been in the provisions of the Budge
    900
    and be put in a Finance Bill. However, since the Minister of Health has accepted responsibility for the Bill, I wish to complain at the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland during the discussion of it.
    This Bill affects Scotland, just as it affects England and Wales. We have a Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for the health of Scotland. He has three Joint Under-Secretaries of State, one of whom, one assumes is in charge of health in Scotland. We cannot get one of that galaxy of Scottish

    901
    Ministers to sit on the Government Front Bench and listen to the arguments which have been put forward.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Perhaps they do not like the Bill.
    Miss Herbison: That may be, but if they do not like the Bill that is all the more reason why they should be sitting on the Front Bench, listening to the debate, in order to learn whether they can find arguments from this side which would help them in any fight which may be put up to annul the provisions of the Bill. I hope that the Minister of Health will carry that message to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Joint Under-Secretaries of State.
    We oppose Clause 1 because, for the first time in the history of the National Health Service, it provides for a completely separate contribution for the Health Service, the intention being to have a contribution for the Health Service and a contribution for other services. We oppose it also because not only is there to be this additional contribution from our people, but our people are at the same time, according to the Minister in his reply to the Amendment, contributing over £30 million in charges this year towards the financing of the National Health Service.
    In trying to make out his case for the extra contribution and for the continuance at the same time of the Health Service charges, the Minister quoted the White Paper on Social Insurance, published in 1944. Fortunately, I have that White Paper with me. I find that very little indeed is said about these contributions. I find, in page 37. beginning at paragraph 168, a section headed "The finance of the scheme." We have to reach paragraph 170 to find what is said about the finance of the scheme for the National Health Service, and there we are told:
    " Towards the cost of the National Health Service, insured men and women will contribute 10d. and 8d. a week respectively "
    and it goes on to say that:
    " Of this, the employer (where there is one) pays 1½d."
    That, except for a sentence giving the reason for the 1½d. payment by the employer, is all that I can find said about the financing of the Service. We are
    902
    given a table of what was expected to be the cost of the National Health Service, and I find that for 1945 it was considered that the figure would be £148 million. In the next column, the figure for 1955 is given as £170 million.
    Sir F. Messer: That is a Conservative White Paper.
    Miss Herbison: Exactly. For 1965, the figure is put at£170 million, and, going further ahead, for the year 1975 it is again put at £170 million. Yet, at the present time, the cost is running at over £600 million.
    That was the weakest part of the Minister's argument, when he tried to offer, as a basis for his argument in favour of an increase, the few words which were said in, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) has pointed out, a Conservative White Paper in 1944. It has been proved absolutely conclusively that what is put in that White Paper has really not come about at all.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Vosper: The hon. Lady must have misunderstood me. In my last speech I referred not to the White Paper of 1944 but to the Financial Memorandum of the 1946 Bill.
    Miss Herbison: I am sorry. Even if the right hon. Gentleman were referring to the Financial Memorandum, at that time, as I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, not even the officials—not even the Ministers—had any realisation of the great needs for a National Health Service, just as the people had no realisation.
    It is quite wrong at this stage to attempt to bring up to date what was thought in those very early days might be the proportion which came from National Insurance contributions. In the Second Reading debate, the Minister had something to say about that, as had the hon.. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). The latter tried to make out that there had been a definite statement in the Beveridge Report as to this 19 per cent which would be covered. I have taken very great care to examine the whole of that part of the Report which deals with the National Health Service. The hon

    903
    Member for Putney quoted paragraph 287. At the very beginning of that paragraph there are these words:
    " There is nothing sacred about the division suggested in this Report; it is no more than a basis for discussion and argument."
    It goes on:
    " On behalf of insured persons it can be argued that even if the contribution proposed is within the capacity of most adult men, it is not within that of persons with low wages, and that these should be relieved at the cost of the taxpayer or the employer."
    That was a very important statement. One of the reasons why we are opposing the provisions of Clause 1 and the First Schedule is the effect they will have on the low-wage earner.
    Sir H. Linstead: I think that the hon. Lady must agree that Lord Beveridge's general position was this: he found that the cost of the Health Service was to be about £170 million, applying the best information that he could at the time, and he finally concluded—whether rightly or wrongly, and in the light of all sorts of conflicting ideas—that £40 million of that should come out of contributions.
    Miss Herbison: No. That is the very point that I am trying to make. He did not finally conclude that 19 per cent. ought to come out of contributions.
    I want to go further. Again, in the same paragraph, it is stated:
    "…the rates of contribution proposed are even more provisional "ߞ
    That was not definitely telling us that what he suggested was what he thought ought to be paid—
    "…for they depend on views of financial policy and social equity as to which reasonable men may differ…"
    He continued:
    " All that is claimed is that the proposals made here are a fair basis for discussion. and that if the Security Budget is looked at as a whole, the division proposed between the three parties is not on the face of it unreasonable."
    Therefore, I think that Beveridge showed very clearly in that paragraph that there were so many considerations to be taken into account that he could not say clearly and definitely that 19 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service ought to be covered by contributions. I could make a great many other quotations from that Report, but I will not weary the Committee with them.
    904
    I advise hon. Members opposite to read the part of the Report which deals specifically with the National Health Service. Then they will realise, just as clearly as I have realised from reading it, that the Government cannot possibly base their reasons for this increase on what was said in that Report. Even if they were able to bring the Report to their support, I would say to the Government that Lord Beveridge and his Committee were not infallible; and we ought, each time we consider these matters, to consider them on their merit.
    When my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend were dealing with the question of the increased contribution and the effect that it would have, coupled with the charges, we had a number of speeches from Members on the back benches opposite. The hon. Member for Putney —and I am most surprised at his attitude on the subject of the prescription charge—pointed out that there may have been some complaints but that in the last few months he and those of his hon. Friends whom he had questioned had had no complaints made to them. The only answer I can give is that the constituents of those hon. Members have come to the conclusion that it is not much use complaining to them, since they are wholeheartedly in support of paying for prescriptions, and paying for each item.
    My hon. Friends on this side of the Committee—the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) and the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), who is himself a doctor and most interested in these matters —were able to produce evidence that this charge was a very grave hardship on some people and that indeed it was militating against any good work that the doctors might be doing for their patients. There is much evidence to show that there is hardship and that medical difficulties are being caused.
    When we add to these present hardships the hardship which will be caused by this increased contribution, it seems to me that the Government are doing something completely wrong in the light of the Budget which the Chancellor of the Exchequer produced a short time ago. The priorities about which we heard so much in the debate today are completely wrong. This is putting burdens on the low-wage earner at a time when the

    905
    Government are giving a great deal of money, through the Budget, to those who are already wealthy.
    I turn to the question of the National Assistance Board. The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) told us that where there was hardship, those suffering it could have recourse to the National Assistance Board. That showed clearly that he knew very little about the position of many of his own constituents. Only those whose incomes are so low that they must be on the National Assistance Board scales can have relief at present. There are people in my constituency some of whom will never be able to work again. They include men who have been so severely disabled in the collieries that they cannot work. They need many prescriptions, and they found it a great hardship when this Government put a shilling charge on each prescription. They are finding it an almost. intolerable burden now that the Government have put a shilling charge on each item of the prescription.
    One old man has no other source of income but his industrial injuries benefit, or what is now known as his disability pension, for himself, his wife and two children, and he has to pay 1s. for every item on his prescription. I wish that hon. Members opposite would try to get to know what are the grave hardships of other people before they take part in supporting a Measure such as this.
    I would say to the Minister that, as Minister of Health, he ought to have opposed this Bill very strongly, and should have made his opposition known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Cabinet, but he tells us that he did not oppose it. He tells us that he is in support of the Measure, because of the priorities, and because whatever money comes in as a result of the Bill will help in the development of the Service elsewhere. I say to him that as a result of the combined charges and this increased contribution, it may be that we shall need even more hospital places than we have at the present time, and that the whole purpose of the provisions in this Bill will be sabotaged because of the increase in illness in the country.
    I have my priorities, and we on this side of the Committee have our priorities,
    906
    not only in regard to the National Health Service, but in respect of our social services and in what should be done for our people. Rather than put this extra burden on our people, I would say, as I said on Second Reading, that if the Government had their priorities right, if they were interested in the well-being of our people, these provisions would not have come before us. They would have said that the National Health Service had far greater priority than have Surtax payers in this country at present.
    That is the difference between the priorities on this side of the Committee and the priorities of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. We oppose Clause 1 completely. I hope that my hon. Friends will give many more reasons for our opposition, and we shall certainly carry that opposition to a Division.
    Mr, W. Griffiths: I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), in which she so ably gave examples of the lack of knowledge on the benches opposite of the effect of these charges on lower-paid workers.
    I do not want to repeat the arguments, but I should like to remind the Committee—and it has been said more than once today—that when we were arguing that, along with this increased contribution, there should be a reduction in charges, it was suggested that the people who found those charges a burden could always nave recourse to the National Assistance Board. That is one of the points that was dealt with by my hon. Friend, and we have been seeking to demonstrate by example that anybody in any part of the Committee who advances that kind of argument just does not know the facts.
    Further examples of this kind could be given. Let us take the position of people who are in receipt of National Assistance, and consider the effect of charges in the Health Service upon a worker who is temporarily away from work for a week. Let us assume that during the week when he is away from work he breaks his spectacles. It may be that he is totally dependent upon them, and that he is in possession of only one pair. He cannot get from the National Health Service any assistance at all towards the cost of the repair of that appliance. He cannot go to the National Assistance Board—and

    907
    here is another anomaly—because, even if he were eligible for National Assistance, under the present Regulations the Board is compelled to tell him that it can give him nothing at all for repairs. Therefore, the unfortunate man must he without that appliance until such time as he returns to work and does sufficient work to earn enough money to pay for its repair.
    5.45 p.m.
    That may sound a small thing, but it is a real tragedy for the people concerned. I honestly think that there are a number of people who do not know that that is exactly what happens under the present Regulations. Quite apart from the example that I have just given—the man who is off work for a short period—even those who are eligible for National Assistance cannot, under the present Regulations, get anything towards the cost of the repair of such an appliance. Nor are spectacles the only example because there are other appliances which bear charges at present. I do not think we should part with this Clause without some of us reiterating our opposition to the whole policy of the Government, and what is in effect a poll tax on that section of the community. It is something which is anathema to all of us on this side of the Committee.
    It is not good enough for the Minister to advance what my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said was a Treasury argument. What is the validity of an argument advanced in 1957 which, in effect, says, "The percentage of the cost being borne by the Treasury as a grant from the Treasury in 1957 is pretty much the same as that envisaged in the Financial Memorandum attached to the original Bill". Who, in 1946, could envisage what this revolutionary development of the National Health Service would demand in the future? We had to give people an opportunity to behave themselves in using the Service. We had to see what was the extent of neglect from past years.
    Some of my right hon. Friends who had the job of administering the Service in its early years were subjected to criticism because often their estimates were wrong. The perfect answer to that is that nobody knew the extent of the
    908
    accumulation of years of neglect of our people in health matters. It was found that in many respects the problem was much worse, and that a bigger problem had to be faced than even the most pessimistic amongst us had anticipated. In that there is nothing surprising. It would not astonish me in the least if the estimates made in 1946 were completely inadequate in the light of the knowledge which we now possess in 1957, and we make no apology at all for that.
    What we oppose all the time is not any expansion of the Service, but its curtailment, and this business of imposing extra contributions all round is absolutely contrary to the principles of those of us on this side of the Committee. Let me repeat that these principles are that, in the financing of the National Health Service, and indeed of all our social security programme, the greatest contribution towards these national schemes must come from the strong, and the minimum financial burden must be placed on the weak. I heartily endorse the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North, and I am glad to hear that we are going to carry our opposition into the Division Lobby.
    Sir F. Messer: I want to make only two points. The first is that I oppose this proposal because it is basically unjust. We are saying in effect that a service which has hitherto been financed almost entirely from national taxation is now to have its basis of finance changed. Once we have started saying that a certain amount of the National Insurance contribution is devoted to a certain service, we may wonder how long it will be before that amount is increased. As the expenditure on the Service increases the contribution may increase.
    If I am asked why I consider this proposal unjust, I would remind the Committee that it was believed that the Service would be financed out of national taxation. We are saying that insured people earning £6 a week shall pay a further 8d. per week while those who get £40 per week shall also pay 8d.—exactly the same as people on the lower scale of income. The proposal is unjust, therefore, because those with means are lightly assessed as compared with people who have little means. My first objection, therefore, is that this proposal increases the financial

    909
    difficulties rather than solves them by transferring them to he people who should benefit from the Service.
    The next point concerns the charges, one aspect of which has not been taken sufficiently into account. In our constituencies we all know people who are on the border line; they do not get National Assistance because they are just above the qualifying figure. If the amount to be paid for prescriptions brings them below that line, they still cannot go on National Assistance. The payment for prescriptions therefore has a deterrent effect in regard to these people going to the doctor.
    That is true particularly with people who suffer from certain complaints. Let me take the case that has already been cited. When National Insurance was started by Mr. Lloyd George as far back at 1911, tuberculosis treatment was a free service. When the National Insurance Commission at that time took charge of tuberculosis, sanatorium patients were not assessed according to their means as ordinary patients were in poor law hospitals. The service was entirely free. When the county borough councils took over the work of the boards of guardians, the service was still free.
    Then there developed what were first called "tuberculosis dispensaries" and afterwards "chest clinics". People were attracted to the clinics for preventive reasons. The service was completely free. Indeed, during the war we did even more than that. We gave a special grant under Regulation 266T to people who were undergoing treatment for tuberculosis. That was a sum of about 18s. a week. We did everything to help people to get treatment.
    The present charges do not exclude tuberculosis patients. If these patients are now deterred from getting treatment it is a bad thing, not only for the patients but for their contacts. Fortunately, T.B. is on the decrease, so perhaps we need not worry too much about the deterrent effect. Provided that other things are equal, we may be able to overcome that effect.
    There are other examples. Let us take the case of someone who is getting on in years, and it suffering from post-encephalitis or from Parkinson's disease. These conditions usually require the taking of a large number of tablets over a period. It is very often necessary to
    910
    give medicines like vitamin tablets or soporific tablets. The patient will want three or four items on the prescription. How can the patient tell the pharmacist which one of them to omit? It may very well be that the patient's choice will be wrong because of inability to know what the tablets are really meant for. The patient's case may be made more difficult or even made more serious.
    For all these reasons we ought to consider, if we are to have a special contribution, whether it should not offset the more serious effects of the charge for prescriptions. My chief objection and reason for opposing the proposal before us is the danger of the Service coming to depend for its finance not on taxation, but on whether a patient has the requisite number of stamps on the card to entitle him or her to treatment.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) wholeheartedly in his condemnation of the Clause and of the new principle which it introduces. The principle can be extended very much to the detriment of the people, simply on the whim of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who happens to find himself hard up for reasons which have nothing to do with the health of the people. but because of Government policy. He can say, "This is costing a lot of money. We will add a bit more to the charges".
    I listened to the arguments, and I found no principle about them. All we had was a lot of statistics and percentages of contributions paid in different circumstances. Whatever percentage of contribution is now suggested is entirely arbitrary; there is no principle behind it. I listened to the Minister introducing the Money Resolution, and not a single principle was enunciated in his speech which would persuade people to support his arguments.
    When the Minister was at the Treasury at least he tried to look at matters in a humane way, but he has now to depend upon statistics which are related to nothing but expediency. Before we leave the Clause the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell us what is behind it. What are the governing principles? Government ought to be by principle and not by statistics produced at the Treasury by a bright boy behind the scenes. and the

    911
    principle ought to be based upon moral considerations.
    The Bill, examined from that point of view, is rotten. There are no moral considerations in it at all; in fact, it is grossly immoral. We have been told that £31 million towards the cost of the scheme has been raised by these charges. It seems very unfair to raise money by putting a charge on the unlucky people. It is the first time I have heard that because a person is unlucky he has to be charged. I thought the principle was to help people who were unfortunate, not to charge them because they happen to be unfortunate.
    6.0 p.m.
    We are to raise an additional £42·1 million under this Bill by a flat poll tax. I had several things to say about that when the Money Resolution was before the Committee. There is no equity in that at all. It is simple for someone who is very wealthy to say to someone who is comparatively well off, "Let us all put a ' bob ' into the kitty," but that is most unreasonable, certainly unfair, and I think it is immoral. As a result of this Bill we are to pay £71 million in ways which to me seem dubious and certainly not in accord with what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) thought the very noble principles on which this Service was based in the first place.
    The National Health Service, as it was conceived and brought into being, captured the minds of all classes of people in this country and people all over the world, because, almost for the first time in history, we were trying to do something which was out of accord with capitalist methods of accountancy. We were saying, "We all live together. Let us contribute what we can and distribute it according to need." It was a very fine principle of government, but more and more we are departing from it.
    All the usual arguments have been trotted out by the Conservative Party. It is easy for hon. Members opposite to argue that we should pay for these things if we can afford to do so. They are not on the border line, having to pay for these things but to do without a considerable number of other things. They are not in the position of many families to which an extra 8d. or 10d. a week makes all
    912
    the difference. Often it makes all the difference between having an extra pint of milk for that family or not having it.
    This Bill is a bad Bill, this Clause is a bad Clause, and I am certainly glad that we are to divide against it.
    Mr. Marquand: The Clause under discussion implements the main new proposal in the Bill, the establishment of a separate contribution in the National Health Service. Although, unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity of listening to the Second Reading debate, I have read very carefully all that was said by all who took part in it. and particularly what the Minister said.
    As I understand from what I read in the speech, the right hon. Gentleman had two main arguments in support of the new proposal. The first we have dealt with already at some length on the Amendment the Committee disposed of a short time ago. The first argument was the fit and well argument, in which the Minister said that people should pay when they are fit and well and receive from the Service when they are unable to work and earn. We have already disposed of the contradictions in that argument coming from that source.
    The second argument adduced by the Minister in favour of this new proposal was a very astonishing one. The right hon. Gentleman wanted:
    " 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 993.]
    I should be all in favour of removing a misunderstanding about how the National Health Service is financed. The only misunderstanding I ever came across when I was Minister of Health was, not that anyone thought that none of the Service was financed by contributions, but the misunderstanding by which very many people thought the whole of the Service was financed by contributions. I tried again and again, on almost every opportunity I had when making a speech in those short nine months when I was Minister, to destroy that illusion, but, of course, it had very little effect.
    It was a very deep-rooted belief, and I think it still is. It has been fostered by the newspapers, although they have been

    913
    told dozens of times what the truth is. Again and again they have referred to the National Health Service stamps and suggested to the public that they paid the full cost of the Health Service through their Health Service stamps. That was a mistaken idea, and it had bad results. It created in some minds the idea, "I have paid for it. haven't I? Therefore, I am entitled to this, that and the other ".
    In so far as there were exigent demands placed on doctors and others in the Service for services not required, they arose, I think, from that root source—the idea that people paid their Health Service contribution and therefore the sky was the limit, that they ought to have all the medicines, treatment and everything available under the Service. That was a bad thing, and I tried to remove the misunderstanding.
    This Bill does not remove that misunderstanding, but just doubles it. It makes it perfectly clear to everyone by a separate stamp that this is a contribution for the National Health Service which makes it twice as much as it used to be. It seems to me that they will be more convinced than ever that the contributions pay for the whole Service. The argument breaks down completely and we are left only with the first argument, which we debated at length and about which I do not propose to advance any more views.
    During Second Reading my hon. Friends said they believed that this further tax on insured workers was bound to fall most heavily on lower paid workers, on the fathers of families and those who find it most difficult to make do on their wages. My hon. Friends said then, and have repeated this afternoon, that the Government were reducing the Surtax, which was a progressive tax, and increasing the National Health Service contribution, which was a regressive tax. They increased a regressive tax in order to reduce a progressive tax. On those grounds, chiefly, we objected to the proposal.
    I want to draw the attention of the Minister particularly—that is the only reason for which I rose—to the feeling evident on this side of the House during Second Reading, which certainly has not been disposed of by anything which has been said so far this afternoon, that this new charge was the introduction of a new
    914
    and dangerous principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) said on Second Reading,
    " I do not think that this Bill is introduced merely for the sake of getting £40 million."
    A little earlier he had said:
    " 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 insuranoe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 1042.]
    That may have been pooh-poohed when he said it, but the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd)—I am sorry he is not here this afternoon; he is one of the ablest hon. Members opposite and, if he had his deserts, he might one day become a Member of the Government—said later in the debate:
    "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 he able to do away with…the chargesߪ"—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 1065.]
    We hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to deal with this argument. Will he deny categorically the validity of the fear expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) on Second Reading—the fear that this is the introduction of new insurance principle into the National Health Service and that as time goes on opportunity will be taken more and more to increase the size of the contribution and to make the receipt of benefit under the Service more and more depend on the payment of a direct flat-rate contribution?
    Is that the Government's intention? If not, will the Minister repudiate the view expressed by the hon. Member for Cheadle? We want an answer today, and we hope that we shall get a clear and categorical answer to the suspicions which have been raised in the minds of my hon. Friends and to the confirmation of those suspicions expressed on the last occasion by the hon. Member for Cheadle.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: I want in no way to prolong the debate, but there are two points which I want to raise. The first arises out of our earlier debate in Committee. I had hoped that the Minister

    915
    would not regard the comments made by the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) about the pharmacists as being the view of pharmacists generally about the imposition of the charges.
    Sir H. Linstead: I was very careful to say that no correspondence had reached me in my capacity as a Member of this House.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: It is important that that should be made clear, because I, for one, have had very strong representations from pharmacists in my division.
    The second point which I wanted to raise was this: I assume that the Ministry have been able to give proper consideration to the whole question of priorities in the Service and that some effective research has been carried out in the Department. It has always been agreed amongst many of us that one of the difficulties one faced in the early days of the Service was the lack of adequate information about trends and developments within it. It was very difficult to plan development of the Services as one would like without thta range of information which one wanted.
    Here I may be taking objection to the opposition which one of my hon. Friends seemed to make to statistics. I am sure he was not opposing the collection of statistics generally but was taking objection to the idea that statistics should be applied without regard to principle. I and, I am sure, many of my hon. and right hon. Friends take the view that there is need in the Ministry of adequate research and statistics. One of the recommendations of the Guillebaud Committee was that this should be instituted, and after that recommendation had been made we understood that the Ministry had made an appointment, although I do not think it could be regarded as a special department of the Ministry, as is called for in the Guillebaud Report. I am trying to stress that within all our health work there is a great need for some careful evaluation of the work which is being done.
    6.15 p.m.
    To give one example, it is astonishing that even now we know very little about the value to the community of the hospital work which we are doing in this country. I think the Chief Medical
    916
    Officer of Health has made the point in one of his recent reports that our knowledge of what happens to patients after they leave the hospital is remarkably slight even after all these years. I am asking whether we are satisfied that we have made a sufficient estimation. Have we material to make our estimates and to estimate the value of the Service which we already have at our disposal? Is the Department able to make its decisions, including this decision with which we have been confronted, upon adequate information? I suggest that the Ministry of Health is still in the difficulty that it cannot provide an adequate background of information upon which decisions of this kind are put before us. The Guillebaud Committee made that very clear. In its recommendations it said that it was
    " Of the opinion that the knowledge at present available about the working of the National Health Service is inadequate and should be considerably extended and improved, since it is only on the basis of such knowledge that the right decisions can be made for the future development of the Service."
    All of us who have had some experience of this Department have found the danger of taking decisions about development without that background knowledge which, I think, everyone regards as essential. I very much fear that the Department has not been able to continue to build up that adequate background of knowledge which we wish to see, but instead is still taking this kind of decision in order to collect together more finance for the scheme without any adequate review of the whole background of the working of the Service.
    I know that this is a little outside the immediate context, but I ask the Minister in his reply to bear in mind that it is relevant and to tell us the importance which he attaches to the research and statistical part of his Department.
    Mr. A. E. Hunter: I will not detain the Committee for very long, but I should like to add my voice in protest to that of my hon. Friends. There is strong feeling amongst the lower-paid workers about this increase in the contribution. It involves another 10d. a week for a man, 8d. a week for a woman and 6d. a week for a boy or girl. Some of these people are among the lower income groups of workers. There are still people in this country not earning more than

    917
    £6 a week. Some women are earning less than £5 a week. The extra contribution means an extra charge on their small incomes.
    The Bill will give the Chancellor of the Exchequer over £40 million a year, and the money should be used to improve the Service. There are still to be charges for spectacles, for teeth, for invalid boots and for other appliances, and it is therefore clear that the extra £40 million which is to be gathered from the workers of the country will not be used for improving the National Health Service.
    We are very proud of our National Health Service. I remember the hospital services when I served on a board of guardians in the years between 1925 and 1930 and the great change that has taken place. Hospitals were often stinted for money, many lacked X-ray apparatus. and many lacked the modern equipment which we see in the splendid hospitals of today. The National Health Service has brought about this great change. But Conservative Party Election manifesto said that the Conservative aim was to extend, expand and improve the Health Service; but we now find that the Government have limited the Service by charges on surgical appliances and have put on a prescription charge of 1s. for each item. I know that the person on National Assistance can get a refund, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) has said, there is a margin just short of National Assistance where the extra prescription charge imposes a very heavy burden.
    I therefore add my protest against these extra contributions which are not to be used for improving the Service or removing charges for appliance and prescriptions, which merely give the Chancellor £40 million to pay for the tax relief to the highest income group.
    Mr. Vesper: As has been made clear, this Clause contains the substance of the Bill. I am sure that the Committee would not want me to repeat the speech which I made on the Ways and Means Resolution, or that which I made on Second Reading, but there are just one or two points to which I should reply.
    The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred to the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I will, of course, bring to the notice of my right hon.
    918
    Friend any points that refer specifically to Scotland in what is otherwise a United Kingdom Bill. She will, however, have noticed that the Joint Under-Secretary of State listened to her speech.
    The hon. Lady referred, as have other hon. Members, to the Beveridge Report. I have, of course, studied that Report on many occasions. The only conclusion I have ever drawn from it, in introducing this Bill, is that the Beveridge Report was not against the contributory principle. In fact, that contributory principle was accepted by the party opposite when, in 1946, there was introduced, first, the Financial Memorandum to the Bill, and, finally, the National Health Service Bill which became the National Health Service Act of 1948.
    That principle was established as far back as 1946. and has been maintained, in effect, ever since. I accept that there is nothing sacrosanct in the proportion given in that Financial Memorandum, but it did so happen that in 1946, as I have already told the Committee, the percentage to he financed by contributions was 20 per cent. That figure was never realised, and it recently shrank to 6 per cent.
    But Her Majesty's Government believe that the principle contained in the Beveridge Report—which the party opposite accepted and maintained throughout its years of office—is correct; that there should be a contributory element towards the finances of the National Health Service. They believe, further, that if 20 per cent. was thought fit and proper in 1946, a contribution that would now bring in just over 11½ per cent. is not unreasonable today. That is the percentage represented by a contribution of 1s. 8d. to be provided for each employed man.
    That is the first reason for this Bill: that there shall be a contributory element towards the financing of the Health Service paid by those who are fit and well towards those who are sick. In fact, the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) suggested that the contribution should be even larger, because he quite rightly said that the figures produced ten or twelve years ago vastly underestimated the cost of the Service. In those days, the figures anticipated a total national cost of £174 million, to which

    919
    there should be a 20 per cent. contributory element.
    As hon. Members know, that total figure has now risen to £690 million, so there would be an argument,on that basis, for increasing the contributory charge above even that envisaged in the Bill. The Government have not thought fit to do that, but have decided to double the figure to keep it in line with what was thought reasonable in those early days.
    The hon. Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) made an interesting speech. If I may say so on this particular occasion, and as I think the Committee knows, the National Health Service owes him a tremendous debt of gratitude for what he has done as Chairman, until recently, of the Central Health Services Council. I know that he is anxious, as I hope he will believe that I am, to see the Service develop. I was disappointed, therefore, to note that he was not in support of the contributions, although he must know that as there must be a limit on the amount of national finance provided a small increase must surely be welcomed by anybody believing in the Service.
    A point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) is that for the first time this Bill establishes a separate charge. The reason is that we are anxious to see established in the minds of the public the principle that there is a separate contribution towards the National Health Service. I fully accept, as he made quite clear, that the public are confused on two grounds: either they think that there is no contribution towards the cost of the Service, or else that it is
    entirely financed by contributions. I hope to be a little more successful than he—although I may be optimistic—and, during the latter part of the year when this Bill has, I hope, been put on the Statute Book, to be able to establish in the public mind that a small proportion only of the total cost is financed by direct contribution.
    I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) about priorities. I accept, in principle, what he said, but he will forgive me if, on this occasion— which, I think, is hardly the appropriate one—I do not go further into priorities of expenditure.
    I was asked by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East to give an assurance that this was not the thin end of the wedge; that this Measure did not begin a cycle of increasing contributory elements. All I would say is that to increase the charge by any amount above that stated in the Bill would require further legislation. To introduce legislation into this House is not an easy matter, and I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Opposition would lightly let it go through. I therefore think that that assurance, that a further increase would require a further Bill, should be the answer to his question. On those grounds, I should like to think that the Committee might come to a decision and approve this Clause.
    Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill: —
    The Committee divided: Ayes 199, Noes 159.

    Division No. 107.]

    AYES

    [6.28 p.m.

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement(Montgomery)

    Aitken, W. T.

    Bryan, P.

    Deedes, W.F.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Atkins, H. E.

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

    du Cann, E. D. L,

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Campbell, Sir David

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

    Barter, John

    Carr, Robert

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne.N.)

    Beamish, Mai. Tufton

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cole, Norman

    Fell, A.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

    Finlay, Graeme

    Bishop, F. P.

    Cooke, Robert

    Fisher, Nigel

    Body, R. F.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Fort, R.

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

    Corfield Capt. F. V.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Godber, J. B.

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

    Crowder, Sir John (Finehley)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Cunningham, Knox

    Gower, H. R.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Green, A.

    Longdon, Gilbert

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Gurden, Harold

    McAdden, S. J.

    Rodgers, John (Scvenoaks)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Russell, R. S.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    McKlbbin, A. J.

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

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

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

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Hay, John

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Speir, R. M.

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

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

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

    Stanley, capt. Hon. Richard

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Maddan, Martin

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Hill, John S. (Norfolk)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Storey, S.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Mathew, R.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon James (Moray)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Hornby, R. P.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Teeling, W.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Temple, John M.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Neave, Airey

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

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

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

    Ti|ey A, (Bradford, W.)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Keegan, D.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Page, R. G.

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Partridge, E.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Kimball, M.

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Wall Major Patrick

    Lambton, Viscount

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

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

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Leavey, J. A.

    Pott, H. P.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

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

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Redmayne, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Barber and Mr. Hughes-Young.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Dye, S.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Albu, A. H.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Flenburgh, W.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

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

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

    Lawson, G. M.

    Benson, G.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Beswiok, Frank

    Gibson, C. W.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

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

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Lewis, Arthur

    Blackburn, F.

    Greenwood, Anthony

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

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R,

    Mabon, Dr. j. Dickson

    Blyton, W. R.

    Grey, C. F.

    MacColl, J. E.

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

    Griffiths, David (Rother valley)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Mahon, Simon

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

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

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hannan, W.

    Mason, Roy

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Mellish, R. J.

    Carmichael, J.

    Hastings, S.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hayman, F. H.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Monslow, W.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Moody, A. S.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Holmes, Horace

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

    Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Moss, R.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Moyle, A

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercllffe)

    Oram, A. E,

    Delargy, H. J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Orbaeh, M.

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Janner, B.

    Owen, W. J.

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

    Jeger, George (Goole)

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

    922

    923

    Pargiter, G. A.

    West, D. G.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Paton, John

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Pearson, A.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Pentland, N.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Wigg, George

    Popplewell, E.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Snow, J. W.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Willey, Frederick

    Probert, A. R.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Rankin, John

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

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

    Reeves, J.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Reid, William

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Woof, R. E.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Tomney, F.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Ross, William

    Weitzman, D.

    Royle, C.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

    Clause 2.—(CONSEQUENTIAL REDUCTION OF NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Marquand: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance has been attending our debate very assiduously indeed. It would be a very dull day for her if she did not have an opportunity to speak, and I hope that on this Clause she will be able to give the Committee some guidance, at any rate, because the Clause deals with the consequential reduction of National Insurance contributions.
    This is the only part of the Bill which deals directly with National Insurance contributions. The idea behind it is that as there is now to be a separate National Health contribution, the amount formerly paid by the National Insurance Fund will go into that National Health contribution, and the contributor who in the future pays for a separate stamp for National Health contributions will have the increased charge included in that stamp and will, in consequence, find that the National Insurance contribution stamp will cost less.
    The contribution may be relieved by that. He may say to himself, "I have a new contribution to make, but at least the old contribution is to be reduced." The Clause says that
    "…the weekly rates of contributions payable under the National Insurance Acts shall be reduced in accordance with the next following subsection."
    I should like the hon. Lady to tell us how long she thinks this reduction will last. How long will it be before the National Insurance contribution will
    924
    again be increased to the old level, or beyond it?
    We had a debate not long ago on the social policy of the Government, which was wound up by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in his very best debating style. In almost a crescendo of fury he gave a long list of improvements which he said the Government had made in our social services. About five out of eght of those improvements consisted of improvements in the National Insurance system.
    We agree that there are improvements. We accepted and supported the improvements in the conditions relating to widows and other dependants of National Insurance contributors. But the right hon. Gentleman told us during the debate on the Bill which implemented the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the improvement of the conditions of widows and dependants that the cost one day would have to be made up by increased contributions. So one day we shall have another Bill put before us by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance asking for an increased National Insurance contribution. It seems to me that this is the fair time at which to give the House of Commons warning of that.
    This Committee ought to be aware, when it is passing a Clause which purports to reduce the National Insurance contribution, that at some time in the future, probably a very short time ahead, the National Insurance contribution is to be increased, that these new improvements of which the Minister was so proud are not to be financed, through the Treasury, by the taxpayer but are to be financed, once more, by the contributors themselves.

    925
    I ask the hon. Lady to give us some indication of the amount of increase that we may expect after these decreases have taken place, and of the time when her right hon. Friend is likely to present them to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4.—(FINANC I A I, PROVISIONS.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Miss Herbison: Subsection (2) of Clause 4 deals with how the money is to be distributed to the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I wish to know what is in the Minister's mind about that. It is really a question which should go to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance rather than to the Minister of Health. How is this division to take place? What will be the division between England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other?
    Since we are having this separate contribution for the Health Service, it is of the greatest importance that we should know in what proportion the division is to be made. Will all the contributions from Scottish contributors ultimately find their way to the Secretary of State for Scotland to help to finance the Health Service in Scotland. and will all contributions from English and Welsh contributors go to England and Wales? Are we to depart from what is the normal division in these matters, when the money goes to that part of the United Kingdom where there is more illness and disease? This is an important matter, and my question should be answered before we part with the Clause.
    Mr. Vosper: I shall be very pleased to answer that question. The basis of apportionment between England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other, will be according to the distribution of the insured population between them. It will be undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in consultation with. my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The procedure will, in
    926
    fact, be exactly the same as now appertains to the distribution of the Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution. The existing arrangement will be continued under the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5.—(CORRESPONDING LEGISLATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Marquand: There is a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen who sit for Northern Ireland in the House, not one of whom do I see in his place in this Committee at the point at which the Clause dealing with Northern Ireland arises. As far as I am aware, we have had no contribution at all from those hon. Members during the Committee stage. I hope I am not doing them an injustice; no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong.
    It is noteworthy that, whereas my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies have taken an active part in the discussion, there has been no voice whatever raised from Northern Ireland. Although the Bill will presumably, according to the provisions of the Clause, apply to Northern Ireland and involve the workpeople of Northern Ireland in the payment of increased contributions, there has been no one present to speak on their behalf.
    6.45 p.m.
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether all we are doing in this Clause is to permit the Parliament of Northern Ireland to pass such legislation, if it is pleased to do so. Does he understand that the Government of Northern Ireland intend to introduce a similar Measure in Northern Ireland? If all I do is to elicit an answer to that question, I shall have done something to help the workpeople of Northern Ireland to get that answer, which is something their own Members of Parliament have not bothered to come and do.
    Mr. Vosper: The reason that my hon. Friends are not here in support, I think, is that the Bill does not, in fact, cover Northern Ireland. Separate legislation by the Northern Ireland Parliament is required.

    927
    All that this Clause does is to give the permission of the House of Commons, which is required for the Northern Ireland Parliament to legislate in respect of the Crown, since it is otherwise prevented from doing so. I understand that it is the intention of Northern Ireland to enact similar legislation as soon as the permission of the House has been given through Clause 5 of the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6.—(INTERPRETATION.)
    Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 7, line 6, at the end to insert:
    "(being a day not before the first day of May nineteen hundred and sixty)".
    We have put down this Amendment to ensure that, immediately the Bill becomes an Act, the provisions of it will not immediately affect the people of Britain. We have inserted the specific date, 1st May, 1960, in order that a General Election may take place before the provisions of the Bill may operate.
    We do that for a number of reasons, but for one in particular. The Government have no mandate whatever from the people of Britain for introducing this Measure. At no time in their propaganda, so far as I can discover, did the Conservatives say to the people, "When we are returned, either in 1951 or in 1955, we shall take steps, first of all, to make a separate Health Service contribution, and secondly, to raise the contribution." I have looked up the statement of Tory policy called "Britain Strong and Free, A Statement of Conservative and Unionist Policy". This was a policy statement issued before the 1951 General Election. Above the name of Winston S. Churchill, I find the words:
    " I hope that this book will help our candidates, speakers and workers during the course of the Election."
    In other words, this was almost the "bible" for candidates and propagandists before the Election in their efforts to win support for the Tory Party in order to return that party to the House of Commons.
    In page 29 of the booklet, there is the heading "Health Services". There is a little over a page devoted to the
    928
    Health Services, and I read through what was said to ascertain whether Tory candidates and propagandists were told to inform the British people that there would be a separate contribution and an increase. I find nothing. What I do find, in the second paragraph, is this:
    " We hold ourselves free to review and alter the present system of charges in order to establish proper priorities."
    Obviously they have reviewed them. As for altering the system of charges, in the years during which we have suffered a Tory Government, they have altered the system of charges; they have kept the system of charges which they found, and they have added many more charges to people when they are really sick.
    Then I find this sentence, which is completely contrary to the provisions of the Bill:
    " We must meet first, and fully, the needs of mothers, children and the really sick."
    In the Bill, we find that even the lowest wage earner is to pay a higher contribution. We on this side attempted to remove the charges. It is the really sick who will suffer by the charges which the Government are imposing.
    There is another paragraph which would be amusing if it were not so serious. It says:
    "They"—
    that is, the family doctors—
    " have to deal as much with paper as with people. In discussion with the profession, a way must be found to preserve the personal link between doctor and patient and to devise a system of payment which will enable the family doctor both to lead a more satisfactory professional life and to give better service to the public."
    I wonder what the family doctors are thinking of the Government and that statement of theirs at the present time. It is only under a Tory Government that we have had any serious threat of the doctors going on strike.
    In case the Conservative Party should have said something in 1955, I then turned to "United for Peace and Progress". One knows about the peace and the progress that they have brought us since 1955, but, unfortunately, it would be out of order for me to attempt to show how ludicrous are all the claims made on the first page of this document. Then, I turn to a section entitled "Good Health". The Tory Party did not have as much to say about good health in 1955 as in

    929
    1951. They devoted a page or so to various matters, including air pollution as an enemy to good health, which can cause death and various other things. Talking about priorities, they say:
    " we rank them higher than free wigs or free aspirins."
    The Tory Party are great believers in priorities so long as their choice of priorities hits the weakest in the country. There is not one word in this 1955 prospectus of the Tory Party about the charge that they are now imposing.
    It is because we feel so strongly that this is an important principle in the Bill, about which the Tories, in trying to gain votes, said nothing, and because we greatly resent the imposition of this tax upon the poorest in the country, that we say to the Government that if they are an honourable body of men and women, they should accept the Amendment so that the Bill, with all the hardships that it entails, can be deferred until they go to the country with another prospectus—whatever name they give it, they certainly will not he able to call the next one "United for Peace and Progress "—including these charges and see whether they get support for it.
    Mr. Willis: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) in the Amendment. It is only fair for the Government to accept our suggestion and wait for a General Election before implementing the Bill so that they will know whether they have support for what they are doing. My hon. Friend need not be surprised at the name that is given to the Tory Party election publications. A Government which can dismiss a hydrogen bomb explosion as a "nuclear incident" is capable of finding any words to bewilder the people about what is really going on.
    In the publication to which my hon. Friend has referred, the Tory Party mentioned legislation that it intended to introduce. It mentioned legislation concerning smoke abatement and National Assistance. One thing that it did not mention was these charges. Even when it discussed the hospital services and items more relevant to the Bill, it did not mention that the Conservatives intended to impose these charges. If the Government were anxious to get the people behind them, they could at least postpone the operation of the Bill as we suggest.
    930
    I am always suspicious of Tories, Tory Governments and what they are doing. I cannot help feeling that on this occasion what the Government are trying to do is to get an additional £40 million from the working population so that by the time they decide to have a General Election they can have another phoney Budget and give so much back in taxation. The Government are preparing the way and this is one of the ways in which they will do it by getting this £40 million from people, many of whom will find it difficult to meet the cost.
    Of course, I may be quite wrong: I should like to think so. One of the ways by which the Government can help to convince me that I am wrong is by accepting the Amendment. I would then say that everything was fair and above board and that the Minister was trying to play fair by the people. It is a very modest Amendment. I am surprised at my hon. and right hon. Friends in wanting to postpone the Bill only until 1960. That is only three years away. As, in any case, the Bill will not come into operation for a while yet, the difference is even less than three years. What is two years in the life of a nation or of the great National Health Service scheme?
    Purely out of the kindness of his heart and from a desire to give the Opposition at least one little concession on the Bill —so far, the Government have given us nothing at all—the Minister could say that the Amendment is perfectly reasonable, that it will help to give the people time to consider what the Government are doing and will show that what they are doing is desirable. If the right hon. Gentleman assures us in addition that the Government are not trying to pull a fast one and to pave the way for a possible Tory victory at the next election, that would be a nice speech for him to make and it would be commended highly on this side. By this simple step, he would make his reputation much higher than it is at the moment.
    Mr. Arthur Moyle: There is not the slightest element of urgency in the Bill. It is being imposed upon an unwilling people by a Government who are in the position of having to provide certain moneys for purposes entirely outside the Bill. This contribution does not derive from any need in the

    931
    Health Service. It is imposed upon the Minister entirely by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is determined that the workers must pay for the £30 million relief of taxation to be given to those in receipt of £2,000 and more a year.
    That is the basis of the Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with the purposes of the Health Service. The Minister knows that if one section is to have relief from taxation some other section has to pay for it. In this case, in accordance with their tradition, the Tories have seen to it that the workers will provide relief for those people who receive £2,000 and more a year.
    7.0 p.m.
    Will the Minister be good enough to be a little more specific than is Clause 6? When do the Government propose to fix the appointed day? Is it this year or next year? I see no hope of the Bill being rejected by the noble Lords in the other place. I make the guess that when the Bill becomes law it will have an appointed day that will correspond with the operation of the Finance Bill this year. I think it a fairly safe bet that the Bill will become law this year if the Government have their way.
    I support the eloquent appeal already made to the Minister. Why not accept the Amendment to save embarrassment for the right hon. Gentleman in his own constituency? If the Bill is to become law, let it be deferred to a time when the electors, at a General Election, can express their view upon it and place upon the electorate the responsibility of deciding whether they want a free National Health Service or want to go back to the old contributory system. If the appointed day is in 1960 and not this year, that will save the Minister himself from any embarrassment in his own constituency at the next General Election.
    I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman. If he says that the Government want the Bill because they want to teach the workers that they cannot have something for nothing, that is a Tory attitude that we can understand. It has been part of the psychological approach of the Tory Party to the workers of the country that the only people who can get something for nothing without its affecting their sense of morality are people represented by the
    932
    Prime Minister and his colleagues. When it conies to the working class, the party opposite believes that there must be some kind of discipline to remind the workers of their obligations. It is this kind of patronage that offends my sense of equity.
    If the Minister argued against the Amendment on that score, however, we could understand it, though it is an untenable approach to say that there must be a contribution to make the workers realise that they have an obligation and cannot have something for nothing. But the Minister says that there are financial limits beyond which the country cannot go and that the contribution is required for that reason. To say that we have reached the financial limit in the Budget is sheer poppycock when we are providing, this year moneys for our defence programme which far exceed our expenditure on the Health Service. Does anybody suggest that money required for defence should be taken out of the Budget and provided on some other contributory basis?
    Hon. Members opposite say that the Bill is necessary and that contributions must be provided because there are financial limits to the Budget, but that does not read sense when a great defence bill is met in these days by budgetary methods. This is a retrograde and wrong step. When we on this side of the Committee return to power I hope that we shall get rid of the Bill as soon as may be and restore a free Health Service and see that the money is provided by taxation and not by contributions from those who benefit from the service.
    Mr. W. Griffiths: I take it that my hon. Friends are moving the Amendment to enable the Government to submit their proposals to the electorate and give them some explanation for their gross deception on health matters at the last two General Elections. This is an invitation to an exercise in democracy of which the Government should avail themselves. I am not at all sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) was right when he said that the Minister had had this policy imposed upon him. I am sure that it is within the recollection of the Committee that the Minister told us today that he believes in the principle of those contributions and that he is not an unwilling victim of

    933
    Treasury policy. He believes that this is a desirable way of financing the National Health Service.
    The right hon. Gentleman keeps telling us that as a result of this policy we get a better system of priorities. He keeps telling us that, although it may be very desirable that people should have appliances without charges, yet, within the limits imposed upon him as Minister by present economic conditions, he is able, by imposing charges and increasing contributions, to direct money to what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends regard as desirable projects.
    Let us see what the citizens of Manchester would think of it, bearing in mind their recent experiences. One of the consequences of the action of a Tory Minister of Health in imposing the 1s. charge on every item of prescription played a not inconsiderable part in the causes which produced the recent engineers' strike.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. R. Spence): The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment. He is going a little wide of it.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry. I shall endeavour to keep myself more closely to the Amendment. It is necessary for my constituents in Manchester to have the benefits that would flow from acceptance of the Amendment, inasmuch as they would then be able to examine what is happening to the Service in Manchester and see whether they are getting wise administration and value for their money under the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship. So far from all this desirable extension of the Service, in the priority that the Minister recognises, taking place, in Manchester I notice that recently the very famous cancer hospital there has had to give notice that for the first time for many years some of its wards will have to be closed this summer and some of its work curtailed. Does the Minister recognise that as indicating a belief in high priority?
    The Temporary Chairman: I cannot relate the hon. Member's arguments to the Amendment, which is concerned with the date of the appointed day. Will the hon. Member please relate what he has to say to the Amendment?
    Miss Herbison: On a point of order. Is it not the case that we are asking that the date be postponed for a certain time
    934
    and that we must give reasons for it? The Minister has said that the Bill will help in deciding priorities. He says that that is why he wants the Bill quickly. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) has the right to say why he disagrees with the Minister's priorities and wants to prevent the Bill being enacted so soon?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am simply seeking, Mr. Spence, to answer the arguments put forward by the Minister about his conception of priorities and to show that the charges already imposed have failed to bring behind the most desirable projects in the City of Manchester the benefits which would flow from greater financial support. I give one more example. Increasingly, my attention is drawn to the fact that less and less opportunity is given to expectant mothers to have their first child in hospital in the City of Manchester.
    We shall put Questions to the Minister in due course and try to extract from him a recognition of the fact that my constituents and constituents of other hon. Members in the city regard the cancer hospital, the infantile mortality rates and the hospital for expectant mothers as matters of the highest priority to which we shall continue to draw his attention.
    I will say no more. I think that the handling of the Health Service by successive Ministers in this Government in the last few years, and the introduction of these extra contributions for workpeople without the mandate of the electors, is a good and sufficient reason why the Bill should be postponed for the period suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Vosper: I will, first, answer the specific point put to me by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) about the appointed day. It is impossible to put in the Bill the exact appointed day. He may recollect that whereas the income anticipated from this provision in a full year was about £40 million, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he expected to derive from it this year £20 million. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should be able to forecast the approximate date that is anticipated as the appointed day.
    I was slightly intrigued by the suggested day in the Amendment. I appreciate that

    935
    1st May has a particular interest for the party opposite, but it was the choice of year that was of greater interest to me—1960—because it seemed to assume that there would be no General Election in this country until the early months of that year. In that respect, there may be some wisdom in the Amendment.
    I was also slightly intrigued by the argument put forward by two hon. Members that it was necessary to have a mandate to enact legislation of this nature. That argument is useful and may have been used occasionally by both sides of the Committee. Will the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) tell me that during the next few weeks we must not introduce the opticians' Bill until after the next Election because there is no mandate for my party to do so?
    The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) suggested that I had no mandate, but she referred to developments in the National Health Service which the Conservative Party mentioned in 1955 and which the Government had since carried out. If we are pledged to carry out development of the National Health Service, it is not unreasonable to seek the necessary finance to enable us to do that. To delay the Bill for two-and-a-half years, which would be the effect of the Amendment, would be to deprive the Health Service of £100 million.
    Mr. Willis: Am I to understand that the additional money raised this year as a result of these contributions will be additional money for expenditure on the Health Service?
    Mr. Vosper: I will come to Health Service finance in one moment.
    The logical consequence of this Amendment, if the Committee accepts it. is that the Health Service will be deprived of £100 million in two-and-a-half years. Neither in Committee nor at any other stage of the Bill have we yet been told what is the alternative policy. We are told that we should increase the taxation on the Surtax payers. That money is being rapidly expended in many directions by the party opposite.
    I had anticipated from what the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said in the Second Reading debate that the Opposition party's pro-
    936
    posal, published last week, would tell us what was the attitude of the Opposition towards the financing of the Health Service and the contributions. I am none the wiser how the Opposition would seek to replace the financial resources of which they are seeking to deprive the Health Service by this Amendment.
    7.15 p.m.
    I should have thought that the Opposition—I say this with sincerity—were as anxious as the Government to see the development of the Service, but I find it difficult to reconcile their two different approaches to the matter.
    Miss Herbison: The whole tenor of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that if we are to have any developments in the Service in the future the only way they will be financed will be by contribution. That is the only thing that can come from the speech which the right lion. Gentleman is making now, and I am sure it will be noted in the country. We consider it to be very serious indeed.
    Mr. Vosper: Perhaps the hon. Lady will listen to the rest of my speech, and then she may want to withdraw what she has said.
    On the other hand, the Opposition accept the necessity to place limitations on finance obtained from taxation. Two successive Socialist Chancellors of the Exchequer have applied that limitation, and I cannot believe that if ever there is a third Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer he will not seek to place a limit on the finance derived from taxation towards the Service. That is one argument that the Opposition put forward.
    As to their other argument, they seek on this occasion to deny the Service what I believe to be a perfectly legitimate source of finance. Throughout discussion of the Bill it has been suggested that I am the servant of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the measure. It is said that this is a financial Measure and that I am seeking to help the Chancellor balance his Budget. If that were my wish, there would be other easier ways of doing it. I could hold back on the Service. That is my answer to the hon. Lady for Lanarkshire, North.
    The estimates for this year for the Service, including Scotland, show an increase of £48 million over those for last

    937
    year. Even if the Bill comes into force in the autumn, there will still be a considerably increased expenditure out of revenue towards the Service. I could, of course, do what has been done by the party opposite, impose further charges on the Service. I could curtail some aspects of it.
    Previously, I mentioned the dental Service. I have chosen not to do so, because I believe it is my responsibility to maintain, develop and use the resources of the Service as best we can. For that reason I want to see a regular income, and the Government are of the opinion that for a portion of the Health Service to be financed by the contributory principle is not unreasonable. Therefore, I wish to see the continued development of the Service.
    I believe that the Bill should be given its Third Reading as soon as possible, and that, therefore, the Amendment should be rejected.
    Mr. Marquand: As to the date that we chose, we knew that by law there must be a General Election not later than May, 1960. That was the last possible date on which the Government could go to the country. We had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have indicated that the Government were going to the country very much sooner than that. We got no such indication from him. We merely got reiteration of the argument that the money must be found somewhere.
    I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what we shall say to the country when, and before, the General Election takes place. We shall say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House of Commons in April. 1957, that he had plenty of money from taxes with which to pay the whole of the increased cost of the Service, but that he preferred to make a concession to the Surtax payers and impose additional charges on the National Insurance contributors. That will be
    what we shall be saying from now until the longed for General Election.
    Mr. Willis: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. I asked whether the £42 million, about £20 million of which will be realised this year —from which we assume that the date will be in September or October—will mean additional expansion of the Service. The right hon. Gentleman got round that in a cunning way. He said that the Service is costing £48 million more this year. How much of that is due to increases in wages, salaries and prices, and how much is due to the promises made by the Conservative Party when it introduced its scheme just before the General Election for expanding the hospital service? It is legitimate to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if the Bill were not passed, the Health Service would be cut by £20 million. We have not had an answer, and we ought to let the date wait until we get one.
    I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland or one of the other Scottish Ministers is not here. If one of the Scottish Ministers had been here we could have asked some rather more pertinent questions. I dislike having English Ministers dealing with matters affecting Scotland. Earlier, one of my hon. Friends said that it was a good thing, but I think it is a bad thing. We ought to have had one of the Scottish Ministers here.
    Mr. Vosper: I cannot give the hon. Member a figure, but I can tell him that the Estimates laid before the House by myself and the Secretary of State for Scotland provide for an expansion of the National Health Service in real terms in the coming year.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 149, Noes 189.

    Division No. 108.]

    AYES

    [7.22 p.m

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Albu, A. H.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Carmichael, J.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Boardman, H.

    Champion, A, J.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

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

    Chapman, W. D.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Coldrick, W.

    Benson, G.

    Brougton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Beswick, Frank

    Burke, W. A.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

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

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Blackburn, F.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Ross, William

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Lawson, G.M.

    Royle, C.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Short, E. W.

    Deer, G.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

    Simmons, C, J. (Brierley Hill)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Skeffington, A. M.

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

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Dye, S.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Snow, J. W.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Mahon, Simon

    Sparks, J. A.

    Fienburgh, W.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Mason, Roy

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Mellish, R. J.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Tomney, F.

    Grey, C. F.

    Monslow, W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)

    Moody, A. S.

    Viant, S. P.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Moss, R.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Hale, Leslie

    Moyle, A.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mulley, F. W.

    West, D. G.

    Hannan, W.

    Oliver, G. H.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Oram, A. E.

    White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Hastings, S.

    Orbach, M.

    Wigg, George

    Hayman, F. H.

    Owen, W.J.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

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

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Willey, Frederick

    Houghton, Douglas

    Paton, John

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Pearson, A.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pentland, N.

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

    Hunter, A. E.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercllffe)

    Popplewell, E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Woof, R. E.

    Janner, B.

    Probert, A. R.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Rankin, John

    Zilliacus, K.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Reid, William

    Jones, Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Cunningham, Knox

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Aitken, W. T.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement(Montgomery)

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

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Atkins, H. E.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Barter, John

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

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

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton. E.)

    Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Keegan, D.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Fort, R.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Body, R. F.

    Godber, J. B.

    Kimball, M.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Goodhart, Philip

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gower, H. R.

    Lambton, Viscount

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

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

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Car. R. (Nantwich)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Green, A.

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

    Brooman-White, R. C

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Bryan, P.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Gurden, Harold

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

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

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Campbell, Sir David

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Carr, Robert

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

    McAdden, S. J.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hay, John

    McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Cole, Norman

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    McKibbin, A. J.

    Cooke, Robert

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col. O. E.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Maddan, Martin

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hornby, R. P.

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

    940

    941

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn, Sir H.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Marshall, Douglas

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

    Matthew, R.

    Pott, H. P.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Maude, Angus

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Teeling, W.

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Temple, John M.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Rawlinson, Peter

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

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Redmayne, M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire,W.)

    Neave, Airey

    Russell, R. S.

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Wall, Major Patrick

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

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

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

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

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

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Osborne, C.

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Page, R. G.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Storey, S.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Partridge, E.

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Colonel J. H. Harrison and

    Mr. Barber.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  First Sehedule.—(RATES OF NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS.)
  7.30 p.m
  Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, in page 8, line 9, to leave out "1 4½" and insert "8½".
  The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I suggest that it would he convenient to discuss together all the Amendments to the Schedule.
  Mr. Houghton: I am sure that that will meet the convenience of the Committee.
  This is the Opposition's last despairing fling at this Bill. I will not say that if the Committee carries this Amendment the Bill will be completely wrecked, but I will say that it would be seriously damaged. The Amendment proposes to reduce the weekly rate of contribution in the First Schedule from the figures shown to about half of the proposed new contribution. What we propose is to put in the First Schedule, the contributions which are shown in the Second Schedule. The broad effect would be to reduce by half the proposed total contribution to the Health Service and to leave the Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution as the new contribution to the National Health Service.
  The Minister in his Second Reading speech explained the existing Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution and the proposed new National Health contribution. He said:
  942
  "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."
  Of those, the employer, in the case of employed persons, was assumed to pay l½d. The new contributions in the First Schedule are to be ls. 8d. for a man, Is. 4d. for a woman, and Is. for a juvenile, and the employer is to pay 3½d. of the new and increased contribution. That is how the figures in the First Schedule are arrived at. The Minister continued:
  " 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 the combined employers' and employees' contributions."
  Then he said that the:
  "…ed contributions will provide roughly £80 million a year compared with the present £40 million a year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 994–5]
  Our Amendment would certainly damage the Bill, though it would still leave the Minister with something. It would leave him with a National Health Service contribution, and that is what he wants. Although many of us are opposed in principle to a National Health Service contribution, for the purpose of this Amendment we are prepared to let him have it —but not as big a contribution as he wants.
  He said a few moments ago that one of the points of importance was to establish the principle of a contribution to the Health Service, to remove the

  943
  doubts and uncertainties and the ignorance of many people who think that they are contributing to the Health Service more than they are; so, he said, let the National Health Service contribution be seen for what it is. Large or small, let it be seen for what it is. This Amendment will let it be seen for what it is.
  The Minister said he wanted to make people aware of it. Very well. Our Amendment will enable people to be aware of it. He even went so far as to suggest that it was desirable for the public to realise how small a contribution they were making directly in proportion to the total cost. Our Amendment will make it smaller, and that ought to satisfy the Minister's requirement in that connection rather more than he is seeking.
  I do not know what the Minister can possibly be complaining about. We have given him everything except the money. We want the money to be reduced, because we think this will be a hardship on many people. Of course, in connection with the introduction of the National Health Service contribution, the Minister or his colleagues have indulged in a little jiggery-pokery. They have juggled about with the Income Tax, and if anything pains me it is to see Ministers juggling about with the Income Tax.
  What they have done is to say that the new National Health Service contribution shall not rank as a deduction from tax liability, whereas at present the National Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution does rank for tax relief. That, of course, is an additional burden upon those who are to pay the National Health Service contribution who are taxpayers.
  What has the Minister done? He has reduced the National Insurance contribution for the employed person by approximately 36s. a year. He has taken that 36s. and put it into the National Health Service contribution. Then, having thought of a number, he has doubled it, and this will not rank for tax relief. Therefore those who pay the National Health contribution—twice as much as the National Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution—will pay tax on the double contribution; whereas at the moment, they get tax relief on half of it. That is what I call jiggery-pokery, because the result is that
  944
  contributors who are taxpayers will pay several shillings a year more, in all, as a result of the change.
  It is true that the extra shillings will not go to the National Health Service directly. They will go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will finance the National Health Service indirectly, so that this is a hidden additional contribution to the National Health Service. I realise that contributors who are not liable to Income Tax are not the victims of this little trick, but to them the additional contribution will represent a net increase in their outgoings.
  On the employer's side, things are different. The employer can charge against his taxable profits, if he is in trade or business, the contributions that he has to make on behalf of his workers, both to the National Insurance scheme and, under this Bill, to the National Health Service. They will all rank as charges against taxable profits, so that he is left in the same favourable position as before. He will be making a slightly higher contribution under the Bill towards the Health Service than he was making before— 3½d. instead of 1½d.—but that will still rank for tax relief.
  We think that, if there is to be a National Health Service contribution, it should be no bigger than the National Health Service element in the National Insurance contribution, and so we propose in these Amendments a simple equation as between the First and Second Schedules. By the amount that we reduce the National Insurance contribution, to that extent we will impose a National Health Service contribution. That gives the Minister everything he wants except the money, and he really does not want the money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has money and to spare. He is absolutely rolling in it, and in this year's Budget he chose certain ways of reducing the surplus which he estimated would otherwise remain at the end of the present financial year.
  Consideration for the feelings of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite almost forbids my mentioning the principal respect in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to disburse part of his surplus, but he has given very substantial reliefs to persons of very substantial income. We would have thought

  945
  that he would have refrained from imposing an additional burden on the community generally, rich and poor alike, for the National Health Service, and that he would not have done it in this way at a time when he is giving substantial reliefs of taxation.
  I am not one of those who calls a flat rate contribution a poll tax, though some of my hon. Friends have so described it. It is a contribution—call it a form of taxation, if we like—but there is no doubt that the flat rate principle of contribution has some disadvantages from the point of view of the equitable distribution of the burden. It is well known that some fresh thinking is now being done in certain quarters on the desirability of continuing the flat rate contribution principle in connection with the National Insurance scheme.
  It is one of the principles of the party to which I belong that, as has already been stated once or twice this afternoon by some of my hon. Friends, the hazards of life of the individual should, as far as possible, be taken care of by the community. The community can do something for each one of us which it is often beyond our own power to do for ourselves. By this principle of communal effort we safeguard the individual from the hardships and hazards of life in this matter of health. In the case of old age, infirmity and sickness, there is an especial emotional appeal about community effort to protect those who suffer from ill-health and who are overtaken by sickness, very often prolonged, which can make a substantial difference to their standard of life and to the welfare of those who are dependent upon them.
  In getting treatment and proper attention during sickness, we all know from past experience the fear of doctors' bills in many a household in Britain. When I was a boy, if I may be permitted a personal note, behind a vase on the mantelpiece was the doctor's bill that had not been paid, and as long as that unpaid bill was there, we had to take care of our own colds and maladies in self-medication. The book of words which was kept in a cupboard in many working-class homes in those days was referred to by parents who wanted to see what they could do to get their children well, because they did not feel that they could call in the doctor because they had not paid his last bill.
  946
  7.45 p.m.
  The National Health Service removed that from all the homes of Britain in one go. There has been nothing more dramatic or more revolutionary in our social and domestic life than that, and none of us, I am sure, on either side of the Committee—or am I sure of the other side?—I assert that none of us on either side of the Committee wants to go back to those old days, but wants to keep the National Health Service in all its fundamentals.
  Here, we find a nibbling away at the first principle upon which the National Health Service rests. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite begin to nibble in this way, they can begin to nibble all round, and very soon the National Health Service will have quite a different look. This Amendment is a salutary warning to the Minister that, even at this last stage in the consideration of the Bill, we want to resist his attempt to impose an additional Health Service contribution.
  It goes against the grain for many of us that we have conceded that there should be a National Health Service contribution at all, but at this stage we cannot do anything to prevent that. All that we can do is to seek to reduce it in amount, and I therefore submit to the Committee this Amendment, which reduces the amounts in the First Schedule to those in the Second Schedule, which are almost half the amounts of the contributions which the First Schedule seeks to impose.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): It was with some measure of relief that I heard the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) saying that this was a last despairing fling. Of course, he put the argument against his Amendment eloquently and well. He said quite rightly that it would deprive my right hon. Friend of the money. Let us face the fact that if we are to have an expanding Health Service, we do need the money, and the Health Service, no matter what the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths), who is not here now, may say, is a service making real expansion in every direction.
  The hon. Member for Sowerby went into this rather abstruse point of Income Tax, and I must confess that for me to

  947
  try to teach him about Income Tax is a little absurd, because I know that he knows so much about it. The change that is being made so far as employers are concerned is only that an employer who is not carrying on a trade or business will no longer be entitled to deduct the National Health Service element in the contribution when he is paying Income Tax. I do not think there was any reason why he should have been allowed to do so. The principle that the same sum should not be taxed twice when dealing with benefits such as retirement benefit could not be said to apply with equity in this case.
  The hon. Gentleman made a heartfelt plea, which was really how hard this proposal would be on those in the highest ranges of Surtax, and it came very quaintly from the benches opposite. I hope that we shall be clear about what is being done. We are correcting an anomaly which was allowed to creep into the Finance Act, 1946, and which was continued in the Income Tax Act, 1952.
  I revert to the main theme of the Amendment, which, as the hon. Member for Sowerby said, would deprive us of the money that we need. It would also conflict with one purpose of the Bill— that the National Health Insurance contribution should meet a higher proportion of the growing cost. The Service is expanding, and the proportion which we derive from the contribution has been falling. In the first year of operation it was 10 per cent. The general expectation was originally that it would cover 20 per cent. of the cost. After the Bill becomes law we shall still be receiving only 11½ per cent. of the cost from contributions. Even if we add the charges we shall still only receive 17 per cent., compared with the 20 per cent. which was originally aimed at. The Committee should have those figures in mind. It is not unreasonable, considering the changes in income and the great expansion there has been in the Service, that we should get back to the original figure.
  Miss Herbison: In which part of the Financial Memorandum is the 20 per cent. mentioned?
  Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The 20 per cent. to which I was referring was mentioned in the Beveridge Report. I think
  948
  that the hon. Lady will find that the figure was generally accepted at the time.
  Miss Herbison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister, replying to an Amendment earlier today, mentioned that the figure was in the Financial Memorandum? If the Parliamentary Secretary is now basing his case on the Beveridge Report I think he will find that it has already been completely demolished.
  Mr. Vosper: As the hon. Lady has referred to me, may I say that if she will look at the Financial Memorandum to the 1946 Bill she will see the figure for the total estimated cost. From that, the proportion of 20 per cent. from the contribution can be worked out.
  Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that the point which she raised has now been completely answered. We consider it quite reasonable that the percentage of the cost derived from this source should be something like what it was then.
  We are also entitled to make something of the point that people will now be more aware of what they pay. It has never been easy to explain to our constituents that out of their contributions they get these various financial benefits, and that there is the strange anomaly that they do in fact make a contribution towards the National Health Service. Now we can say that the Is. 8d. goes directly to that Service.
  I do not think that our proposal will be as unpopular as hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think. The views of the hon. Member for Sowerby on Income Tax and poll tax matters are always very interesting and honest, but I do not think that there will be anything nearly approaching the popular outcry that he and other hon. Gentlemen opposite are gambling on.
  After all the arguments heard today, we have not heard one real point from Members opposite about what their own proposals would be for financing the expanding National Health Service. We have heard about the question of Surtax and the amount that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has distributed already, but we have not had a real, straightforward answer to the point, "How would hon. Gentlemen opposite find this sum?" I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
  Mr. Marquand: We are very glad to hear the views of the Parliamentary Secretary. We only wish that he had been empowered to go some way towards meeting us, or even towards saying something fresh. Unfortunately, he was not so empowered.
  He did say that he felt—I think that I am quoting him properly—that we were all now entitled to make it clear to our constituents that they pay to the National Health Service in the form of a direct contribution. The Amendment concedes that point, which we have argued on a previous Amendment. The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) gives the Minister his National Health Service contribution. There is nothing to stop the Minister from having his separate stamp indicating a contribution towards the National Health Service. In so far as that removes misconception from people's minds it will be fine.
  I quoted to the Parliamentary Secretary earlier what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). I doubt whether it would be more likely to increase rather than diminish the ignorance about the way in which the National Health Service is financed. The larger this special contribution the more likely people are to believe that the whole cost of the Service is met from it. However that may be, we have reached the point where we are obliged to accept from the Minister that he intends to have this special contribution. We concede it to him in the Amendment.
  So far we have unfortunately had no reply to what has been said in favour of the Amendment. We have not heard how far the Minister intends to go along this road. The hon. Member for Cheadle said that the present contribution was inadequate and that we ought to work towards having at least one-third of the cost of the National Health Service covered by contributions. That is the threat behind this proposal, despite all that the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that an increased contribution would require further legislation; of course it would. We know that.
  What is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind? Having said so much about the
  950
  desirability of a 20 per cent. contribution towards the cost of the National Health Service, can he say whether that is the final figure? I wish he would answer that question before we part from the Clause. We should like an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle, who has some influence in the counsels of Government supporters, and is likely, as time goes on, to have more influence. He has experience, and confidence as a debater, and we should not be at all surprised to see him obtain promotion to the Government Front Bench, Do his views influence the mind of the Minister?
  Do the Government agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle that the Bill is part of a gradual step, albeit by easy stages, towards the proportion that he mentioned? When is the next step to be taken? Before we press the Amendment to a Division we should like to have assurances on these points. We have not had answers upon them. I press the right hon. Gentleman to intervene again and to give us some sort of assurance.
  8.0 p.m.
  Could he also explain to us whether he gave any consideration to the equity of doubling the contribution for other classes of contributors? We accept that he wanted to get about double the money from insurance contributors he has been getting hitherto, but when he was drawing up these Schedules, did he really feel it was absolutely necessary to double every one? In particular, will he explain who are the non-employed boys and girls under the age of 18 who are to pay 1s. Health Service contribution and whose National Insurance contribution in this respect was previously 6d.? One could hazard a guess, but let us have it clearly from an authority. If it is equitable to double the contribution of an employed man earning wages of substantial amounts, is it equitable to double the contribution of non-employed boys and girls—or, for that matter, of employed boys and girls?
  At an earlier stage the Minister argued that good wages are being earned and that people ought to pay some contribution out of their increased earnings towards the increased costs of the National Health Service, that it is all

  951
  gradually moving up pari passu and the contribution ought to be increased proportionately, but does that apply to people earning small salaries or to boys and girls? Have their wages gone up? What about those boys and girls under the age of 18—who are they?
  What about the self-employed? Has there been a great deal of difficulty hitherto in collecting contributions from self-employed under National Insurance? Has that difficulty diminished as time has gone on, or has it tended to increase? What anticipation has the right hon. Gentleman about the ability of the Ministry to collect in future from large numbers of self-employed people in a small way of business the amount of contributions now to be asked from them? Has any thought been given to this, or has the Minister just thought of a number and doubled it? We should like to know something about the incidence of this charge on various classes of contributors.
  Has any estimate been made by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance? He is not here, but the Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry is present. Has any estimate been made of the effect of all this on the National Insurance contribution, which is nominally reduced, but that reduction is offset by an increase in the National Health Service contribution? What effect has that on the ability to collect contributions for the National Insurance Fund in future? We know that contributions to that Fund are bound to be increased. The Minister has already told us that they will be increased to pay for the improved conditions of benefit for widows and others in respect of whom we passed legislation this year and last year. Is there to be some increase in contribution from that source?
  At a later date—we suppose at a time as near as possible to the next General Election—the Government will be doing something for old-age pensioners. Are they to finance that by an increase in contributions? What is the size of the National Insurance contribution going to be at the end of all this process? Have the Government thought about that and considered whether these increases will not adversely affect the ability of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance adequately to finance and collect the finance for the National Insurance Fund? Will it not impede his ability to make
  952
  improvements for old-age pensioners and others affected?
  Those are all indirect repercussions. I may be wrong about some of them, but they are possible repercussions on the National Insurance Fund. When we are asked to vote on this Schedule we have to have in mind, not merely the National Health contribution, but possible repercussions on the National Insurance Fund. I should like to have answers to these questions.
  Mr. Vosper: The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) put three specific questions to me which I shall try to answer. I cannot give a further assurance about the future, except that I did say that further legislation will be required to increase this contribution still further. I am rather surprised that the right hon. Member belittled the difficulty of introducing legislation. I thought I was going as far as any Minister could go in saying that there was no intention in this Bill to increase the contribution above what is now proposed. I cannot go further than I have done in regard to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). I did not brief my hon. Friend on his contribution to the debate, and he would be the first to agree that there have been several occasions when he has not found himself in accord with his Front Bench.
  On the second point, about doubling the contributions of specific categories, of course I gave serious consideration to that, but I am satisfied that this will not impose hardship on any particular category. I should have thought the ones mentioned by the right hon. Member might be those least adversely affected. I am not satisfied that the sort of people contained in those categories—whose level of earnings, on the whole, has doubled—will find that this falls hardly on them.
  Mr. Marquand: What about the non-employed?
  Mr. Vosper: The non-employed are a very limited and technical category. I am not satisfied that we are causing hardship to them.
  The third point is that of course we have had prolonged consultations with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance and the Committee will have

  953
  noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary of that Ministry has been here in support during the whole Committee stage. My right hon. Friend the Minister and I are satisfied that in introducing this Bill we are not damaging the future prospects of National Insurance.
  Mr. Willis: I do not think we can let the increased contribution go quite so easily as this. This is a very important matter. It is all right for the Minister to try to dismiss it by saying that no one will suffer any hardship. That is the usual Tory excuse. When they make any increase they say that no one will suffer through having to pay ld. more for bread, or 2d. more for milk, but all these small matters add up to a total which forms an enormous hardship, not to a trifling amount. An increase of 8d. or 10d. means that a family which needs another pint of milk cannot afford to buy it. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to try to dismiss that as being nothing at all.
  I am still very much disappointed that the Scottish Office is not represented on the Government Front Bench in this debate. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance can do us the honour of being present for the whole debate, I think we could have had the attendances of at least one of the Scottish Ministers.
  Miss Herbison: There are two English Health Ministers present.
  Mr. Willis: Yes, and we have a sufficient number of Scottish Ministers, goodness knows. I should have thought that one could have attended to answer some of the questions we wish to raise.
  Do I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government now feel that 11 per cent.— which I understand is the amount of the cost to be met by contributions—is roughly the right amount? We had a lot of argument earlier about whether Beveridge was right or wrong. I am not so much concerned with that as with what the Government have in mind at present. If the Government think that roughly 11 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service ought to be met by contributions, are we to take it that, in spite of the difficulty of legislation, every time the cost of the National Health
  954
  Service rises, the contribution will be increased accordingly? We ought to have an answer to that.
  It is all very well for the Minister to say that it is difficult to introduce legislation. I have found that Tory Governments can always find time for a Bill of this character. If it is a question of spending money, then of course it becomes very difficult for them to find time for the Bill. We ought to be told a little more about the 11 per cent. and what the Government think is the right percentage. I asked the question earlier, but we did not receive an answer. Is it the Government's opinion that 11 per cent. of the cost of the National Health Service should be met by these contributions?
  I want to return to the question of what this additional money is needed for. I have already tackled the Minister twice upon it. He has been very clever; I assure him that I admired the nimbleness of mind with which he managed to skirmish around the answer. But it not sufficient to display nimbleness of wit in dealing with the question. What we should like is the answer.
  As a result of the increase in contributions in this Schedule, the Government will get an additional £42 million, of which, we understand, £20 million will be received this year. The question which 1 asked previously was this: if the Committee voted against the Schedule, would the National Health Service be cut by £20 million? Is this £20 million to mean an extension of the National Health Service to the amount of £20 million? We are entitled to the answer to that question.
  People are to be asked to pay 8d. or 10d. a week extra. The man in the factory will ask, "What am I paying this for? Shall I get something additional for it? Are they going to build a new hospital in my area or extend the various treatment centres in the area? Shall I get a reduction in some of my present charges?" He will ask all those question. Most men will ask one very simple question: what do I get in return for the extra money I have to pay?
  The Minister has skirted around the question twice but has not yet dealt with this specific point: next year, when he gets an additional £42 million, will the National Health Service be extended, more than otherwise would have been the

  955
  case, by £42 million? If so, in what direction?
  What does it mean in Scotland? We cannot ask about Scotland because the Joint Under-Secretary of State apparently thinks this Bill has nothing to do with him. I should have liked to know about some of the hospitals in my constituency. Does this extra money mean that we shall be able to get on with them? Is the hospital programme in Scotland to be extended as a result? That is a legitimate question to ask. If it is to be extended, where is it to be extended?
  We ought to have an answer to these questions, because a lot of money is involved. I do not believe that we should easily grant the Government the power to ask every man and woman for an additional 8d. or 10d. per week unless we know what the money is for and whether it is for new expenditure or to help the Government to pay for the existing scheme. I believe it is the latter. If the Minister is honest that is probably what he will tell us and he will not try to skirmish around the point.
  I do not wish to ask any more at the present, but we must insist on an answer to that specific question.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: I want to emphasise the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) about the absence of Scottish Ministers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If anyone thinks this is a frivolous point, let him turn to the front of the Bill, where he will see that it is sponsored not only by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance but also by the Secretary of State for Scotland, whose name is the second name sponsoring the Bill. Like my hon. Friends, I appreciate the fact that we have had present not only the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, who has been here practically throughout the course of the debate—and we are grateful to her—but also the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Both the Minister of Health and his Parliamentary Secretary have been present.
  We had in the House a Secretary of State for Scotland and two Joint Under-Secretaries of State. The Government
  956
  asked for a third, and eventually we had two more Ministers, in order to relieve the Secretary of State so that he could pay more attention to the House. We appointed a Minister of State to the Scottish Office who spends his time between another place and Scotland. With all these Ministers, surely one representative could have been present today. We are dealing with a Schedule which lists charges which will bring from the men and women and the youth of Scotland the sum of £8 million in National Health contributions, a net increase of the revenue of the National Health Service of £4·2 million when we take into account the element which is already paid.
  Surely it is not a matter of the Scottish Ministers saying, "I do not need to attend the House. We have no responsibility for these matters. It is only £8 million." It is less than fair of the Scottish Ministers in their attitude to their work for them so completely to ignore the fact that the Committee is discussing the Scottish Health Service.
  If hon. Members opposite do not appreciate it, I will explain to them that we have a special Health Service Act for Scotland, which is entirely different from and in many ways better than that for England. We dealt with that Bill as a Scottish Committee, with 15 English Members, and we had a separate Act.
  The Ministers now sitting on the Government Front Bench have no responsibility at all to speak for Scotland. The Minister said he had considered matters very carefully and had had a long discussion with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. Where was the Secretary of State for Scotland? Was anything discussed with him? Let me tell the Minister again that nothing he says from the Government Bench means anything to us Scottish Members of Parliament, He has quoted figures. He did not say whether they were for the United Kingdom or for England and Wales or whether Scotland was included. He must be sensible of his limitations, and if he is speaking on behalf of another Minister he should say so. If he is quoting figures, let him quote them for the whole of the United Kingdom and say so.
  We are dealing with a matter of importance to the people of Scotland. The

  957
  Minister of Health spoke about the level of wages. One outstanding difference between the two countries is that the level of wages is lower in Scotland than in England and Wales. We have a separate wages board to decide the wages of agricultural workers in Scotland. The wage level is decidedly lower than it is in England and Wales.
  I should have thought that the Secretary of State for Scotland or, in his absence, the Minister of Health would have given some justification why, despite that fact, the contribution should be exactly the same for people in Scotland as for people in England and Wales, but we have not had a word of justification. This is a poll tax. More than that, in respect of people whose earnings are lower than the average level, there is injustice and unfairness even within the poll tax.
  What is happening is that by this Schedule we are laying down the actual contributions by which the Ministers concerned are prepared—[Interruption.] I do not wish, and I am sure that you, Sir Charles, do not wish me to repeat the earlier part of my speech now that the Joint Under-Secretary has arrived. We shall probably have ample opportunity tomorrow, and probably all day tomorrow in Scottish Grand Committee—[AN HON. MEMBER: "How long?"]. Last week it was eight o'clock, and the week before. The week before that it was a quarter-past four in the morning. I do not know what time it will be tomorrow, but I think that I will have an ample opportunity to remind the Joint Under-Secretary that in this House he has certain responsibilities for Scottish legislation.
  Here we are breaching a principle. Hitherto we have riot had an actual contribution, but now we arc to have a definite contribution paid weekly by all employed persons in respect of the National Health Service. The first question I want to ask is: how long is that to last? Anybody who has been considering this Bill on Second Reading and in Committee will recollect that he have had one or two percentages given.
  We have heard the Minister, or that Minister who did speak, proclaim that this was not really so bad because it did not come up to the 20 per cent. envisaged in some Memorandum preparatory to the introduction of the Health Service, and telling us that even this 11 per cent., with
  958
  an added 5½ per cent., only came to somewhere about 17 per cent. Are we to take it that there is to be a gradual approach in the contributory element to the 20 per cent. with or without changes in respect of health charges? Is that the aim? If it is, we should know.
  Secondly, to what is this related? Is it because of the virtue of some long-forgotten formula that had some special righteousness of its own that we must return to it? I should like to ask the Minister—and now that we have with us the Joint Under-Secretary who can say something for Scotland I should like to ask him: to what purpose is this money to be applied in respect of Scotland? Is it that the Joint Under-Secretary cannot tell us? Are we to have the same kind of speech that we had, I think, from the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) today, who told us that the choice lay between this Bill and failure to extend the Service?
  We have not had any extension of the Service, and even with this Bill, I gather, we shall have no extension of the Service. I should like to know from the Joint Under-Secretary whether or not some of the money is to be applied to the forthcoming increase in the salaries and emoluments of general practitioners in Scotland. After that takes place, are we to he faced with another Bill or an order to increase the present amounts? The fact is that, although we have been spending more money, we have had no extension of the Service in Scotland. It is the same with every Estimate coming from the Government in respect of every other service—spending more money to get less for it.
  What is to happen next year when we are faced with the same position of the Government having failed once again to control inflation, when costs rise, and again we are faced with the same choice of more money or a cut in the Service? Are we to get out of that position by coming along with another Bill and another Schedule like this, increasing the amounts to be paid by the employed? This paying for the Service or for any part of the Service, not according to the ability of people to pay but by a tax which, by its very nature, if it does anything at all, hits hardest those earning least, is so obviously unfair.

  959
  In this respect, the Government cannot expect any support from this side. Of course, we now have a chance to hear, for the first time during the whole of the Committee stage, a Scottish Minister defending a piece of Scottish legislation. It was suggested at one point that the Minister of Health had lost his battle with the Treasury. What help, if any, did he get from the Scottish Office in this mythical battle with the Treasury? Or were the Scottish Ministers so wrapped up in the cutting of housing subsidies in Scotland and the producing of a wonderful plan that will certainly not add at all to Glasgow's ability to solve its overspill problems, that they left the matter for English Ministers to deal with on their own?
  Now that he is here, perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will address himself to the points in this Bill. Why is it necessary that in Scotland, where the wage level is lower than it is in England, we should have these standard contributions for the Health Service? Having collected the £4·2 million net increase, to what is it to be applied? Is there to be any extension of the Service, or is that sum to be swallowed up by inflation? I ask that because of the Government's past failures—and, by every prospect, their future failure—to control the never-ending bogey of inflation.
  Could the Joint Under-Secretary tell us how long it will be before he, with his right hon. and hon. and Friends, comes back with another such Bill further breaching the principle of a Health Service without contributions by way of weekly stamp? How long will it be before he comes back to increase the contribution? Having waited a long time to hear the voice of someone from the Scottish Office, I think that we are entitled not only to ask these questions but to expect that the Joint Under-Secretary, now being present, will address himself to the Scottish points in the Bill.
  Miss Herbison: Surely now that at long last we have present a Scottish Minister, we shall hear something about the point of view of the Scottish Office on this important matter. It seems to me to be discourteous that only now, when the Bill has almost reached the end of its Committee stage, do we have a Scottish Minister in attendance.
  960
  I am sure that the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) deserve a reply from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. But I am not in the least surprised that he stays glued to his seat. In view of our experience in the Scottish Grand Committee, where we are dealing with a Bill which the Scottish Ministers are supposed to have studied, and on which we get so little information from them—indeed they often contradict themselves—it seems to me that it might be very difficult for the Joint Under-Secretary to speak on the Bill which is now before us and deal with the important points which have been raised.
  As the Joint Under-Secretary is quite unable to answer those points, I should have thought there would have been some camaraderie between the Tory Ministers, and that the Minister of Health might have sprung to the protection of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and might have tried to give answers to the questions that have been raised by Scottish Members. But that camaraderie does not seem to exist.
  8.30 p.m.
  One specific question has been asked on a number of occasions today by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). The Minister has not given an answer to that question, and it seems to me that before any decision is taken on this Schedule, which seeks to increase the contribution, the Minister ought to reply to my hon. Friend. The question is simple. If this increased contribution were not available to the Government, would that mean a cut in the National Health Service? Putting it another way, if this increased contribution does find its way into the Ministry of Health and into the Health Service in Scotland, does it mean that on this year's estimates we shall get an increase equivalent to the increase in this contribution? It seems to me that the Minister should answer these questions, and so far he has not done so.
  My next point is this. The Minister is doubling the contributions towards the Health Service, and he glibly talks about earnings having doubled. He does not mention that wages have gone up 70 per cent. and not 100 per cent. Yet here he is trying to make a case for doubling contributions on the basis that incomes

  961
  have doubled when, in many instances, incomes have not doubled at all. The Minister has made no case whatever for doubling the contributions. There is no case for the Government to get money for the National Health Service out of contributions rather than from taxation.
  The Minister said that no one from this side of the Committee has made an authoritative suggestion on how this extra money should be found, if it were needed. On a number of occasions I, and I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), have said that we would not have asked for that increased contribution, but that we would have used money from taxation instead of giving it to the Surtax payers. Surely, that is clear enough, even to the Minister, who has heard it on a number of occasions.
  I ask the Minister at least to answer the specific question that has been put by my right hon. Friend; and perhaps he will have a whispered discussion with the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on another question that I asked him about the division of this extra contribution. I asked him how it would be divided between the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Office, and he told me that it would be divided as it is at present, according to the insured population. So far as I can understand, that is not how the Health Service in Scotland is financed at all. We have the Goschen formula; in other words, from what the Minister of Health pays to the National Health Service, the Scottish Office gets eleven-eightieths. That is another point that ought to be cleared up before we take a vote on the question of these increased contributions.
  Mr. Willis: We have plenty of time tonight, because the Government have moved the suspension of the Rule and, therefore, we have time for the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to accustom himself to the climate of the debate and to rack his mind in order that he may answer some of the questions we have been asking.
  Now that the Joint Under-Secretary has condescended to grace the Committee with his presence, I want to ask a further question about the crofters of Scotland. It concerns the contributions, as will be seen when I come to expand this point.
  962
  When the National Insurance Bill went through the Committee in 1946, we had long discussions about the rate of contribution in so far as it affected the Highland counties. There was a special reason for that. Money incomes amongst crofters and a number of people in the Highlands are very small. The people there tend to live by barter. A grocer, for instance, goes out with his wagon and comes back with a certain amount of produce which he has obtained from the crofters.
  We did discuss at that time, as the hon. Gentleman will find if he cares to turn up the Report, whether or not the suggested rate of contribution was not too heavy. This is very relevant to what we are discussing now, because we are here considering an increase in the rate of contribution. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who is looking very amiable, in his usual forthcoming manner will give us the benefit of his advice and tell us whether this matter was borne in mind during the preparation of the Bill. If it was, what did the Scottish Office have to say about it? Did the Scottish Office make any representations to the English Ministers and the Treasury about it? If it did, why has it doubled the contribution from crofters and others in their position? This is a purely Scottish matter It is a question which, I am sure, the English Ministers are quite unable to answer. Therefore, if we are to have any light shed upon it, as well as upon the other matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), we must have a word from the Joint Under-Secretary. I beg the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes to get his Bill quickly, to treat the House courteously and to endeavour to answer the questions which Scottish Members are putting to him, for they are put in all seriousness.
  We want to know what is to happen as a result of the increased contribution in Scotland as a whole. What has he in mind? I notice that he made a great speech at the weekend about the National Health Service. He had an excellent Press and an excellent opportunity for outlining his ideas for the spending of this additional money in Scotland. Having read his speech, I am bound to say that I did not gather from it that he contemplated doing very much. All he did was

  963
  to lecture people on the National Health Service and how they ought to run it, and not give them any encouragement in the running of it. Neither did he tell them —and this is closely relevant to the point on which we want an answer—that his Government were introducing a Bill in the House of Commons which would give them an additional eleven-eightieths of £41 million, that is to say, approximately £5 million. His speech to this gathering received wide publicity throughout Scotland, but he did not say, "We are introducing a Bill in the House of Commons which will give us an additional £5 million per annum, £2½ million during the current year; as a result of this increased income to the National Health Service Fund, we shall be able to do this, that and the other ".
  Mr. Ross: If my hon. Friend will allow me to say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) pointed out that the Goschen formula is not working in this respect. If my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) turns to the Financial Memorandum, he will find that, according to the table at the end, the net additional payment towards the cost of the Service in Scotland is to be £.4·1 million.
  Mr. Willis: I was trying to get a figure which could be used with some degree of accuracy. I admit that my hon. Friend was absent for a few moments when the English Minister, the Minister of Health, answered my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, however, did not make the position clear. Once again, his answer was most unsatisfactory. I am simply using the Goschen formula so that we might arrive at the figure for Scotland.
  What is the Minister doing with this extra £2½ million this year? We have not yet been told whether it is additional. We are still in the dark about it. Perhaps we can find out whether we are actually getting additional income or simply finding a new method of paying for the old expenditure by asking whether, if it is additional income, the Minister has in mind projects in Scotland on which it will be spent. What will the £5 million be spent upon next year? Will it be spent
  964
  in the south-eastern, the northern or the south-western region, or where will it be spent? What projects has the Minister in mind? We are entitled to an answer.
  The Minister of Health fails to give the answer we want. I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will not be as discourteous as that. He knows that Scottish Members are accustomed to rather better treatment and that, whilst English Members might put up with anything, we from Scotland are not prepared to put up with that kind of thing. We like to have answers to questions and to know what we are doing. Where money is concerned, we like to know where it is to be spent. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary, in his usual charming and obliging manner, will treat us in the same fashion on the Floor of the House and try to give us some of the information we want.
  Mr. Ross: The signatories in support of the Bill are the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. This First Schedule lays down what has to be paid by everyone employed in Scotland, whether man or woman, boy or girl, by way of weekly contribution. That contribution is to be taken from them and remitted by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to the Secretary of State for Scotland at such times and in such sums as the Treasury thinks fit.
  Surely, we are entitled to have from the Joint Under-Secretary—and the longer I speak, the better brief he will get from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health —an explanation of why that money is necessary and why these particular sums must be paid. How much will they amount to for Scotland? For what purpose is the money to be applied once it is collected? We are entitled to know why these amounts have been specified in the Schedule and why there has been no differentiation in respect of the National Health Service in Scotland.
  I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will not feel that we are in any way aggressive. As Scottish Members, however, we feel that if the signature of the Secretary of State is required to the Bill and he has been in discussion concerning both its principle and its detail, as Members representing Scottish constituencies we have a right to know exactly how the Bill is to work in Scotland and the reason

  965
  for these precise figures. The Joint Under-Secretary appears to be rising to his feet. Now that he has decided to speak, I hope that he will not be impatient about getting me to sit down.
  8.45 p.m.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to these questions—why Scotland participates in the first place, why these figures are applicable to England and Scotland, how the money will be divided in respect of the Scottish Health Service and, having received the money, how it will be spent. We should also like a specific answer to the question, which has been put more than twice in the debate, whether the sum coming in this year is new and additional to the Estimates already laid before the House of Commons. Does this mean that there will be an extension to the tune this year of over £2 million and in a full year of £4·2 million in relation to the Scottish Health Service?
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I can assure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and the Committee that there is no question of any discourtesy to the Committee in the fact that no Scottish Minister has actually taken part in the discussion on the Bill. I assure hon. and right hon. Members that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has co-operated with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health at all stages and, so far as Scotland and England are concerned, this is an agreed Measure in every respect.
  As hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies know, there is really no separate Scottish aspect in the Bill, although they have endeavoured to find some particular Scottish aspect in order, quite properly, to get me to speak. The only point that I would make is that the division between England and Scotland is on the basis of the insured population.
  Mr. Willis: The division of contribution, but what about the division of expenditure?
  Mr. Browne: We are discussing the contribution. It is on the basis of the insured population, but a final decision will be made by the Government, and I can assure the Committee that, as always, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that Scotland gets her fair share.
  Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question which has been put to him two or three times? Is this sum of money already in the Estimates or, the Government having got it when the Bill receives a Third Reading, does it mean that there will be an extension to the extent of £2·5 million this year in expenditure on the Scottish Health Service; or will that money not be spent but held over in respect of the future of the Service? Can we have a reply?
  Question put, That "1 4½" stand part of the Schedule:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 185, Noes 146.

  Division No. 109.]

  AYES

  [8.49 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Fort, R.

  Aitken, W. T.

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

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Channon, Sir Henry

  Godber, J. B.

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Arbuthnot, John

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Gower, H. R.

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Cole, Norman

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Atkins, H. E.

  Cooke, Robert C.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Green, A.

  Barber, Anthony

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Barter, John

  Corfield, Cant. F. V.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Gurden, Harold

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Bishop, F. P.

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

  Body, R. F.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hay, John

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

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

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

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

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne.N.)

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Bryan, P.

  Finlay, Graeme

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Burden, F. F. A.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Hornby, R. P.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

  Russell, R. S.

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Manningham Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

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

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

  Mathew, R.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Maude, Angus

  Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

  Hyde, Montgomery

  Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Mawby, R. L.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Storey, S.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Keegan, D.

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Heave, Airey

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Kerr, H. W.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Kershaw, J. A.

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

  Teeling, W.

  Kimball, M.

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Temple, John M.

  Lagden, G. W.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Lambert, Hon. G.

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

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

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Osborne, C.

  Turner, H. F. L.

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

  Page, R. G.

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Partridge, E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Lucas, P. B. (Brantford & Chiswick)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

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

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Pott, H. P.

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

  Profumo, J. D.

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  McKibbin, A. J.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Redmayne, M.

  Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hn.Harold(Bromley)

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Mr. Hughes-Young and

  Maddan, Martin

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Mr. Brooman-White.

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Albu, A. H.

  Fienburgh, W.

  Mason, Roy

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Monslow, W.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Moody, A. S.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Moss, R.

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Moyle, A.

  Benson, G.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Beswick, Frank Blackburn, F.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Noel-Baker Francis (Swindon)

  Blackburn, F.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Griffiths, William (Exchange)

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hale, Leslie

  Oliver, G. H.

  Boardman, H.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Orem, A. E.

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

  Hannan, W.

  Orbach, M.

  Bowles, F. C.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Owen, W. J.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Hastings, S.

  Paget, R. T.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hayman, F. H.

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

  Burke, W. A.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pentland, N.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Holmes, Horace

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Popplewell, E.

  Callaghan, L. J.

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Carmichael, J.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

  Champion, A. J.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliff)

  Probert, A. R.

  Chapman, W. D.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Janner, B.

  Rankin, John

  Coldrick, W.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Collins,V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Ross, William

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Short, E. W.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Lawson, G. M.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

  Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Deer, G.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Snow, J. W.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Donnelly, D. L.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Dugdale, Rt. John (W. Brmwch)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Dye, S.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mahon, Simon

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

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

  968

  969

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Tomney, F.

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Woof, R. E.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Viant, S. P.

  Willey, Frederick

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Weitzman, D.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Williams, Rev. Liywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

  West, D. G.

  Willis. Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Schedule agreed to.
  Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

  MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [Lords]
NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL
As amended, considered.

Clause 12.—(DISOBEDIENCE OR THREATEN ING SUPERIOR OFFICER.)
9.53 p.m.
Mr. William Wells: I beg to move, in page 4, line 32, to leave out from "officer" to "or" in line 33 and insert:
" (by whatever means communicated to him)".
The Amendment relates to the offence of wilful disobedience to a lawful command. That is an offence punishable by dismissal with disgrace or a term of imprisonment or some lesser sentence. This Amendment was the subject in a modified form of considerable debate in Committee of the whole House. The point involved gave the same difficulty to the Select Committee, and I was glad to notice that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), the Chairman of the Select Committee, in the course of the Committee stage said that this was a matter which deserved further consideration.
Shortly, the point at issue is this. The Bill as drafted penalises
" Every person subject to this Act who…wilfully disobeys any lawful command of his superior officer, whether given or sent to him personally or not; …"
It is to the words, "Whether given or sent to him personally or not", that we on this side of the House have taken some exception.
The Parliamentary Secretary, when replying to that debate, said that this matter would receive further consideration, and on that undertaking I withdrew the Amendment which I had then moved. The Government have honoured this undertaking, and I have been privileged to receive very courteous and extremely erudite letters both from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Civil Lord seeking to justify the retention of those words. In view, however, of subsequent conversations between the Civil Lord and myself, I need only state in the shortest form the reasons why we have at this late stage pursued the Amendment which we moved in Committee, and added to it.
The doubt that we feel about the Clause as it stands is that the words:
"•whether given or sent to him personally or not …"
988
may in some way, if not shift the onus of proof of receipt of the order, at any rate make it much easier for the prosecution to prove receipt. There is no difference between the Government and ourselves, and never has been, in what we intended, but the arguments by which the Government, both on the Floor of the House and in the letters which they have addressed to me personally have sought to justify the retention of those words have not convinced me.
I agree that the words "wilfully disobeys" tie the disobedience to the wilfulness, and if the words which we seek to omit are deleted, there could be no doubt at all that in order to bring an officer or a man within the mischief of the Clause it would be necessary for the prosecution to establish not only the fact of disobedience but that it was wilful disobedience of an order which has been received. I am not clear that the words in the Clause as drafted have that effect.
In the course of his answer in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that what the Admiralty really had in mind was to make sure that the modern means of communication of orders, which are now a matter of everyday occurrence, should be capable in a proper case of attracting the same penalties as an order given by the older and more conventional means of dispatch. It seems to us that, if that is what is intended, it is best to use the most explicit words possible to achieve that result. Therefore, the Amendment seeks to delete:
"…whether given or sent to him personally or not…"
and substitute for that formula:
"…by whatever means communicated to him…"
I do not think that there is a great risk in the words as they stand, but I think there is a small risk of a very grievous peril. I believe that the words which I wish to substitute remove that peril.
I would only add that the Clause in the nature of the case relates mainly to offences which will be committed in action under all the hazards of active operations. It will probably relate more to officers, or at any rate to warrant officers, than to ordinary ratings—to men who have taken what must be one of the gravest responsibilities that a man can undertake, responsibility for the lives of his fellow men in action. We on this

989
side think that no safeguard, compatible with the discipline of the armed forces, could be too strict to protect men who have undertaken those responsibilities.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to second the Amendment.
10.0 p.m.
The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Although I do not think that the wording of the Clause as it stands is open to the objections to which the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) has referred, I appreciate the reasons which caused him to table the Amendment. As he said, there is really no difference between us. We are both agreed that the offence is that of wilfully disobeying, and that wilfully disobeying depends on the accused having received orders.
However, the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment makes the position perhaps clearer than it was in the original wording. For this reason, the Government are quite willing to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 125.—(CHANNEL ISLANDS AND ISLE OF MAN.)
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 58, line 5, at the end to insert
" or under the laws of the States of Guernsey, entitled the Illegitimacy Laws, 1927 and 1955."
The purpose of the Amendment is to correct a slight error in the Bill and to enable the courts of Guernsey as well as those of the Isle of Man to make use of the special arrangement provided by Clause 101 for serving a process on sailors in affiliation cases. With this explanation, I hope that the House will accept this small, technical Amendment.
Mr. W. Wells: I would only ask whether the Amendment also covers the position in Sark.
Mr. Galbraith: I understand that there are no affiliation cases in any of the other Channel Islands.
Amendment agreed to
10.2 p.m.
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We are very glad in the Admiralty that the Naval Discipline Bill should now have reached this stage. We are all of us in this House most grateful to the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), for their hard work in preparing the way for the Bill and also for the co-operation which it has received from all parts of the House. Actually, I doubt if any Measure so closely affecting the efficiency of the Navy could ever have become a party matter, but it is, I think, a mark of the Select Committee's outstanding success that the Bill should have proved so uncontroversial.
That is not to say, of course, that we have not had some entertaining debates. I shall always remember with equal gratitude the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) on behalf of the ancient phraseology of the present Act and the eloquent praise of the Navy by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who I am sorry to see has just left the House.
The Bill will be of the greatest possible benefit to the Navy, and I hope that after its easy passage here it will have a passage equally swift and uneventful in another place.
10.5 p.m.
Mr. W. Wells: I am very grateful to the Civil Lord for his kind words about the Select Committee, of which I was a very insignificant member. I think this Bill has filled a very important gap. It was high time that a new Naval Discipline Bill was introduced and much of the dead wood was cut away. I think that that object has been successfully achieved.
For myself, I cannot pretend that there are not one or two features in the Bill that I would have wished to see rather different. I still think it is a pity that the Bill has a Preamble. Modern Bills do not have Preambles, and this is a modern Bill. If there was a case, perhaps, for preserving the Preamble—
Commander J. W. Maitland: Although this is a modern Bill, it is dealing with a very ancient institution.
Mr. Wells: This House is a very ancient institution, but we should not be discharging our duty if we did not attempt from time to time to bring our Measures up to date.
I was saying that while there is a case, which I appreciate, for keeping the Preamble in its original form, if it were at all realistic to do so, it was realised on all sides that this was not possible. With due deference to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), I feel that this Preamble is a rather weak and almost flabby substitute for the robust and vigorous language of the Preamble to the former Act. For myself, I would have wished to see the provisions as to public worship more closely safeguarded than they have been.
Having said these things, I must add that I feel that the Bill as a whole is a thoroughly good one. It has been conducted both in the Select Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House, with the utmost good will on both sides, and I am sure that it has testified to the high honour and esteem in which this House holds, and always will hold, what is the senior of Her Majesty's Services.
10.8 p.m.
Sir Patrick Spens: May I say a word of thanks for what has been said about the work of the Select Committee on this Naval Discipline Bill? Tonight, we are closing another chapter in the history of the disciplinary Acts of all three Services. I hope that this is to be the last chapter in this House on this occasion, and that, as my hon. Friend the Civil Lord hoped, another place will not go out of its way to make Amendments.
The work started rather more than five years ago, when we entered upon the revision of the old Army Act, and each of the three Measures—the two Acts and this Bill—has its own distinctions in certain Sections, having regard to the special circumstances affecting the different Services. In this Bill, there are perhaps more special requirements than in either of the other two, because the difference between service at sea and service on land and in the air is somewhat greater than
992
that between service in the Army and service in the Royal Air Force.
But, there is running through all three Measures a great chain of similarity, both in regard to offences, punishments and the manner in which they are tried or disposed of. That seemed to me, and I think to Members of the Select Committee, very necessary in these modern times, when so frequently, year by year and month by month, operations are more and more combined operations between the three Services, in which it is absolutely essential that similar offences should be treated, punished and dealt with on similar lines. We hope, therefore —or I hope—that the Bill, like the other two Measures, will prove to be a useful piece of legislation.
It is noteworthy that some of the provisions of the Army Act and the Bill date back about three hundred years at least. We are preserving still, I am glad to say some of the most ancient of the provisions. It has taken us five years to do the whole job, and as the period has come to an end there has been general talk of an integrated defence force. If that comes about in the near future, someone or some Select Committee will have to set to work on an integrated discipline Act for the new defence force. Therefore, I scarcely think that our attempt in this century is likely to last as long as the Army Act and the Naval Discipline Act have lasted up to date. I very willingly hand over that future task to another person or to another Select Committee.
10.11 p.m.
Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I would detain the House for a few moments to say how much I welcome this effort to revise certain aspects of the Naval Discipline Act, and that undoubtedly we are indebted to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) and his Committee for the work they put in in revising those Acts for us.
It is not only a matter of the way in which we amend Service Discipline Acts, but also of the administration of those Acts. I should like to have a word privately some time with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because I still have reservations to make about the minor punishments which are imposed

993
upon naval ratings in particular, as I knew to my cost during the time I was in the Service.
I have come to the conclusion upon reading Clause 6 that I must have been extremely fortunate. I recall that I had been in the Navy only a short time in 1917. I had been drafted to a ship which I think was called the "Diadem" and which was in the harbour at Portsmouth. I went to the engine room to do my first middle watch. I had never been up before between the hours of midnight and four a.m., and so I had not been on the watch very long before I fell asleep. The chief petty officer came along, nudged me in the side and said, "What's the matter, old chap? Can't you keep awake?" I answered. "No." He said, "Walk up and down". I think that is where sailors get the habit of walking up and down. I walked up and down, but when I sat on the rail I again fell asleep. The officer took compassion on me and said that I had better turn in.
I thought I had got off rather lightly until the next day when I saw that I was being punished by being put on a torpedo boat in the Solent to fire it for the rest of the day. I still feel that I was very fortunate when I notice that the term of imprisonment to which I had rendered myself liable was not less than two years. Fortunately for me there must have been some compassion in the heart of the chief petty officer, because I escaped with a very much lighter sentence than that.
I mention this incident to illustrate that it is not only what we put down upon paper that matters but the way these Services are administered. We can only hope that the officers who are responsible for the administration of naval discipline will continue to show the good sense, leniency and understanding that they have shown in the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

NAVAL AND MARINE RESERVES PAY BILL
Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

ROADS AND RAILWAYS, WALES
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
10.16 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: In raising the subject of the advantages of provision of better roads and rail communications in Wales, I am conscious that the benefits of better communications of this kind would be of advantage in all parts of the United Kingdom. If I mention specially the Principality I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not think that I am merely indulging in a kind of special pleading, but will appreciate that I am mentioning it because I feel that the industrial development which has taken place, particularly in South Wales, since the last war from the point of view of economic efficiency does merit some increased attention by the Government and his Department and consideration of what can be done.
Since the war, indeed before the war, the amount of money expended on the improvement of our roads is widely recognised to have been rather inadequate. The work done at the peak of the proposed new programme will not really exceed the work done in the best years before the war. Meanwhile, as has been stated recently, the number of vehicles on the roads has more than doubled and the problem has been increased in certain areas and trouble spots to which I shall refer. It has been accentuated by the growth of industrial traffic due to the development of industries in the South Wales area.
Those who represent constituencies in South Wales are pleased that the pre-war depression and unemployment now seem to be things of the past. We are pleased, also, that far from there being a return to those conditions there has been a recognisable development and improvement and increased diversity in our industry. It is with those thoughts in mind that in this short debate I wish to mention a few outstanding problems. I should describe the industrial part of South Wales as a part of the United Kingdom which is in some cases and in some districts almost a boom area. It is an industrial area which also shows every sign of increasing in activity and,

995
we hope, in prosperity, but it is insufficiently supplied with one of the chief necessities of commerce—an adequate system of communications, particularly by road.
May I first refer to the main entrance into South Wales from Gloucester and from London? As long ago as 1949 a survey of that main road from Gloucester to South Wales revealed that its average width at that time was only about 20 ft. If my hon. Friend has driven along that road he knows how exasperating it can be if one gets into a long stream of traffic and how long the journey may take if one has to follow a line of large industrial trucks and lorries. Visability is so poor, owing to the twists and turns in that road, that anything like good speeds were quite impossible in 1949, and the position has not greatly improved today, despite the valiant efforts of the county councils of Gloucestershire and Monmouthshire.
My hon. Friend is no doubt acquainted with the single-line bridge over the Wye at Chepstow. He realises that that bridge is an anachronism in modern conditions. The difficulty there is accentuated by the hazards of the very steep hill through the town of Chepstow, on which hill there have been one or two very serious accidents recently, and also by the existence of an old archway not more than about 10 ft. in height. That is one of the main entrances into the Principality, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will admit that it is quite inadequate.
I know that I shall probably be told that the only solution is the provision of the subsidiary roads which will feed the projected Severn Bridge. I shall not include any particular reference to the Severn Bridge in these remarks tonight because it is such a big subject that it deserves a special debate, but I do not subscribe to the view that because it is deemed to be impracticable to build the Severn Bridge immediately nothing can be done to improve the existing roads.
The conditions between Gloucester and Chepstow are, of course, rather worse than those between Chepstow and Newport, where the road shows definite improvement. There is, however, a need for a better trunk road between Newport and Swansea. There is a partly completed by-pass, sometimes called the Cardiff by-
996
pass, of which so far only one part, the Western Avenue, erected before the last war, has been completed.
There is also a need for the completion of a by-pass at Aberavon and possibly at Cowbridge. The order for the Aberavon by-pass was made as long ago as 1949, but the original proposal has been reduced and whittled down to the extent, I understand, that it is to be limited to the western half of the original scheme. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give the House some information about the progress of the necessary preliminary steps before work can proceed with that scheme.
The next need to which I should like to refer is the completion of the proposed northern route out of Cardiff to the area of Merthyr and Pontypridd. My hon. Friend is aware of the existence of the Manor Way, Whitchurch, Cardiff, which was partly erected before the last war. I understand that it is likely that the work may soon proceed. Many people in South Wales are anxious to know how soon.
Then there is the very important need for better road communications between South Wales and the Midlands. This is a tremendous necessity if the South Wales ports are to be able to build up and sustain a new general cargo traffic to take the place of the coal exports which they have lost since the war. In this connection, the three material schemes to which I must refer are the Ross Spur, the project for a heads-of-the-valleys road, and the proposals for a Worcester by-pass.
Of those, the Ross Spur scheme seems most likely to mature within a reasonable time. The Order for the scheme was made in 1954. I recognise that the preliminary steps—the appeals, etc.—must take some time, but I should like to know from my hon. Friend what can be done to speed up those preliminary steps, and how soon he thinks that the work may commence. I heard recently that it is hoped to commence some of the work even this year, and I sincerely hope that that is true.
Then, there is the project for the heads-of-the-valleys road, which is intended to connect Hirwaun with Abergavenny, and Abergavenny with Ross. This can easily be seen, if my hon. Friend glances at

997
the plans he has, to be just as necessary as the Ross Spur scheme, if there is to be a proper line of communication between the Midlands and the very important industrial area around Swansea, Neath and Aberavon. The needs of the great industrial undertaking at Margam, the factories of South-West Wales and of the oil refinery at Llandarcy, all depend on the early completion of these communications.
Then, in the event of very large developments which are now likely at Milford Haven and in West Wales, there will be an obvious need for far-reaching road improvements in that part of the Principality. Tonight, I can only briefly refer to the long-standing difficulty due to the fact that there is no reasonable communication between North and South Wales. I confess that the economic factors there may be far smaller and less weighty than those to which I have already referred.
In setting the subject of this Adjournment debate, I made some reference to rail communications. I recognise that it is not easy for my hon. Friend to deal adequately with those as well as with the many road schemes to which I have already referred, but if it is at all possible, I should be grateful if he could give some small indication of the extent of the modernisation and dieselisation programmes as they may affect Wales.
Generally, the railway efficiency in Wales seems to have increased. For example, the passenger trains, and indeed the industrial traffic, from Paddington to South Wales seem to be running more promptly and more effectively than some years ago, but there are still one or two black spots. While, for example, the main line passenger trains from London to Cardiff are quick and prompt and run to time, the traveller who wishes to go from Cardiff to West Wales has still an unnecessarily long journey to face.
Similarly, while we welcome the newly-announced train service between Bangor and Cardiff, we still have possibly two of the worst train journeys there are in the United Kingdom. I refer, of course, to the famous train journey between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth. Of that, there is the story of the man travelling on that train who was astounded one night to see a man running parallel with the track. He leaned out of his com-
998
partment and asked this man to jump into the train and to take the scat alongside him, but the man refused on the ground that he was in a desperate hurry. Another line which is similarly very slow is that of the rail entrance to mid-Wales, the Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth line. I hope that that, too, will be improved in the very near future.
I apologise to my hon. Friend for mentioning so many different and possibly unrelated aspects of the needs of road and rail communications in Wales. If he can give some indications of the proposals to meet only the chief of these needs I for my part shall be extremely grateful.
10.30 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) on his success in the ballot and so being able to raise tonight the subject of transport in Wales, particularly in South Wales. He naturally drew attention to what he regarded as the deficiencies of the transport system, and, therefore, I am sure he will bear with me if I call his attention to some of the work that has been done to improve matters, particularly on A48, the Gloucester to Swansea road.
Our Government—this and the previous Government—have been very conscious of the big development taking place in South Wales and, therefore, of the need which would progressively arise for a better road and rail transport system to meet, so far as we could, the increasing need there. It is not possible, of course, to phase improvements exactly with the need as it arises, but a great deal has been done and a very great deal is going on, as I hope I shall be able to prove to my hon. Friend's satisfaction.
It was in 1953 that the Lloyd Committee was set up to consider just this question, in particular the road needs of South Wales, in the light of the big developments which were known to be impending in both tinplate and steel. The road developments which are taking place today are largely the result of the Report of that Committee.
I would remind my hon. Friend that on the Gloucester-Cardiff-Swansea road, A48, to which he drew attention, saying that various things needed to be done,

999
a great deal has been done. The first part of the Neath by-pass has been completed and is now in use. That cost £2,200,000. It was a very big scheme indeed. As my hon. Friend will know, it is a most welcome improvement to everybody who travels along that road. It cuts out the detour of about twelve miles through Neath and greatly facilitates traffic movement there. Work on the second part of the Neath by-pass started last March and will complete the link which will carry the traffic from Cardiff to Lonlas and Llanelly from the west end of the Neath by-pass. That will cost another £1¾ million. So there is one big, scheme finished and another big scheme started.
We can also draw attention to the widening of the Neath to Llanelly road between Lonlas and Llansamlet. I am not sure about the pronunciation of that name, but hon. Members will be able to see the name in HANSARD tomorrow and will be able to judge whether I have pronounced it correctly. The work includes the widening of the Wychtree Bridges crossing the River Tawe and the Swansea Canal also. The cost of that will amount to another £400,000. The dual carriageway road from the Earlswood roundabout right into Swansea will cost altogether about £1¼ million. That includes the Jersey Marine Road, which is already complete, and there are two further big schemes to come in the neighbourhood of Swansea, which will greatly facilitate traffic there.
East of Neath, plans are in hand for the improvement of the road through Port Talbot, to which my hon. Friend referred. It is true it was originally intended that there should be a by-pass round the whole of the town, where the road narrows, but that plan has been modified, due to local opinion, which expressed the view that it was against this by-passing of the whole town. It is now proposed to complete the western section only, as my hon. Friend said, and it is proposed that this should be combined with an inner relief road in the town itself, which would, of course, deal with the Aberavon level crossing. I may say that I paid a visit there during the Easter Recess, and I certainly can confirm my hon. Friend's impression that there is an urgent need for something to
1000
be done there to relieve the congestion which is caused.
The position is that a public inquiry has been held on the proposal. We have the report in the Ministry now, and it is being urgently and carefully studied. I cannot, however, tell my hon. Friend what will be the outcome, but I can roundly assure him that we are well aware of the need to improve the main road system there, and it is simply a matter of deciding on what will be the best way to do it.
Further road work is in progress on the A.48 road between Stormy Down and Redhill, Glamorgan, at a cost of approximately £250,000, and on a further stretch to Monmouth, costing some £200,000. This year a further length near Penhow will be improved at a cost of about £300,000.
That adds up to a very substantial improvement on that important stretch of road. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, from my recollection of travelling over it a few years ago, that it is not only a narrow road but a very winding one, carrying an immense volume of traffic, and badly in need of widening and improvement in every way. But a good deal has been done, and a good deal is going on. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that we have shown that we really mean business there.
My hon. Friend's other complaint was about the roads from the South Wales to the Midlands. As regards the A.465 road, the Ross Spur, which is one of the main features in it, it is true that the Order was made in 1954 and that the preliminary work has taken a long time. My hon. Friend asks me why it is taking so long. The answer is one which I think will have his full sympathy. Not only as an upholder of the rights of the individual but also as a lawyer, my hon. Friend will well understand that there must be a very careful balance in these proposals, which inevitably take large pieces of private property, between meeting the needs of the community as a whole for better roads and the rights of the private property owners concerned. Parliament has provided here a statutory procedure which gives an opportunity for objectors to make their objections known, and then, if necessary, for a public inquiry and a consideration of the report, and so on.

1001
The result is that, if we are to continue to follow that process—which I believe, despite its length, is the right one —the preliminary work will inevitably take time, and it will be one or two years before the engineers actually get to work on the working drawings. Especially if there are serious objections, the preliminary work sometimes takes a long time. But we hope that the work on the Ross Spur will start this year. Whatever we can do to expedite it we shall certainly do.
With regard to the rest of that very important road, it is, of course, vital to have a good link not only between the South Wales ports and the Midland cities like Birmingham, Manchester, etc., but also between the great new industries of South Wales and the Midlands. We have further big schemes for the improvement of this road. The main scheme, to which my hon. Friend referred, is the heads-of-the-valleys road, which would improve the road which runs across from Abergavenny through Brynmawr to Hirwaun and through Merthyr Tydvil. That is a very narrow road running across extremely hilly country, and at present it is quite unsuitable for carrying heavy commercial traffic.
We have two big schemes for the improvement of that road. We hope to authorise one of them this year between Abergavenny and Brynmawr. That will cost just under £2 million. Again, there are procedural difficulties. The second stage, going on to Hirwaun, will cost approximately £4½ million and will follow directly after the first stage. Here again, my hon. Friend will see that we mean business.
I could not agree more than I do about the Worcester and Bromsgrove by-pass, having gone through Worcester and Bromsgrove last year on my way to see the charms of Llandudno on the occasion of a conference which was being held there. The congestion in Worcester has to be seen to be believed. Our intention is that both those cities will in due course be by-passed. That will be done by one of the new modern motorways running south from Birmingham to join up with the eastern end of the Ross Spur to complete the through road from Birmingham to the South Wales towns and ports, as well as to Bristol. I can only tell my hon. Friend that that is now being con-
1002
sidered. It is before my right hon. Friend, who is considering what is the earliest date that it can be worked into our future programme.
The Severn Bridge was briefly referred to by my hon. Friend, who will not expect me to go into detail about it tonight. My right hon. Friend the Minister has agreed to it in principle and in due course it will be brought into the programme. It is, however, a very costly scheme. Even with only its local roads the cost will be £15 million, and with all the roads connected with it the cost will go up to £36 million. Naturally, some thought and care are required to see how it can be worked into a programme.
It is true, as my hon. Friend foresaw, that Chepstow's relief will come with that bridge. When the Severn Bridge and the associated roads are built, the heavy traffic through Chepstow will be relieved. Therefore, it would clearly be uneconomic to build a by-pass round Chepstow now. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that Chepstow has a narrow bridge and is a narrow town, and as soon as we can do so we shall relieve it in that way.
I wish to speak briefly about the railways in South Wales. The modernisation of the railways is proceeding, together with these big road schemes. Among the projects approved under the railway modernisation plan is a new marshalling yard at Port Talbot. I inspected the site when I was down there at Easter. The Western Regional Board hopes to be proceeding with it in the very near future. At the Severn Tunnel, the Board intends to extend the sidings on both sides, which will enable the volume of traffic that the Severn Tunnel can carry to be increased.
The Board has a comprehensive scheme to build up line capacity between Pyle West Junction and Britton Ferry, particularly to meet the increased needs of traffic from the developments of the Coal Board and the Steel Company of Wales. The Board hopes to start work on two of these schemes this year and on a third one next year. Two of the schemes will cost about £2 million, and the cost of the other one is not far short of this figure.
I should like to say how very impressed I was by what I saw of the railway installations there and, in travelling with

1003
the railway officials, by the splendid way in which they maintain the high traditions of the old Great Western Railway. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend refer to the successful running of that section of British Railways.
There are improved communications with the Midlands already, in particular in connection with freight. There will be further improvements when the new junctions at Stratford-on-Avon and Fenny Compton are completed. Although they are a long way from South Wales, they are important. They will link what used to be the old Great Western with the old L.M.S. That is part of the modernisation plan.
Diesels will eventually be used universally in the Western Region. They will help particularly in the Severn Tunnel because they will reduce ventilation problems and enable more traffic to go through. Diesel multiple units will be used on the Swansea—Birmingham run, starting 17th June, and diesels will be progressively brought into use in the
1004
rural areas. A new express has been started this year, running daily from Birkenhead to Cardiff, connecting North and South Wales via Shrewsbury, Ruabon and Chester—a foretaste of what is to come as diesel-hydraulics, as they are properly called, are developed in the Western Region.
I hope that I have said enough to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government and all other parties concerned have thought ahead about the industrial needs of South Wales and that we are doing a great deal to improve the transport facilities to enable the great new industries formed there to connect with the rest of the industrial life of the country, to the benefit of themselves and of people in the rest of the country.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour. Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF POWER
  Small Coal (Exports)
  Small Coal (Exports)
  Natural Gas
  Natural Gas
  Petrol Ration Books (Printing Costs)
  Petrol Ration Books (Printing Costs)
  TRADE WITH CHINA
  TRADE WITH CHINA
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Old-Age Pensions
  Old-Age Pensions
  Social Security (Anglo-Belgian Convention)
  Social Security (Anglo-Belgian Convention)
HOSPITALS
  Preventive Medicine
  Preventive Medicine
  Convalescent Homes
  Convalescent Homes
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Roads (Schemes)
  Roads (Schemes)
  Eggs (Guarantee Arrangements)
  Eggs (Guarantee Arrangements)
  Toxic Chemicals (Voluntary Notification)
  Toxic Chemicals (Voluntary Notification)
  British Sugar Corporation (Chairman)
  British Sugar Corporation (Chairman)
  ATOMIC ENERGY (CALDER HALL REACTORS)
  ATOMIC ENERGY (CALDER HALL REACTORS)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  U.S.A.F. Survey, North Atlantic
  U.S.A.F. Survey, North Atlantic
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Trade Fairs (Visas)
  Trade Fairs (Visas)
  Prize Fights
  Prize Fights
  Car Parking, Chiswick
  Car Parking, Chiswick
EMPLOYMENT
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Surtax (Personal Reliefs)
  Surtax (Personal Reliefs)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
Read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.

THE SUEZ CANAL USERS' ASSOCIATION
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in what manner the composition of S.C.U.A. was decided; whether the membership of the State of Israel was considered; what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to such membership; and what action they have taken, or are prepared to take in this matter.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, with the noble Viscount's permission, I will answer together both the Questions standing in his name.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I say, on that matter, that the Government must choose their own way of answering a Question, but different points are raised in the two Questions. Therefore, I hope the noble Earl will not complain if I put supplementary questions to each.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Certainly not. As it was impracticable to include all users of the Canal, the membership of the Suez Canal Users' Association was made up of the principal users of the Canal by tonnage and trade; it was on these criteria that membership was based. The Association has not subsequently laid down any new criteria for membership; this is a question for the Association, not for Her Majesty's Government alone, to decide. Rights under the 1888 Convention are in no way dependent on membership of S.C.U.A.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I asked in the first Question "whether the membership of the State of Israel was considered," and my first supplementary question is: was the membership mentioned or considered; and, if so, what attitude did the Government assume?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, if I interpret the supplementary question of the noble Viscount aright, the answer is that there was no consideration at all of any particular member per se, except on possible membership on the tonnage and trade of the shipping of that country which goes through the Canal.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, the answer on this point is that they took the tonnage that passed through the. Canal, and they took the highest number of tons. If that is so, why did they exclude Israel, which was not allowed to send a ship at all? I do not think the noble Earl has answered clearly. Does he say that at this meeting settting up S.C.U.A. the matter of the admission of Israel to membership was not mentioned?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I regret that I have not a verbatim script of all that went on at this particular meeting. All I can inform the noble Viscount is that the basis on which nation members of the S.C.U.A. were chosen was by the amount of use, starting from the top, which those particular nations made of the Canal. As I said in my original Answer to the Question, if we had accepted all the countries who use the Canal, it would be quite impossible to make an organisation like S.C.U.A. workable.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl for pressing my Question. Was the name of the State of Israel mentioned, and what did our representative say?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I am afraid I have not got the answer to the noble Viscount's question. I do not think, in fact, that the wording of his original Question calls for that particular answer. If he wishes it, I will do my best to obtain the information.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I can only say that I do wish it, and I do not think that words could be clearer than the Question: was the membership considered; and what was

895
the attitude of the Government? If the noble Earl wants another day to answer the Question, he can have it; but at the same time may I say that the purpose of Questions is that the information asked for should be secured.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think I have replied to the noble Viscount perfectly adequately. All countries who use the Canal were, in fact, considered; but it was decided, as I have already said, that a line had to be drawn somewhere. It was not possible to have all countries as members of S.C.U.A., otherwise it would not be a workable proposition. Some form of arbitrary line had to be drawn, and the decision was taken, irrespective of who or what the country was, that the line should be drawn on a definite basis of tonnage and trade.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, am I to understand that answer to mean that the Government, knowing that the State of Israel was, as we think, illegally excluded, decided to adopt a line that was based upon tonnage passing through the Canal?

ISRAEL AND THE SUEZ CANAL
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, inasmuch as S.C.U.A. exists to protect the international right of free passage through the Suez Canal, the connivance of Her Majesty's Government in the exclusion of Israel from S.C.U.A. does not in fact amount to condoning a breach by Egypt of the Convention of 1888.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, with the permission of the noble Viscount, I answered both of his Questions together.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I did not gather what was the answer to this Question. I asked whether, if you exclude Israel, you do not thereby give weight to the opinion that she should not be permitted to go through the Canal: that she had no locus standi in fact. That is the Question. What does the noble Earl say to that?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I regret that I cannot see my way to "arguing the toss" any more. I think I have answered the noble Viscount's Questions adequately.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, there is such a thing as Parliamentary procedure, and if the Answer is that the Government cannot see their way to arguing the matter any more, that is an end to Parliamentary procedure. I venture, therefore, to state that the matter must be raised again. I think it is an abuse of the procedure of Question and Answer, first of all to lump Questions together, and then to give an Answer that is totally irrelevant to the matter at issue.

ELECTRICITY BILL
2.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Establishment, constitution and functions of Central Electricity Generating Board
(2) The Generating Board shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and such number of other members so appointed, not being less than seven or more than nine, as the Minister may from time to time determine.
(5) Without prejudice to any other functions assigned or transferred to them as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, it shall as from the vesting date be the duty of the Generating Board to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of supply of electricity in bulk for all parts of England and Wales, and for that purpose—

(a) to generate or acquire supplies of electricity; and

(b) to provide bulk supplies of electricity for the Area Boards for distribution by those Boards.

(7) The Generating Board shall have power—
(a) to manufacture anything required by the Generating Board or by any Area Board for purposes of research or development or for the repair or maintenance of their equipment;
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to subsection (2):
" of whom not less than five shall he full-time members."
The noble Lord said: Before moving the first Amendment on the Marshalled List, may I preface my remarks by saying how glad I personally am—and I am sure the pleasure is shared by all your Lordships—that we have here the Minister who is head of the Department sponsoring this Bill and not, as is usual in your Lordships' House, a stand-in. So the Minister will not now, in reply to our pleadings for the acceptance of any of our Amend-mews, be able to say that he will have to consult his right honourable friend, which has been said before with monotonous regularity in this Chamber.
Having said that, may I point out that neither the Minister nor the Bill has said at any time how many of the members of the Generating Board—and it is the Generating Board we are dealing with under Clause 2—are to be part-time members, and how many full-time members. I have put down this Amendment to see whether I can persuade the noble Lord that the time has arrived when we have seriously to consider whether we should or should not carry on with the principle which we have laid down in the formation of nationalised boards or boards of nationalised industries of having any substantial number of members of the board as part-time. For myself, I should prefer them all to be full-time members, but I recognise that others may have different opinions, based on sound reasons. The other advantage we possess—at least I have—in having the Minister here is that he and I must speak the same language. We were both brought up in industry, and I do not suppose, having reached our age, we have a great deal to learn of its machinery. I am convinced that the formation of industry in the future, with the huge concerns, must have what I always call "executive directors." I said on Second Reading that in my view the age of guinea pigs and place-men is past.
The noble Lord knows that you will never get real first-class energetic brains unless they are on the young side. You cannot get young members for Boards of this description, with this terrific weight of responsibility, on a part-time basis. Young men cannot afford to be part-time
898
members, and I suggest to the noble Lord that the day has gone when we can afford to run the Board of a great nationalised industry—and an industry that by the noble Lord's own figures is going to spend, by 1965, up to £3,250 million of the taxpayers' money—on a charitable basis. By that, I mean that the-salaries are paid by industry, who allow some of their men to sit upon these nationalised boards for a remuneration that is a positive disgrace. The noble Lord knows that as well as I do. If you want young, virile brains, and if you want to see that the youngsters in a great industry like this have the incentive to work themselves right up to the top, the course to the top must be open to them.
I suggest that one of the ways—I have another way later on—of ensuring this is to have a number of those serving on these boards full-time members, whose life's job it is; who have no distractions of having to serve shareholders in another company, and who do not have to live in fear that, if their principal remuneration payer, private industry, ceases to pay them, they would have to resign. Because what is the part-time salary of the majority of members of these boards?—£500 a year. The noble Lord does not want to fill these posts with pensioners. What he really wants is the finest men he can get in this industry, because the best is only just good enough for the gigantic proposal which the Minister has brought before your Lordships' House and so lucidly explained. There never was development in this country to marry or to match up with the nuclear atomic energy expansion of power stations in this country. I suggest to the noble Lord that he will do himself less than justice unless he sets himself out to do the same thing as if he were in private industry and, instead of the Minister of Power, were the chairman of this great industry of private enterprise. He could not go to his shareholders and argue that anything less than the very best was good enough.
Subsection (2) says that there shall be a chairman and not less than seven or more than nine other members. I suggest in my Amendment the addition of the words "of whom not less than five shall he full-time members", because I am assuming, perhaps erroneously, that the chairmanship of the Generating Board must be a full-time appointment. I want five of the other members, or not

899
less than five, to be full-time members. If the Minister has a better figure I am not wedded to five. But the Bill does not say anything. They can be all full-time members. If the noble Lord tells me in reply that his intention is to appoint all full-time members, I shall be happy. But at least I want the bulk of them to be full-time members, so that their whole time is given to it, and so that they are not taken away with other objectives and other interests. That way, I think, is the only way to constitute this Board.
Amendment No. 2 is really upon the same lines, but I will content myself for the present with what I have already said. I shall return to it once or twice throughout this Committee stage, and I hope the noble Lord, if he docs not accept my numbers, will accept the principle that it should be clearly stated so that the country knows how many are full-time members of these Boards and how many are part-time. I give way on part-time if the noble Lord wants some elbow room. There may be good causes why he might want one or two members part-time—I hope not for the most important posts. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that the sound principle is that the bulk of those should be full-time members. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
2.51 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): I, too, am glad that I am able to attend your Lordships' House to reply in person to the noble Lord. Accepting what he seeks to do, his statement might have been my own reply, although it was much more eloquent than mine could be. I, too, believe that we need the very best men we can get to run these great industries. Our success in getting good men will determine the future success of these industries. On the other hand, we need a certain amount of flexibility, especially in these comparatively early days of these industries. We must still look outside and get men for their qualities, their knowledge and their experience. It would be my hope that the industry will more and more train the men to become thoroughly versed in their industries and thoroughly competent to manage.
900
It would be very inconvenient and difficult for me in my job of choosing the right men for these industries if the noble Lord wished to insert here that there should be a definite number of full-time members and a definite number of part-time members, or that they should be all full-time members. I think we should keep the matter flexible. I will see to it that there is a proper balance in these matters, having only one object in mind; that of securing the best men, in the long term as well as in the short term, for the management of these industries. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord has accepted the principle. As he says, he has given your Lordships an assurance that there will be a proper balance between full-time and part-time members. I was always taught in my years in your Lordships' House—now getting on for more than ten—that ministerial intentions are one thing, and their hopes and promises are another. "Put it in the Bill," we were told. That was always impressed upon me by a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Mills—the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. That was his prayer and his one song: "If you are going to do it, put it in the Bill." Will the noble Lord give me an undertaking that between now and the next stage of the Bill he will try to find a form of words that will give expression in the Bill to the principle he has just undertaken to follow?
I am quite happy to leave it to him. I want to give him all the elbow room I can, but under the Bill as drafted he could have all part-time men. That was never the intention, I feel certain, and I do not like these vague expressions in Bills of this sort. So, if the noble Lord can go just a little further and say that between now and the next stage of the Bill he will try to give expression to that principle, I shall be quite happy to withdraw my Amendment. Perhaps he would give me that undertaking.
LORD SALTOUN: I cannot help feeling that it would be a mistake to fetter the discretion of the Minister when the thing is just beginning. It may be very useful to have a principle later on, but just at the moment, on this particular kind of thing, I think that is a mistake.
EARL ATTLEE: I do not think it really ought to be left as wide open as this. We may have great confidence in the present Minister, but Ministers come and go, sometimes with bewildering rapidity, in this country. We do not know who will be next. It seems an extraordinary thing to have no regulation to the effect that there shall be any full-time members. I cannot recall that being done in legislation. With the old Electricity Boards there was always a due proportion of full-time men. There should be a minimum. It should not be entirely left in the hands of part-time men.
LORD MILLS: In reply to the noble Lord and the noble Earl, I may say there is, of course, precedent for this. The Bill follows most of the nationalisation Acts—the Gas Act, the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, the Air Corporations Act, the Atomic Energy Authority Act and the Electricity Act, 1947. I am much more concerned with what is practical and right. I should hesitate to agree to fix any number of full-time members until I had the opportunity of consulting with the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen when they are apointed to these Boards. After all, they must have a view, and it is proper that they should have a view, I should want to consult with them as to who their colleagues should be, and whether it is desirable or not, in certain circumstances, to appoint part-time members and who they should be. I am sorry, but I do not think it would help me and I do not think it would be right to agree to a fixed number of whole-time men in this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord talks about precedent. I can quote precedent the other way. There is the Transport Act. As a matter of fact there is the Electricity Act, 1947, which even lays down the salaries. I am not trying to fetter the Minister. I want to give him all the elbow-room he likes. I will withdraw this Amendment, but I will put down another Amendment on Report stage. If the noble Lord will look at the top of page 2, he will see the words
" The Generating Board shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and such number of other members so appointed "
902
and so on. I want to get the principle in there. I do not want to fetter the Minister, but surely we have had experience. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, seems to think that this is a new venture. The Generating Board is only a reformed Central Electricity Authority, which had a full-time Chairman and a full-time Deputy Chairman. The Area Boards have full-time chairmen and full-time deputy chairmen, so I am not establishing a precedent. All I want is the principle to be written into the Bill. The noble Lord talks about letting the Minister have a free hand while the new set up gets going. Experience has taught us something. That is what the Herbert Report was for. I will not argue the case any more now. I will withdraw this Amendment, but I shall put down something on Report stage which will embody the principle without tying the Minister's hands to a specific number. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In this Amendment. I have assumed—the Minister has acknowledged that my assumption is correct—that the Minister intends that the Chairman of the Generating Board shall be full-time. My second Amendment seeks to insert the words "full-time". so that Clause 2 (4) would read:
" The Minister shall appoint one or more full-time members of the Generating Board to be deputy chairman or deputy chairmen of the Board."
I do not think it is too much to ask that the deputy chairman or chairmen should again be full-time members. There may be one; there may be two. After all, they will have to deputise for the chairman at any time, and I should think their duties will be onerous. Will the noble Lord accept this Amendment? I need not argue the case. I have already argued it on the first Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11 after (" more ") insert (" full-time ")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MILLS: In this case I am impressed with the arguments of the noble Lord, and I will certainly look at the point again, provided that, if it is ultimately accepted, it is not taken as a precedent for other Boards. I think that

903
with this particular Board there are special circumstances which would justify the noble Lord's contention.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. On that assurance, I will leave it to him to put down the necessary Amendment, and I beg leave to withdrawn my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.3 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY LORD GRIDLEY moved, in subsection (5) after "Generating Board" to insert: "through the agency of the Area Boards". The noble Lord said: I feel in some difficulty in dealing with my Amendments in their listed order because some of them are paving Amendments to facilitate the major Amendment which follows. I therefore suggest, if it meets with the approval of the Committee, that it might be most helpful if I dealt with the main purpose of the Amendments, after which the Minister would be able to tell us whether or not he is prepared to accept my Amendments, or the principle of them. It may shorten discussion later on. May I take it that I have the assent of noble Lords to proceed in the way I have suggested?
The point of my main Amendment is a simple but nevertheless a fundamental one; I referred to it briefly on Second Reading. Noble Lords who have read the Bill will realise that under it, as it is now drafted, a new Generating Board is to be established with powers to plan and construct power stations, both nuclear and conventional, and to operate them, and to provide Area Boards with supplies in bulk for them to distribute. The change that I am proposing is that the management, operation and maintenance of The power stations should be transferred from the Generating Board to the respective Area Boards. The Area Boards would, in effect, be the lessees of the Generating Board as lessor. This change has long been desired and would, I know, be welcomed by many of the Area Boards. Many of those who desire the change are electrical engineers and managers of long experience in company and municipal undertakings prior to nationalisation, and this is their view. Moreover, one of the objectives of the Herbert Report was to secure greater autonomy of the Area Boards. The transfer of power to station
904
operation would be a necessary step towards more true autonomy.
Your Lordships will remember that when the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor wound up the Second Reading debate on this Bill, he asked me most courteously to consider certain points which he submitted, and of course I have felt it my duty to put myself in the position to reply to those points, I hope as courteously as the Lord Chancellor treated me. The first point which he raised was that the question of the operation of the stations had been considered at great length, and he said that the Herbert Committee were firmly of opinion that generation and distribution should be kept separate. May I refer your Lordships to paragraphs 224, 225 and 226 of the Herbert Report, because the observations there have a most important bearing on the point I am developing?
The Report says, in paragraph 224:
" Under the 1947 Act, the ownership, control and running of all power stations, whether selected stations or not, passed to the Central Authority and through them to the appropriate Generation Division. The distribution undertakings of the authorised undertakers passed to the appropriate Area Boards. This was a major operation involving the division "—
mark this, if you will—
" and to some extent the duplication of staffs, and engineering, administrative and accountancy procedures. It was naturally looked upon with suspicion, or actually resented, by many officers of former authorised undertakings who became members or officers of the Area Boards. They observed with dismay the setting up of two separate organisations to do what had hitherto been done by one. They also showed a natural and human disinclination to part with the generating side of the businesses they had been operating, the side which from the engineering point of view is perhaps more interesting and absorbing than the distribution side which was left to them, a side in which commercial considerations loom more largely than engineering considerations."
Then in paragraph 225 the Report says:
" It is prima facie uneconomical to have two separate organisations operating in any given area, one dealing with generation and the other with distribution. Moreover, there is great force in the argument that the power stations exist merely to supply the Area Boards with the electricity they need to discharge their obligations to consumers, and that if the persons responsible for the commercial side were also responsible for the construction and operation of the power stations, there would at least be a incentive towards economy."
Then in the next paragraph, paragraph 226, they say:
" It is not surprising therefore, that certain Area Board Chairmen, supported by their Boards, have strongly urged upon us the desirability of amalgamating the Divisions and the Area Boards and giving the Area Boards responsibility under the general supervision under the Central Authority for constructing, or at any rate running, the power stations."
There we have the evidence supported by experienced men who have served the industry virtually all their working lives. Noble Lords will no doubt have noticed that in my Amendment I leave the ownership of stations where it is now, with the proposed new Generating Authority; but I give to the Generating Authority some measure of direction which they may give to the Area Boards—a direction which, I hope, it will seldom be necessary to exercise.
The next point of the noble and learned Viscount was that the operation of power stations by Area Boards would be subject to a considerable measure of control by the Generating Board who would retain responsibility for siting power stations in the National Grid, and that this would run counter to the main purpose of the Bill which is to advance the autonomy of the Area Boards, and that it might also impair the autonomy of the Generating Board because some of the most important functions of that Board would be carried out by Area Boards, as agents; so how could the Generating Board be held responsible for making the business pay? I should have thought that transferring responsibility for operations to Area Boards would be to make them more autonomous, which is one of the main objectives of the Herbert Report. No doubt there will have to be simple agreements entered into between Area Boards and the Generating Board, whereby the Area Board will be responsible to the Generating Board for interest and depreciation and other charges on the power stations, whether they are new or old.
The noble Viscount's next point was that it was unlikely that the boundaries of the Generating Division would remain co-terminous with those of the Area Board. He also interposed the observation that the Herbert Committee have pointed out that distribution is primarily a commercial matter while operation is an engineering matter. On the noble and
906
learned Viscount's first observation, I should have thought that new stations could only be sited in the area of one Area Board or another, as the country is, I believe, already completely covered by the twelve existing Area Boards.
The noble and learned Viscount then said he feared that there might be an excess of power station capacity and that one Authority should be responsible for the nuclear programme if it is to be carried through at the required tempo; and also that less efficiency would be achieved if Area Boards operated power stations. Speaking from long experience, I do not think anyone need fear that there will be an excess of power station capacity, for in all the years I have been engaged in the industry, I have never known of that. If anything, we have generally been short of capacity—in some years, seriously short, as we can remember from the power cuts. One must also remember that there exists in many power stations still in operation a good deal of plant which has been there for many years and is not nearly as efficient as new plant, which could replace it, would be. I am also convinced, from experience, that Area Boards could operate power stations just as efficiently as they are being run at present, if not more so, and that some economies in staff could be achieved if the two responsibilities were combined.
The next and last point which the noble and learned Viscount submitted to your Lordships was that the transfer of power stations to Area Boards would adversely affect generating staffs and that, therefore, the Generating Board would be likely to keep their best engineers and to let the Area Boards have the others. If your Lordships will look at page 71 of the Herbert Report, you will see how emphasis is put upon the excessive number of people at present employed in the existing Generating Authority, and that it was thought that economies could be made there. I believe that there are enough men engaged in controlling power stations to enable men to be taken for responsible positions for operating the power stations and that we need have no doubt whatever on that.
I think that deals with the points which the noble and learned Viscount has asked us to consider. I should like to put into the minds of your Lordships the advantages which I see if operation of power

907
stations is transferred to Area Boards. First, the new Generating Board would be free to concentrate on the planning and construction of the heavily increased programme of nuclear power stations and larger conventional units. We all know of the tremendously increased power station programme which has been announced by the noble Lord the Minister; and since we last considered this measure I have noted in the Press that plans are now contemplated, if they have not already been decided upon (for evidently they have already gone very far), for the construction of a new coal-fired station to cost £40 million, which is to have in it the largest single unit ever yet constructed in the world. That is to go to the Don Valley. If we put that and other power stations on top of the nuclear programme, surely the Generating Board will have quite enough to tackle, if not more than they can manage.
If, as the noble and learned Viscount fears, the construction work could not be carried out in accordance with the time plan, that, in itself, is a reason for relieving them of responsibility for seeing how power stations are operated. The next advantage is that Area Boards would know at any time exactly what their generating costs were. At present 70 per cent. of their costs are to be paid to the Generating Board for the bulk supply, and if the past procedure is adhered to Area Boards will not know until the end of the year, when the final account for bulk supply is submitted, what their costs per unit have been. As I understand it (the Minister will correct me if I am wrong), Area Boards have never been able to bargain upon the bulk supply accounts rendered to them; they have had to pay them, whatever the figure. Then, again, Area Boards, knowing their costs to the third decimal place, will be in a much better position for negotiating for the business of the high load consumer which every Area Board is anxious to obtain. They will be able to quote close prices, such as are required by firms operating electro-chemical processes, flour mills, cement works and the like.
If I may interpose a personal note here, I may say that it was my experience when I was managing power companies that the only way I could get business of this kind—say from one of the electro
908
chemical works, which was a peak load job, running from January 1 to December, day and night—was to quote them a very low flat rate, with a coal clause included. To get the business of the cement works and flour mills I quoted so many pence per sack covering their electric power. I got that business, which would not have been obtained in any other way. Therefore if Area Boards are to be in that position they must know from day to day what their power costs are.
There is no doubt that economies are possible by combining the staffs of the two undertakings as I suggest. At the moment—as anyone who knows how the operations of power stations and the business of selling energy is conducted will be aware—there is a certain amount of overlapping which it is most desirable to avoid.
Moreover—and this is a point to which I attach outstanding importance—posts in the Area Boards would undoubtedly become more attractive if engineering, selling and combined management experience were acquirable by those already in the industry or those wishing to make it their career. As I mentioned on Second Reading, we in this country claim that, so far as nuclear power station construction is concerned, we are well ahead of any other country in the world. Let us hope that we may retain that position. But if we are to do so, we must give men in the industry not only commercial experience in selling the energy but also generating experience. After all—and this, too, I said on Second Reading—we hope that our manufacturing firms will get nuclear power station contracts in other parts of the world because of the advanced position we shall occupy. And when men are required to conduct the engineering and commercial sides of these new undertakings overseas men from this country who have had all-round experience will be called for. But they will not be forthcoming unless we combine engineering experience with the commercial side.
Those, I think, are some, but not all, of the important advantages that would accrue from the adoption of the Amendments in my name. May I say, finally, that there is no question of Party policy involved. The principle of nationalisation under my proposals remains quite unimpaired. Ownership of power stations would not be interfered with; it would

909
remain where it is. I beg your Lordships to accept my submission that my purpose in trying to get the operation of the power stations transferred to the Area Boards is fully supported by the arguments which I have submitted. They are the result not only of my own long experience in the electrical industry but of the experience of many of those distinguished engineers who have served for many years in pre-and post-nationalisation days. I have therefore felt it my clear duty to use what influence I may have to convince your Lordships that my Amendment should have your support, and I trust the Minister will accept it. I hope that it will not be necessary for us to ask the House to divide. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, after (" Board ") insert (" through the agency of the Area Boards ").—(Lord Gridley.)
3.27 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My noble friend Lord Gridley has suggested that this Amendment marches with his Amendments Nos. 4 to 7 and Amendments Nos. 14 and 17. They all relate to the same principle, and I think the noble Lord was right in asking your Lordships to discuss them altogether. We have given the fullest consideration to the arguments which the noble Lord advanced on these matters when he was speaking in the Second Reading debate, and which he has repeated to-day. Coming from one of his experience, and one as conscientious and as level-headed as Lord Gridley, these arguments naturally command great respect. I only wish, for old friendship's sake, that they could command as much agreement.
The principle with which Lord Gridley deals is the fundamental principle of the Bill. It would be discourteous and impertinent for me to describe the principle behind these Amendments as a "wrecking" principle, but I must be allowed to go so far as to say that it is an extremely unsettling, if not a wrecking, principle. Let us look for a moment at what Lord Gridley wants to do. The effect of these Amendments would be to make the Area Boards responsible for generating as well as for distributing electricity and to leave the Generating Board
910
in charge of the construction of generating stations and of inter-area supplies through the national grid. The Generating Board's operating expenses, as well as provision for depreciation and interest on borrowed capital, would be apportioned among the Area Boards. Parts of the 1947 Act dealing with the bulk supply tariff would be repealed.
In his very interesting Second Reading speech, Lord Gridley gave his reasons, in broad, for making these proposals. What he is arguing, if I have followed him correctly—and I have listened to him with careful attention—is that since the Herbert Committee reported, a new situation has been created by the Government's latest nuclear programme, and that the Generating Board, which will have a great deal of work on its hands, should be relieved of the routine duty of operating stations once they have been run in. He argues that by putting Area Boards in charge of generation as well as of distribution. Area Board staff would gain wider experience, and that service under an Area Board would consequently attract better men, which is something we all want to do. As my noble friend Lord Gridley hinted, proposals similar to those which he has just been advancing, with much eloquence and in great detail, were made to the Herbert Committee by some Area Board chairmen. They were considered with great care, but the Committee came to the conclusion that the existing separation of generation and distribution is sound, and I think that your Lordships should bear in mind the reasons which led them to this conclusion.
First, the Committee felt that the full benefits of large-scale organisation would be achieved only if supplies were planned on a country-wide basis. If the siting of generating stations, their design and size, the pattern of transmission and the operation of the whole system were under the control of one Central Authority, the Committee thought that electricity would be cheaper than if the task of generation were parcelled out among the Area Boards. To hand over to the Area Boards either the construction or the operation of the main generating stations would, in the Committee's view, be a retrograde step. I must confess that I think that the Committee were right.
They then considered the next point. It is unlikely that the boundaries of the

911
generating divisions will remain coterminous with those of the Area Distribution Boards. This is what the Committee actually said:
" The advent of larger coal and oil-fired stations, the siting of these stations in relation to fuel and water resources, and their construction, the development of the supergrid and still more the advent of nuclear stations will more and more, as the years go by, result in a national generating and main transmission system bearing little or no relation to the present size and shape of the distribution undertakings of the Area Boards ".
I think that that is a powerful point. Even those Area Board chairmen who favoured the amalgamation of generation and distribution conceded that the siting and operation of power stations must be a national matter, and that if Area Boards were in charge of generation—which is where my noble friend's argument must inevitably lead—they would have to conform to the Central Authority's directions not only about siting and planning but also about load control. The Committee thought that this would lead to an even greater degree of central control than exists to-day.
The distribution of electricity, for which the Area Boards are responsible, is primarily a commercial matter, while the construction and operation of power stations is primarily an engineering matter. In the Committee's view, the Area Boards should be free to concentrate on the commercial distribution of electricity and the Generating Authority on economical generation and supply in bulk. The amalgamation of generating divisions with Area Boards would not result (and I listened carefully to my noble friend's argument) in such economies in manpower as would the amalgamation of generating divisions with one another.
It is clear that the Herbert Committee were against transferring to the Area Boards the operation of main power stations, either with or without the responsibility for construction. The reasons which they gave—and they argued them carefully—have not been invalidated by anything that has happened since, by the increase in the nuclear programme; indeed I would submit to my noble friend that they have been strengthened. If Area Boards were in charge of generating, they would have to put up with a degree of central control which they would certainly find unwelcome, and which would nullify
912
the Bill's object of putting the Boards on their mettle by giving them commercial autonomy. If, on the other hand, the Area Boards succeeded in gaining a large say in the siting of power stations, it is likely that the stations would not always be sited to the best national advantage—a situation which arose in the days of the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board, as my noble friend will remember. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor pointed out during the Second Reading debate, if the country's electricity needs are to be met with the utmost economy, and without the installation of more capacity than is necessary, and if the nuclear programme is to proceed at the requisite speed, there must be one body responsible for providing an efficient coordinated and economic system of bulk supply for England and Wales, as laid down in the clause we are discussing. Under my noble friend's proposals, responsibility would be divided, and divided responsibility would make for inefficiency.
As to staff, it may be that engineers transferred to the service of Area Boards would be adversely affected in different degrees, according to whether the area contained many power stations or few. This is problematical, but I think that if they were adversely affected, resentment would undoubtedly result. I believe that it would be quite wrong to split up the engineering staff of the Generating Board. Another point which occurred to me, as I listened to my noble friend, is that, human nature being what it is, the Generating Board would probably retain the best engineers, and let the Area Boards have the others. We have all experienced this attitude in other walks of life. If that happened, the operating efficiency of the industry would suffer and the spread of nuclear experience among generating engineers would be retarded.
I have gone into this matter in some detail, and I apologise to your Lordships for so doing; but it seems to me to be a fundamental point. We discussed it on Second Reading, and my noble friend has now expanded his proposals in a most persuasive speech. Of course there is something in what he says, because anything put forward by the noble Lord, with his experience, must have powerful arguments behind it; but I have drawn up the balance sheet, and I think that

913
what my noble friend proposes would, in the end, be wrong and not at all in the interests which we all have at heart. I hope that he will consider carefully the arguments which I put forward, and about which my noble friend the Minister of Power, after giving the matter careful consideration, feels strongly, and that he will consider that although his arguments contain much which, on the surface, is attractive, the Amendment which he has so persuasively argued would not be fundamentally to the interest of the industry and of the country.
LORD SALTOUN: There is one difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, does not seem to me to face. I may have misapprehended him, and if so he will be able to correct me. The Area Boards are charged with selling, and it seems to me that they cannot sell unless they can quote; and they cannot quote unless they know their costs at every stage of the manufacture. It seems to me that the point of my noble friend Lord Gridley was that divorcing the commercial side of the Area Boards from the generating side, puts a handicap on the salesmanship of the Boards. I do not know whether the noble Lord is prepared to answer that point now. It is one that will have to be considered.
LORD MILLS: In reply to the noble Lord, may I say that I think the machinery which is now provided is quite adequate to deal with that problem. It is envisaged that the Area Boards will be in consultation with the Electricity Council, and so will the Generating Board, so that any proposal to amend the bulk supplies will be immediately known to the Area Boards before it is settled. I do not think that this matter presents any difficulty.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Is not the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun (the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong), that the Area Boards will buy in bulk from the Generating Board, so that the Area Boards will know their buying cost. Then they will have to base their selling price upon their buying cost. In other words, they are the intermediary. It is quite simple.
LORD SALTOUN: I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, because it enables me to make my point quite clear. Salesmanship to-day, as I
914
understand it, is based on an intimate knowledge of manufacturing costs. A salesman who knows his job and who is trusted by his firm has a certain degree of responsibility; he can cut prices to certain customers and can often create a market which he would not otherwise have. The fact that this is all to be done in a cast-iron way, supplies being secured at cast-iron prices from headquarters, seems to me to militate against the enthusiasm and responsibility of the members of the Area Boards, because they will become merely negotiators and will cease to be salesmen, or what I call salesmen.
LORD MILLS: I think the noble Lord will find that in most great businesses which expand and become household words the system of allowing great bargaining latitude has long since died. It is the custom of those firms to have fixed prices, upon which the public may rely, until they announce a general change in price.
LORD GRIDLEY: May I deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, by referring him to page 59 of the Herbert Report? The Report there says:
" Under the present system, Area Boards have to take what the Central Authority give them at the price which the Authority fix."
That price, covering a year's supply in bulk, is not known until the end of the financial year. In those circumstances, how can those responsible for selling—they may have to quote a very cut price, and perhaps take a little risk on it in order to get, say, a 10, 000 h. p. customer—take the risk of quoting a price, when they do not know the ultimate cost they will have to pay for current? In response to the observations made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft, I was sorry to hear him refer to my Amendment as being in the nature of a "wrecking" Amendment. I feel rather resentful about that, because no one who was in favour of private enterprise and had to accept the nationalisation of this industry has been a stronger supporter of all those who have tried to make a good job of it under nationalisation than I have. I would not make any suggestion that might in any way impair that good understanding.
LORD MANCROFT: I hope my noble friend will forgive me. I went out of my way to say that it was not

915
a wrecking Amendment. I described it—and I have the words here—as "an extremely unsettling Amendment". And that, whether he intended it or not, in my opinion it is.
LORD GRIDLEY: Then I misunderstood the noble Lord and I apologise for not having heard him correctly. This major Amendment of mine, to which the noble Lord has replied, is fundamental only in that it transfers the operation of power stations back to where it was for many years. Under the Central Electricity Authority, the power stations were operated in the areas, and the system all worked fairly smoothly. In fact, the system proposed in this Bill has created unrest in the Area Board organisations which, I warn noble Lords, will be accentuated if the Bill goes through without this alteration. The supply of power outside the areas by one Area Board to another still remains under the control where it now is, and, therefore, that argument goes by the board. I shall be most disappointed if fresh thought is not given to this Amendment. There is such a poor attendance to-day—many noble Lords who would like to know something about this industry are unable to be here—that there is not much encouragement for me to ask the Committee to divide on the Amendment. However, I would solemnly utter this warning: that, unless this change is made, there will remain a great deal of disquiet amongst members of the Area Boards and their principal officers. That will not be good for the future of the industry. It was for that reason, among others, that I was most anxious to have this change made.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.48 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (7) (a), to leave out all words from and including "purposes" and to substitute, "use by the Boards. ". The noble Lord said: This is about the only Amendment on the Marshalled List which, by any stretch of imagination, any noble Lord could say was politically controversial; and although it proved to be so in another place I have put down the Amendment to invite your Lordships to consider it from another angle. I do not intend to stamp over ground so well trodden already, but I cannot understand
916
some of the arguments put up in support of the change of heart of the Government right in the middle of this Bill, to take out the power to manufacture given in the original Bill to the Generating Board and the Area Boards.
I propose to quote the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and I am sure he will not mind my doing so in his absence; I thought he would be here, but even Lord Chancellors may have a holiday sometimes, I suppose. I cannot understand why a Conservative Government should depart from what I have always thought was one of the main planks of Conservative policy; that is to say, competition. I always thought that they wanted a competitive world in which it was "every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost"; at least, that is what they have always said. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and I know that that is precisely what they do not want; at least, they act in a completely different way. As one big industrialist said to me many years ago when I inquired why they all "ganged up" in price rings: "My dear fellow, why should we sharpen our swords upon each other when there is the good old British public to sharpen them upon?"
That has been one of the troubles with British industry which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is now hoping—and I am sure we all share his hope—is going to be a thing of the past with the coming into force of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. I would not pour cold water on that Act for one moment, because I am an ardent supporter of it. It was once said, "Wait and see"; and I will wait and see what will be the effect. I am also waiting to see what will be the effect of this clause. The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack put forward some of the reasons why the right to manufacture had been removed from the Bill. I think noble Lords should get clear in their minds that the right to manufacture and the right to sell are two totally different things. The Central Electricity Authority never had the power to sell. They had the power to manufacture for themselves, which is a totally different thing. If the Generating Board and the Area Boards were going out to manufacture and then sell in competition with private industry I could understand the argument—I might not happen to believe in it because

917
I happen to be a believer in competition, but I would understand it. But the power in this Bill originally—and my Amendment seeks to put it back—was to give them power to manufacture only for, their own requirements.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 203 (No. 61), col. 231]:
" If you give these wide ancillary powers in my view you are going to distract attention from the main activity and in that way lessen its efficiency."
Would the noble Lord say that that has happened in the case of the Central Electricity Authority, who for ten years have had the power to manufacture? They have never exercised it, but it was always there as an insurance, as my noble friend Lord Attlee said on the Second Reading. The noble and learned Viscount went on:
" Competition, should it arise between the nationalised industry and the plant manufacturers, might well be unfair competition, because the nationalised industry can obtain its capital on easier terms."
I suppose the inference there is that it has a Treasury guarantee. But the logical conclusion to this Bill will be that in time the Area Boards will be completely autonomous and raising capital without a Treasury guarantee.
What is going to happen then? I do not suppose the noble Lord himself envisages this, tout there is nothing to stop it. In his Second Reading speech he said that they were to have complete financial autonomy. Two people can use that word and mean completely different things. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor read some extracts from speeches made in another place to controvert my argument of the danger of ultimate financial autonomy. The noble and learned Viscount's words were [Col. 233]:
" I do not want to push the argument too far, but I thought that, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said on this question … he would like me to remind him of that so that he could consider it."
But not one of the quotations the noble and learned Viscount gave, I would dare swear, came from anybody who thought that this Bill could eventually lead to the complete break-up of a nationalised industry. If you are going to allow all the Area Boards complete financial autonomy, and eventually to go to the market and raise their own capital on the best terms they can get in the market,
918
you are going to have twelve industries and not one, because eventually it means the break-up of the Electricity Council and the present conception of a nationalised industry.
I should have thought that you would give these Area Boards and the Generating Board the power, if they want it, to manufacture but not to sell. My Amendment reads, "use by the Boards." I suppose the truth is that you are tightening up the closed shop for the electrical manufacturing industry, so that the largest buyer from that industry will be the Generating Board and the Area Boards. Therefore, the hands of these Boards are tied behind their back, and we are relying upon the Restrictive Trade Practices Act to see that they are not overcharged. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in the same debate said [Col. 231]:
" Fourthly, the manufacturing industry, if it is to succeed in export markets often with small profit margins, must have a secure basis of home demand."
So I suppose really you are ensuring the home demand for the electrical manufacturing industry by prohibiting the Generating Board and the Area Boards from having a self-defensive weapon of manufacture themselves.
I cannot quite understand why that is wanted, because if that is going to be the principle, perhaps in the future we shall have another Bill to reform the British Transport Commission, whereby the British Transport Commission will not be allowed to manufacture its locomotives, wagons or passenger coaches. There is as much logic in that argument as there is in this—that you must preserve the home market for the electrical manufacturing industry by fettering their chief purchaser. I do not think that is good business; I think it is thoroughly bad business. I am not arguing on any political grounds at the present moment. I think it would be a stimulus to have some competition, because, after all, I suppose the whole of the British electrical manufacturing industry, with its cross- capitalisation, is in very few hands.
Other noble Lords may raise other arguments, but that is my argument. In the last analysis, if what the noble Lord said on Second Reading ever comes true, you will have the complete autonomy of the Area Boards. That is a subject I shall discuss a little more fully later on

919
when we come to another Amendment. I think this is a retrograde step. I will not blame the Minister, because I believe the seeds of fright were sown in the Department before he ever arrived there, so I will absolve him from all responsibility for this, but I think that this was purely a political decision. It was not arrived at on any of the grounds that have been stated. It was purely that the Department and the then Minister were frightened by the pressure put on them. I think that on good, sound, commercial grounds your Lordships should accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out from (" for ") to the end of line 38 and insert (" use by the Boards.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.1 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. This is really a very practical matter. Everybody knows that the electricity industry is highly integrated. I can recall that many years ago, when I was largely responsible for an undertaking, we were constantly met by rings of manufacturers. Cables were always squeezed. As soon as one asked for tenders, by some miracle one got some eleven tenders, all precisely the same. We were sometimes driven to go abroad for machinery, because of this pressure. I should have thought that, if we wanted a cheap and abundant supply of electricity, in the interests not only of consumers but of business, we would see that the generating part of the industry was not made a milch cow of private interests—because that is all it amounts to.
It is said: "But you have the monopoly of the business." That is all right but that is closing the door after the horse has been stolen. The essence of this provision is preventive; you have a weapon kept in reserve. I am amazed at the suggestion that we must allow home consumers, whether industrial or domestic, to be exploited in order to gain markets overseas. That argument can be carried a very long way. You can put up the prices at home, but that will not help you with competition overseas. The fact of the matter is that in the Committee stage in another place perfectly sound arguments were put up by Ministers against this provision in the Bill, and then
920
we had an abject surrender at the next stage. I wish that they could still have had the first Lord Hailsham, whom I can remember having to withstand these vested interests, instead of the present Ministers, who have caved in, as so often happens in this Parliament, to vested interests.
LORD MILLS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer to absolve me from any responsibility for this decision but I am not really in need of his absolution nor do I deserve it, because I took the decision. He mentioned the case of the railways. I have had bitter experience of the way in which this power to manufacture operated when certain of our industries were seriously affected by its wrong use. Coming to the supply industry, I think it is quite impossible to envisage the supply industry, which is definitely a technical job of a different kind, going in for the manufacture of electrical plant, and so on.
In fact, the noble Lord goes further in his proposal. The Electricity Act, 1947, gives power to manufacture electrical plant and electrical fittings. The noble Lord now proposes that they should have power to manufacture anything required by the Generating Board or the Area Boards, which is even wider. The noble Lord has acknowledged that this was a power which was never used. I do not think that there was ever any need to use it, because to use a power of this kind meant an enormous undertaking, and there were other means to their hand. In fact, the Central Electricity Authority put other people into the business in order properly to protect their interests. And now this Government has added the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, under which price agreements between manufacturers may be reviewed by the Restrictive Practices Court and annulled so far as they are found to be against the public interest. I suggest that that provides adequate protection for the nationalised industry.
The noble Lord has mentioned other reasons why it would be unfortunate if a nationalised industry ever went in for this manufacture. The home industry needs the orders of the electrical supply industry here, and it should have them. It is our duty to see that the business is on fair and proper terms. I did not find that this power meant anything at all. I felt it was unnecessary, and, therefore,

921
it is proposed to withdraw it. I hope the noble Lord will not insist upon his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble Lord mind enlightening the Committee? I think he used the words (hat one of the weapons which the Central Electricity Authority had was that they "put other people into the business ". Would he mind enlarging on that and saying how that worked?
LORD MILLS: I think the noble Lord would find that they came to the conclusion that in the boiler field, for example, there was not enough competition for capacity, and they introduced fresh boiler-makers, or they got people to take up boiler-making, so that they had another source of supply.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord has really made our case, as I thought he would when I asked him the question, but at this stage of the proceedings I do not think it is worth while dividing the Committee upon this matter. We have stated our case frankly and I think it should be stated that what the Central Electricity Authority has done, the Generating Board may do in the future. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent that; and we trust, with the noble Lord, that that power, allied to the Restrictive Practices Act, will bear out his good wishes and hopes. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Establishment, constitution and functions of Electricity Council
(2) The Electricity Council shall be constituted as follows:—

(a) the Minister shall appoint a person to be the chairman of the Council, and shall appoint two other persons to be deputy chairmen of the Council, and may (in addition to the members so appointed) appoint as members of the Council such number of other persons, not exceeding three, as he may from time to time determine;

(b) three other members shall be the person for the time being holding office as chairman of the Generating Board, and such other members of that Board as may be designated by that Board: and

(4) Without prejudice to any other functions assigned or transferred to the Electricity Council as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section,
922
it shall as from the vesting date be the duty of that Council—

(a) to advise the Minister on questions affecting the electricity supply industry and matters relating thereto; and

(b) to promote and assist the maintenance and development by Electricity Boards in England and Wales of an efficient, coordinated and economical system of electricity supply.

4.10 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (a):
" one of whom shall be a person having had experience of, and having shown capacity in, the organisation of workers; ".
The noble Lord said: Here is an Amendment which I hope sincerely the noble Lord will accept. If your Lordships will look at Clause 11, you will see that one of the strange things is that it deals with
" Machinery for settling terms and conditions of employment ".
The duty of setting up the joint consultation machinery is vested in the Electricity Council. The Electricity Council is the only electricity body which need not have included in its number
" a person having had experience of, and having shown capacity in, the organisation of workers."
I cannot understand why that is, because it has the responsibility of doing that very thing where first-class advice is required. The Generating Board must have one of its number so qualified—it is so specified. I think I am right in saying that under the 1947 Act the Area Boards must have one of their members in this category. Yet the Electricity Council, which has the main job of national wage negotiations and the setting up of a conciliatory machinery need not. That is my simple argument. My case for providing that one of the number should have the qualifications referred to in my Amendment is, I think, a strong one, and I hope the noble Lord will accept the Amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.11 p.m.
LORD MILLS: In reply to the noble Lord, although I do not accept his proposal, I should not like him to think that I am at all out of accord with the spirit

923
behind it. I think that, in connection with appointments to this Council we should always consider the representatives of organised workers and those who have shown capacity in the organisation of workers. Under the 1947 Act, members of the Central Authority and the Area Boards have to be appointed from persons with experience in such fields as electrical matters, industry, commerce, finance or the organisation of workers. But I think it would be a mistake to try to specify that there must be a particular number with particular qualifications, because I do not know where that would lead. Other branches of equal competence would claim that they also had a right to representation on these Boards. I would much rather rely upon the general statement that the members should be chosen from certain categories of people, rather than that a particular appointment must be from a particular category. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that reply.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the argument of the noble Lord is valid, why does he not apply it to subsection (3), which says:
" All the members of the Generating Board shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst persons appearing to him to be qualified as having had experience of, and having shown capacity in, the generation or supply of electricity, industrial, commercial or financial matters, applied science, administration, or the organisation of workers."
Why put those words there, when the Generating Board is relieved by the Electricity Council of all those overall responsibilities for wage negotiation, and the Electricity Council is not to have the same advantage as the Generating Board? If the Minister says, "Well, I do not want to specify the qualifications of all the members of the Electricity Council," he may have right upon his side. But one of the Council's main tasks is the national negotiation of wages and conditions of employment. That is not a task of the Generating Board. The Generating Board has an expressly specified individual in the organisation of workers, and the Electricity Council has not. Surely there cannot be logic in this argument. Will the noble Lord think again about it?
LORD MILLS: This is rather a complicated subject. It does not always follow that a particular category is the
924
right category to adopt in dealing with a specific subject. As I said earlier, in answer to another question by the noble Lord, so much depends upon what people the chairman himself thinks he needs to deal with a particular problem. I should be quite willing, however, to think further upon the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am most grateful. I hope the noble Lord will. There are no Party politics in this matter. If the Generating Board, which has not to deal with labour problems, must include a member specified as having experience of the organisation of workers, when the Electricity Council is to be denied it, I am afraid that the logic of it escapes me. However, as the noble Lord is to look at it again, I will, for the time being, withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.16 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2) after paragraph (a) to insert:
" (b) the chairman, deputy chairmen and at least one of the other persons shall be full-time members; "
The noble Lord said: Once again we have a point about the Electricity Council and its composition. The Council, amongst other things, has the responsibility of arranging for the raising of all finance. According to this clause, it is to consist of twenty-one members. It is to have a chairman, two deputy chairmen, and three other members appointed by the Minister. Sitting on it, there is to be the chairman of the Generating Board. There are to be two other members from the Generating Board designated by the Board—which is significant—and it is to include also the twelve chairmen of the Area Boards. That makes a total of twenty-one people. In my Amendment I suggest that the chairman and the deputy chairmen, and at least one of the other members shall be full-time members.
I do not want to go over all the arguments again that I raised when we discussed the virtues of full-time membership. Might I ask the noble Lord this question: does he intend, without putting it in the Bill, that the chairman of the Electricity Council shall be a full-time member?
LORD MILLS: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Then I leave that out: I agree with that. Will he also give consideration to saying that the deputy chairmen also shall be full-time members? I think they should be; and we should say so in this Bill. In my view, we should certainly specify in the Bill that there should be a proportion of full-time members. I am quite willing to leave to the noble Lord what is the proportion. I have another Amendment down to stipulate that the Area Board chairmen shall be full-time members. If we go on in the way that this Bill is worded at present, they will all be part-time amateurs. I do not want to see this great industry with all its chief Boards—the Generating Board, the Electricity Council or Area Boards—run by part-time amateurs; because they must of necessity be very old to be able to afford to be part-time.
When the recent appointments of the lay members of the Restrictive Trade Practices Courts were announced, amazement was publicly expressed that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could find only one under sixty-five. What a sad commentary! Although to the noble Lord and myself, sixty-five is not very old, many people think it is. It may be that to sit in a semi-judicial post on a Restrictive Trade Practices Court one must have reached a very mature age, so as to have acquired knowledge of all the vices of industry; but that does not hold in regard to the active and virile men we want on these Boards. I should like them to contain a majority of men under fifty, with the 100 per cent. virility of youth—men who have not yet got to their peak, and who do not look upon jobs like this as a nice pastime in the declining years of their life, to save them the trouble of making the newspapers last till lunchtime. Dynamic energy is what is needed in all these posts. I suppose the noble Lord and I would agree that one of the tragedies of life is that it is not until one has reached an age when energy flags that one acquires the wisdom and experience necessary to do a job properly. But that is a slight digression. I want to see in this. Bill, and in this particular clause, a provision that the chairman and deputy chairmen shall be full-time members. I am willing to withdraw this Amendment if the noble Lord will think about it as he is going to think about the others;
926
but I hope he will concede the point that both deputy chairmen should be full-time members.
4.26 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I raise a point upon this clause? In the past, for his final advice on electricity matters, the Minister has looked to bodies which have been either independent or expert, or, in most cases, both. Now he is going to rely upon an Electricity Council to supervise the industry generally, and the composition of that Council is left extraordinarily vague. I quite agree with the noble Lord the Minister that, on the whole, one gets the best result by not fettering a Minister's discretion too far, and by assuming that when he comes to make appointments he will be under the criticism of Parliament and will make proper appointments because he will get into far too much trouble otherwise. The Electricity Council, however, is composed in a somewhat puzzling way, and, so far as voting is concerned, can be dominated by the chairmen of the Area Boards. The function of the Council ought to be to take a quite independent and also, I should have thought, an expert view on the way the Boards were discharging their functions. From that point of view, the Council does not seem to me altogether ideally composed. Perhaps that lends point to the argument that the chairman and deputy chairmen, who will not be members of either the Generating Board or the Area Boards, should at any rate be people of great standing, and whole-time, so that they may exert that degree of supervision which the Council is supposed to exercise. Perhaps the Minister would bear in mind those considerations, among other points, before finally deciding what he does.
LORD MILLS: I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, something of my plans, in order that he may appreciate my difficulty. He generalised (that is always rather dangerous) in saying that if we have part-time men we shall get only old men who are finished and who want a part-time occupation. That is not always so. In this particular case. I wanted as deputy chairman a young and virile part-time man who, would eventually, I hoped, qualify for the position of chairman.

927
He could not come at the moment as a deputy chairman, because the pay would not be as much as he is getting now. That illustrates some of the problems with which one is faced, and how inoperative one would be rendered if one were fettered in the way proposed by the noble Lord. I will certainly think about this proposal, as I will think about all these problems, but I dislike it because I do not like its rigidity. I have gone to the trouble of giving a precise case to illustrate the difficulty.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, and thank him for taking the Committee into his confidence. The only fear I have is that by the time this promising "star" qualifies to receive a salary commensurate with what he is now getting, he will be so old that he will have lost all his virility. But I shall enlarge on that in a later Amendment. I am delighted with the noble Lord's suggestion. I do not want to tie his hands, but I believe that the fears of many of us have been well voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb. We do want men who are going to give the whole of their time to this most important industry. If the noble Lord can fit his desire—which is also mine—that he shall have elbow room with my desire that some provision shall go into this Bill stipulating that these shall be full-time appointments, I shall be happy, on the noble Lord's kind undertaking to reconsider the matter, to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.29 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (4), to add to paragraph (b):
" including the extension of suppliers to rural areas."
The noble Lord: I have put this Amendment down because I want to tempt the noble Lord, if I can, to inform us on the future policy of the supply of electricity to rural areas. I voiced my fears on Second Reading and I am not going to make another Second Reading speech. The reserve funds which were originated to equalise tariffs have been used to help the electrification of farms. I believe I am right in saying that the electrification of farms qualifies for a 30 per cent. or
928
35 per cent. grant from the Ministry of Agriculture. But I must confess that I am not thinking altogether of farms and farmers; I am thinking of others who live in the rural areas. I tell the noble Lord quite frankly that in my opinion the charges made by the Central Electricity Authority for the electrification of houses in the rural districts have been scandalously high. If we are going to make it so expensive to enjoy the amenities of civilisation in rural areas, what we shall do will be to drive people to herd in towns. I could quote a number of cases which have been given to me as the result of inquiries which I have made as to the cost of running a supply of electrical energy to private houses and to small holdings. In these cases, the cost, in my opinion, has been perfectly scandalous.
I think we should have equalisation in this matter. I want to know what is the attitude of the noble Lord. Does he express agreement with me? Does he, too, feel that the cost of the electrification of the countryside should be spread over all concerned, and not be put practically 100 per cent. upon the individual who has the supply? I have previously cited the case of the Post Office. I can also cite the case of the telephone. If a telephone subscriber had to pay the whole of the cost of running the telephone wire a mile and then had to give a guarantee that he would pay so much a year in charges for telephone calls, the Post Office would not install very many telephones. One of our great troubles to-day arises from the cost of transport in the rural areas. That is why the British Transport Commission has—to use the old Scots phrase—to "make the fat fry the lean". In other words, a lot of the fares in rural areas are subsidised from the fares paid in the big towns. If one had to pay to British Railways the real cost of being transported on a branch line it would sometimes be as much as 3s. or 4s. a mile.
If the noble Lord does not agree with the principle of sharing the load nationally, perhaps he will tell us. I think that it should be shared nationally here. But we have gone away from that principle, and now we have areas. I shall be happy to hear something from the noble Lord as to what is his policy in this connection at the present time. In my view, the cost of electrifying the

929
dwelling of the individual who does not happen to be a farmer and who lives in a rural district is terrific and out of all proportion to what it should be. If this sort of thing is continued we shall not get these amenities provided in the countryside, and I take it that one of the principal policies of Her Majesty's Government is that the amenities of the rural areas should be increased so as to discourage people from flocking into the towns where they get the cheapest prices because of mass distribution. Those are the reasons for which I have put down this Amendment. My noble friend Lord Wise may like to say something upon it purely from the point of view of the farmer. I have put it down in the interests of the ordinary rural dweller. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us what his policy in this relation is to be in the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
4.34 p.m.
LORD WISE: I should like to occupy a few moments in supporting this Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I may do it from another point of view altogether. My chief anxiety is that in this Bill there should be some definite reference to the electrification of the rural areas. So far as I can see, the Bill makes little reference to rural England. In one clause there is mention of the exploration of land for the purpose of putting up either generating stations or electricity supply lines. There is also a reference to agriculture in regard to the Consultative Committee representation. So far as I can see, those two are the only references to the question of supply to rural areas. Therefore, although the rural areas may be covered by the expression "England and Wales" in this clause, if it is intended that recommending some quicker method of bringing electricity to the country villages should be one of the main purposes of the Consultative Committee, I hope that it will definitely be put into the Bill that such is the case.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth has referred to various difficulties and to charges. He has mentioned the telephone. I can refer to a case which I think is really worse than the one he cited on Second Reading. Some years ago I had occasion to ask for my telephone
930
to be moved from my office in town to my residence in the country. The Post Office charged me 25s. for that transfer. I asked the electricity supply people at that time to bring me a supply of electricity from the village to my house—about two miles distant. The estimated charge for that was £1,200. This was ridiculous, and I have put in my own supply.
During last year—and this has a bearing on my reference to the quickening of the provision of supplies to rural Britain—I had occasion to ask the Electricity Board (I need not mention the area) to supply me with electricity. Very kindly, the official concerned said: "You do not want any extra facilities or prior facilities as compared with anyone else?" I replied that I did not. I was then told that it would be five years before I could hope for a supply of electricity in my residence. The outcome was that the electricity supply eventually came from my own land. There was a transformer at another house which I owned about half a mile away. So, in order to bring electricity to my own residence, I undertook the work myself. I cut poles in my own woods because I could not get any from the Electricity Board or the Post Office. I put in my own poles and I put in my own supply of electricity—I mean, of course, that I did it by contract. I saved myself, I should say, quite £200 in that job of bringing a supply of electricity half a mile across the countryside.
As recently as Saturday last I attended a conference of agricultural workers, and there was a proposal concerning this matter on the agenda for consideration by the workers (I was not present myself when the matter came up). The paragraph on the agenda expressed the workers' desire that the provision of electricity to the various villages around them would be speeded up and that the process should be extended throughout the country. I know that the Electricity Board has brought electricity to many thousands of farms and I pay tribute to it for so doing. There are other people in the countryside, in addition to the farmers, and I hope that there will be a directive to the authority concerned that particular attention should be paid to the rural districts. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to the Amendment

931
and see that some reference is inserted in the Bill to help those who live in rural England.
EARL BATHURST: I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to accept the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I assure the noble Lord that the cases which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, has mentioned, are widespread all over the country, and I believe that if this innocuous but important Amendment can be accepted, it will be a directive to the somewhat nebulous Council, which has been set up to direct the electricity industry, to make sure that the Council consider the rural users of electric light. I think that if the Amendment could be accepted, it would also be an example of Parliament moving in some measure to control the destinies of, and to give a policy lead to, a nationalised industry. Speaking on behalf not only of farmers but also of those who have small country houses, and of those who hope to set up their homes in the country, I hope that the Council will consider it their duty to supply electricity at a cheap cost to rural users. Therefore, I beg to support the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD MILLS: I am sure that we are all in sympathy with what this proposal is trying to achieve. Under the Bill, the Electricity Council have a duty to
" promote and assist the maintenance and development by Electricity Boards in England and Wales of an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity supply ".
There is nothing in Clause 3 to prevent the Electricity Council from promoting rural electrification, which clearly must be an element in an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity supply. The rural load, as your Lordships know, has different characteristics from the urban and industrial loads. It thus promotes a more economical use of generating capacity and so tends to reduce the maximum demand charge which the Area Boards pay for electricity in bulk. Moreover, the Boards are required under the 1947 Act to secure as far as practicable the extension of rural electrification.
Their programme, with its target of 85 per cent. of farms to be connected by 1963 (by 1968 in the South Wales, South Western and Merseyside and North
932
Wales Areas) is ahead of schedule, as I have already informed your Lordships. The remaining 15 per cent. of farms after the target has been reached will represent a problem to be solved when it arises, but there is no reason to expect any slowing-down of the programme when the Boards become financially autonomous. Rural electrification is a problem to which the Electricity Council will give their attention from time to time. Among other things, they will have to make recommendations to the Minister, under paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule to the Bill, for distributing the central reserve fund among the Generating Board and the Area Boards, and the Minister has agreed that they should be asked to give consideration to any Board who can make out a case for special treatment because it is faced with special problems, including rural electrification.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me if I was in agreement with the idea of a universal charge. I have already assured the noble Lord on a previous occasion that I agree in principle that this is an end to which the Boards should work, and that it is a desirable end which should be attained as soon as possible. If I accepted this Amendment, I am afraid that it would be interpreted, or could be interpreted, as requiring the Electricity Council to attach more importance to rural electrification than to other equally pressing problems, such as system reinforcement. For that reason, I consider that the Amendment is not a suitable one. I hope, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, will be content with what I have said in regard to rural electrification, and that noble Lords will not press this Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I wish I could say that the noble Lord has given a satisfactory answer. It may be satisfactory to his advisers, but I cannot say that it is satisfactory when I take into consideration that there is no more pressing problem in this country than the supply of electrical energy to rural areas. When the noble Lord says that if he accepts this Amendment, that might give colour to the suspicion that the Boards would have to give preference to rural electrification over any other question, my reply is that that is what I want.

933
What is the object of putting an atomic power station in Somerset—to send electricity to the industrial north? After thinking of one or two reasons, the Government now say that they want to put these stations in places that are short of coal. To give electricity to the rural areas?—surely that is one of the reasons.
What I want the noble Lord to do is to impress on the Electricity Council that it is no good generating electricity and then, as my noble friend Lord Wise instanced, charging £1,200 to run an electricity supply to some point. My noble friend may be a wealthy man, but I could not afford to pay £1,000. My Area Board thought that I was going to pay £100 to run a supply line 100 yards, but they had two or three different opinions about that later on. We want to help the un-subsidised individual, the man who is not a farmer and getting 30 per cent. or 35 per cent. back. Perhaps for the first time in history, if my memory serves me aright, the noble Lord has the chance of putting in a nationalisation Bill specific directions to the Area Boards about how they shall spend their reserve funds, to build up which they have a statutory duty. Would the noble Lord care to give me an undertaking that one of the first directions he will give to the Area Boards is that the, cases mentioned by my noble friend Lord Wise and by the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and thousands of others, will be absorbed in the all-over price structure, with the principle of which the noble Lord has just said he agrees? I can assure him that he will be hunted on this question for quite a long time, because this is one of the crying disgraces of the electrical supply of this country. To get a cheap and efficient electrical supply you have to live in the very centre of an urban district; and out into the countryside the shortage of electricity is almost as bad as the shortage of water in some of our villages and hamlets.
I was hoping that the noble Lord would accept this Amendment as an indication to the Electricity Council that their duty shall be
" to promote and assist the maintenance and development by Electricity Boards in England and Wales of an efficient, co-ordinated "—
that is the important word—
" and economical system of electricity supply including the extension of supplies to rural areas."
934
I think the noble Lord would earn a lot of kudos (and he has a lot of leeway to make up in kudos over the electrical supply of the country) in the rural areas by accepting this Amendment. May I ask him if he would like to think about it again between now and the next stage of the Bill?
LORD MILLS: In reply to the noble Lord, I should not like to think about it; again. I think anyone reading what I had to say about it would appreciate how much the proper extension to rural areas is in the minds of all concerned with the electrical supply industry. Nor would I accept that they have not done a good job in that direction. They have made continual progress. I am sure that if the noble Lord had been advocating anything else, such as system reinforcement or maintenance, he would have been just as vehement that that was the thing that really mattered. I accept the importance of rural electrification, but I cannot include it as an item without specifying everything else of importance, which is quite impossible, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I refuse to consider the question further.
4.53 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: If what the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said when he moved his Amendment which was rejected by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, is right, it would seem that this Bill may mean that the new Authority will lose all support from the highest grades of men working in the Electricity Authority. By rejecting, or agreeing only to consider further, the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has moved with regard to the organisation of labour, possibly this measure will be completely unpopular with the lower grades. And if, further, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, rejects this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, it would appear that all support for this measure will be lost from the people who are going to use electricity. If the situation continues—and there is no reason why it should not—whereby electricity cannot be laid on to rural areas, apart from farms (the percentage of farms laid on has nothing to do with it; it is the mile or two beyond the farm buildings in which the noble Lord, Lord Wise, and many noble Lords who are not here and, I think, subjects of Her Majesty all

935
over the country are interested), then I think people will go for small generating plants of their own and will not use the new developments in electricity that would appear to be forthcoming round the corner. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to consider this Amendment further, in order that some part of this Bill may be popular with some people in the country. I should still support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in any measure he cares to take in regard to his Amendment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord, Lord Mills, can have it his way if he likes, but we shall return to this point on many occasions. I would not for one moment detract from the praise, if praise is necessary, of the Central Electricity Authority for electrifying thousands and thousands of farms; but what I would impress on the noble Lord is that every one of those schemes was subsidised, and the Government paid over one-third of the cost. If every one of those thousands of farms electrified under a subsidised scheme had had to be paid for at the full price, I wonder how many would have been electrified. When the noble Lord talks about setting up a privileged class, I suppose that in your Lordships' House I should be very unpopular if I hinted that a 35 per cent. subsidy is not an under-privilege. However, I shall not ask your Lordships to divide on this Amendment, because, after the strong expressions we have heard, I am sure we shall return to the matter again. Perhaps we shall be able to persuade the Consultative Committees in some of the rural areas to do something about it, although my hope is not very great. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
4.57 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
". The Area Boards shall consist of a chairman, deputy chairman and not less than four or more than six other members. The chairman, deputy chairman and not less than three of the other members shall be full-time members."
The noble Lord said: This is the last Amendment on the question of full-time members of the Boards, and here we
936
come to Area Boards. I want written into the Bill the established practice that:
" Area Boards shall consist of a chairman, deputy chairman and not less than four or more than six other members."
That is the present constitution of an Area Board under the 1947 Act, and I have put this Amendment down for the sole purpose of adding to that:
" The chairman, deputy chairman and not less than three of the other members shall be full-time members."
The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the chairman and deputy chairman of the Area Boards are the only full-time members appointed at present. Think of the huge job the Area Boards have to do in the future if this autonomy comes about. They will be gigantic concerns. I should have thought that it was more necessary than ever to strengthen those Area Boards by having a proportion of full-time members other than the chairman and deputy chairman. I do not want to waste time by going over the arguments, but I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, whether he would be good enough to garner this into the bag of points he is going to reconsider, and then I am willing to see the results of the reconsideration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MILLS: I will give further consideration to this Amendment, because it is in line with the other matters we have been discussing, although I should not like to hold out much hope, as the proposal still has the fundamental objection that it is too rigid. It fetters the Minister far too much in making the best appointments he can to these Boards.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It does not fetter the Minister if he accepts it in the spirit in which I present it to your Lordships, because at the present time the chairman and deputy chairman are full-time members, and I am quite willing not to specify any particular number of other members. I am perfectly willing to say, "And the other members shall be part- or full-time as appointed by the Minister". So long as I can get the principle of full-time members in, I am satisfied. I do not think I shall be quite so badly off by leaving it to the noble Lord. He has not given me much

937
this afternoon, but perhaps he will as we go on. I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.1 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:
" .The terms and conditions of the appointment of all members of the Generating Board, Electricity Council and Area Boards shall conform to good industrial and commercial standards."
The noble Lord said: I do not know whether I ought to say much in my advocacy for this new clause, because the Minister made my case for me just now, when he told us the story about wanting to appoint an up-and-rising young man as the deputy chairman of one of the Boards, but who could be only a part-time official because they could not pay him a sufficiently high salary for him to leave his present job. Here we come to a fundamental which I think Parliament and this country must face up to. Our nationalised industries are suffering acutely because, for some reason best known to the Government and the Treasury, we are trying to get the best men—I was almost going to say on the worst remuneration.
As I said in moving my opening Amendment, the electricity supply industry in the next six or eight years will prove to be the greatest industrial development this country has even known. It will spend £3,250 million of the taxpayers' money revolutionising our power system. What have we been arguing about nearly all this afternoon? The Minister is a man of wide experience in industry, who knows that he must have the best men for this job; and he is being handicapped because he cannot pay them a competitive price. The Minister knows quite well that large-scale industry does not pay its top men high rates of remuneration because it likes the colour of their hair or the "cut of their jib": it is because they have the intelligence, the brains and the drive. I am going to say this to the noble Lord—and I have said it before in your Lordships' House in various ways. Among the industries of this country it is those where the high executives—the chairman, the directors, and the high executive directors—are paid the highest salaries, that the labour employed is the most contented. I could
938
name three—I.C.I., Unilever, and The Imperial Tobacco Company. When was the last labour trouble they had? And their top executives are among the highest paid in this country. I think that is because the top executive, who earns a high rate himself, knows the value of paying a high rate to whose who work under him. Again, the noble Lord has admitted—and the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said the same thing—that what we have to do is to see that good youngsters come into these industries. If I may use a phrase which was once used by an ornament of the Government Front Bench in your Lordships' House many years ago, the "glittering prizes" have got to be there.
What is happening in our nationalised industries to-day? The top-level Boards are "stuffed" with half-retired nominees. Most of these Boards have been in existence for ten years, and I know of very few where some bright executive has at last found his way to the top. That will never happen unless you pay them what I like to think is the rate for the job. I think it is about time that we wrote into one of these Bills at least the principle, as I have tried to do, in these terms:
" The terms and conditions of the appointment of all members of the Generating Board, Electricity Council and Area Boards shall conform to good industrial and commercial standards ".
I am going to move this Amendment because I do not know what grounds the noble Lord will be able to find for resisting an Amendment which lays down a principle which I should think everyone of us, whether we have had experience in industry or not, would agree with happily. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MILLS: I do not look upon this as a Party matter, nor do I disagree with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, had a good deal to say on this subject in your Lordships' House a few days ago. I think it has been recognised by Parliament that public Boards should be run on business lines, rather than as Civil Service Departments; they were to be free to fix the terms and conditions of their staffs, but the terms and conditions of the appointment of Board members were to be fixed by the Minister with the

939
approval of the Treasury. It has always been regarded as the responsibility of the Government to see that Board members' terms and conditions are such as to ensure that suitable men are appointed to the Boards. This is a matter which has my constant consideration and attention.
Having said that, I think it would be wrong for a provision such as this to be included in the Bill. The clause, by its very nature, must be expressed in imprecise terms. There could, for instance, be much argument as to what were "good industrial and commercial standards." They vary a great deal. They vary a great deal between individual firms, and I should find it difficult to know what my mandate was with this form of words in the Bill. I do not think the Amendment is appropriate but, as I have told the noble Lord, I thoroughly agree with his sentiments.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not agree with the noble Lord. He said that he would have a job to define this expression, "good industrial and commercial standards". He has had to do that thousands of times in his business life, as I have. What is the job worth? What shall we pay this man? How many managers and high executives have we employed, and in each case had to make up our minds what we would pay? What is a good standard? What is the decent standard prevailing in industry for that man or this man—engineers, accountants, scientists, or anyone else? If the noble Lord is going to find himself in a difficulty in defining what is a good industrial or commercial standard may I ask him to turn to paragraph 1 in the First Schedule? In the new sub-paragraph 2A, he will see this qualification for members of a Consultative Council:
In the appointment of any person under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection, the Minister shall have particular regard to his ability to exercise a wide and impartial judgment on the matters to be dealt with by the Council generally…"
If the noble Lord can find a correct answer to that, I am sure he is going to find a correct answer to the problem: What is a good standard?
I do not want to take away the power of the Minister. The power of the Minister to appoint men, and to pay them, must remain, but I think we shall never get anywhere until we lay it down as a principle. The noble and learned
940
Viscount on the Woolsack, when he wound up the Second Reading debate (I quote from Column 239 of the OFFICIAL REPORT on April 30, 1957), quoted what Mr. Aubrey Jones, who was at the time the Minister of Power, said on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place:
" One of the reasons for the weakness, as the Herbert Committee said, and as the Fleck Committee said at an earlier point of time, is the great disparity in rewards at the top of a nationalised industry compared with those at the top of private industry."
Mr. Aubrey Jones went on to say:
" I very much regret that the financial and economic situation does not make it possible for the Government to act on this now; but, I would add, the Government are giving very serious thought to this matter and recognise and appreciate the force of the comments made by both Committees. More than that I cannot at the moment say."
My interjection, as the noble Lord will remember, was that that was rather a foolish statement, because it is not whether we can afford to do this. We cannot afford not to do it. One of the reasons why our nationalised industries are falling down in manpower and brainpower, why they are losing men and why they cannot get them, is that they cannot pay a comparable rate for the job. The comparable rate is not being paid and so the attractions not there. I feel very strongly about this, so, if the noble Lord cannot accept my Amendment, I shall ask your Lordships to express in the Division Lobby your opinion on whether this is a proper principle to be adopted.
5.13 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: I feel on this occasion rather inclined to support the Amendment of the noble Lord Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I hope the Minister will be able to say something more before we decide whether or not to divide, because I was very much impressed by a leading article in The Times towards the end of last year which, referring to this industry, said this:
" But the industry will not stand or fall by structure alone. It will depend still more vitally on the men who run it. Of the Herbert Committee recommendations about which nothing is done at this stage, two are especially important. One concerned prices. The other was that good men had to be retained and found, that they would not be unless they were paid for, and that consequently levels of remuneration should be urgently reconsidered. The new proposals may mean something of

941
an unheaval in the board memberships. It will be an opportunity to tackle the human side of this industry in a bold way."
I would only say that, if the Minister can assure me that what I have read out is strictly in accordance with his policy and the steps he proposes to take, I shall be satisfied. I think it is important. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for having raised this point, which is vital to the future of many in the industry.
EARL BATHURST: I, too, rise to support the Amendment which Lord Lucas of Chilworth has put before your Lordships. I am quite sure that there is something that is wrong in our nationalised industries, and I believe that this Bill and the Amendment would give Her Majesty's Minister a chance to remedy this ill in the industries. I know a great many of the men who actually put up the power lines and do the maintenance, right at the bottom, and also those fairly high up in the tree of the electricity industry. I am quite certain that there is nothing wrong there. Where there is something wrong is in the chain of command, somewhere in the middle. I believe that, if the noble Lord who is to reply can accept this Amendment, there will be a chance for Her Majesty's Government to put new drive and new zest and interest into the nationalised industries, and, first, the electricity industry.
If this Amendment can be accepted, possibly the man to whom the noble Lord, Lord Mills, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred as being in search of the glittering prize may come along to take charge as Chairman of this Board. Under the terms of the Bill, I do not see either the Chairman or the deputy chairmen, being anything more than an arbiter or a settler of disputes between wrangling Area Board Chairmen who seem to have the majority placings on this Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has referred. If the noble Lord's Amendment can be accepted, I believe that it will give a beginning for a new spirit, a new leadership, to come into this vital industry which in the years to come will be in charge of the very prosperity of our country. I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD MILLS: I said at the outset that I did not think there was any difference of opinion between us on this matter; I, too, want to see proper remuneration paid to Board members. I feel that this Amendment is not a very appropriate one, but I am quite prepared to think it over again, because we want to arrive at the same conclusion.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I feel very strongly on this matter. I agree with every word the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said, and with every word The Times said. I am not against the Minister, I am behind the Minister. I am playing the part of his political wife who is kicking him along.
LORD MANCROFT: What?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I want to give him all the help I can to make this a success. I know he will not make it a success unless, as The Times said, it is men, not machines. As I said before, he is going to spend £3,250 million on materials. Surely he has got to pay something for men. I am not tying his hands. I do not want to write this in specific terms that they shall be paid £X, £Y, £Z. What I want to say is that I am trying to help the Conservative Party and the Minister.
LORD MANCROFT: By kicking him along?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No, by trying to persuade him to do something to advance what the Conservative Party call the "Opportunity State", something which they talk such a lot about and do nothing to achieve. Now I am giving them the first chance in a nationalised industry to give some of the opportunities to the younger men in this industry—and the noble Lord says that it is not appropriate. I accept the noble Lord's offer and perhaps he can think of better wording that I can. So long as we agree on the principle, and it is in this Bill, he and I and your Lordships will have done something for the nationalised industries which is crying out for remedy. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Consultative Councils]:
5.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I wonder whether I could ask the noble Lord to give me a little information about these Consultative Councils? I am not happy about them. I did not put down an Amendment here because I wanted to ask the advice of the noble Lord before I did so on another stage of the Bill. Clause 4 sets up the Consultative Councils. Let me be frank: I have never had any great amount of time for Consultative Councils. I think they are useful bodies for large-scale industry, but I have always looked upon them as being "feather-beds" between a Department and a nationalised industry and the ordinary members of the British public.
I am going to make a suggestion to the noble Lord. I am not talking about any membership; I am coming to membership in an Amendment that I shall move when we come to the First Schedule. I am talking about the great areas that these Councils have to cover. By and large, a Consultative Council takes its area formation from the Area Board. I have gone into the question in Oxfordshire, which is a good example. The Consultative Council for the Southern Area, in which Oxfordshire is situated, comprises the County of Oxfordshire, or most of it, the counties of Berkshire, Hampshire with the Isle of Wight, Wiltshire, parts of Buckinghamshire, Dorset-shire, Gloucestershire, Middlesex, Somerset, Surrey and Sussex. That is the area of the Southern Area Consultative Council.
This Bill rather makes a point of the representation which individual consumers can make to the Consultative Council. Might I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that the farm labourer in the Isle of Wight, or the smallholder in Chipping Norton, or somebody from a place nearly a hundred miles away from the place where the Consultative Council meets—and in the case of the Southern Area Consultative Council, which includes Oxfordshire and all those counties I have just mentioned, it is Maidenhead—even if he is paid his travelling expenses and if he is paid his loss of earning time, is going to attend? Those are
944
the people that I want to have the benefit of the Consultative Council. I am sure that the noble Lord also wants that. It is the common man whom we were talking about just now, who lives in the rural areas and is charged pounds for having an electricity supply run to his cottage. It may cost £1,200 a mile, as my noble friend Lord Wise said, but at £100 for 100 yards it is £1 per yard. Is the poor individual from the Isle of Wight to go all the way to Maidenhead to make his case in person? Is he going to sit down and write a letter? Of course he is not. He is going to suffer, but not in silence; he is going to "grouse" and "grouse" as he does now.
I want to ask the noble Lord whether he will consider—and this is the only way I can think of in order to get over this problem—that these Consultative Councils should be broken down into small area committees, so as to give the ordinary man a reasonable chance of meeting them. For the sake of argument, would the noble Lord consider that in every county within an area—and England and Wales are to comprise only twelve areas, which is a wide expanse of country—there should be a consultative committee composed of members of the council in every county town? That would mean that, by and large, it might be necessary to have two in Yorkshire or Lancashire and places like that; but it would also mean that the village inhabitant could go to see his council, probably by bus. In my view that would be a proper and democratic way of making the Consultative Councils work.
I can assure the noble Lord that they do not work to-day. They do with large-scale industry or where somebody of importance has a "grouse." But it is not the important people we are thinking of; we are thinking of the rural areas. We are not thinking of industries who complain to Consultative Councils on bulk tariffs and matters such as that; we are thinking of the small people. There was the case about which I wrote to the noble Lord personally and which I am much indebted to him for rectifying so quickly, which concerned a person who was asked to pay what I thought was an exorbitant charge for having a line diverted. I take the opportunity of raising this point under the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part, because I want to know

945
whether the noble Lord will give it consideration between now and the next stage of the Bill. If he will, then either he or I can put down an Amendment to see whether we can bring these Councils closer to the people who live in the rural areas, to give them a real chance to state their case.
LORD MILLS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me his views on the work of the Consultative Councils. They already have power under the 1947 Act to set up local consultative committees, but I will certainly look into the problem. My information so far has been that they are doing a very good job—in fact, I have been asked on more than one occasion to congratulate them on the work they do. I think it is for the Consultative Councils to see that they are available to all the people in the area they cover. I will certainly look into the point made by the noble Lord.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Powers of Minister in relation to Electricity Council and Electricity Boards]:
5.27 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "the Board from time to time after consultation with". The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment to eliminate certain words in Clause 7 (4). May I read out that subsection? It says:
" In carrying out such measures of reorganisation or such works of development as involve substantial outlay on capital account, each of the Electricity Boards in England and Wales shall act in accordance with a general programme settled by "—
then there occur these words:
" the Board from time to time after consultation with … ".
I want to remove those words so that the relevant part of the subsection will read as follows:
" … a general programme settled by the Electricity Council and approved by the Minister."
In other words, I want the opportunity of asking the noble Lord whether he can tell us what is the financial policy to be followed. I find myself genuinely mystified. As we read this clause, it places upon the Electricity Council the
946
responsibility of raising all the money required for the Area Boards and the Generating Board, either by the issue of Stock or by loans from the Treasury. That is the position until we get to Clause 14 (4), which says:
" The Generating Board or any Area Board, after consultation with the Electricity Council, and with the consent of the Minister and the approval of the Treasury, may borrow money by the issue of stock, for all or any of the following purposes … ."
That is the policy of financial autonomy.
I want to place the whole financial responsibility on the Electricity Council. I should have thought that that would be the proper way to do it—for the Area Boards or the Generating Board to make their application and to put their thoughts and proposals to the Council, and for the Council to go to the Minister. Though that can happen under one clause of the Bill, under another clause responsibility for raising money passes to the Area Boards. I must confess that, with the best will in the world, I cannot see how this financial policy is going to work out.
As I said on a previous Amendment, two people can talk of autonomy and mean two different things. If it is meant that the Boards are to have absolute financial autonomy and can issue prospectuses and raise capital in the open market without consultation with anybody, then that is autonomy. Autonomy, if it means anything, means complete self-government. Can the Boards do that? This clause appears to say that they can. Clause 14 (4) appears to pass the matter back to the Area Boards and Clause 15 goes on:
" The Electricity Council may create and issue any stock required for the purpose of exercising their powers under the last preceding section; "
Everybody can raise money at any time. What is the financial policy? I wish the noble Lord could tell us, for I have read practically every word that has been spoken on this subject and yet I do not know.
I visualise that the ultimate aim of Her Majesty's Government is that the twelve Area Boards shall be completely autonomous—I am not talking about functions, of course, but about the raising of capital. As I said on Second Reading, they are in a monopoly position and can put up their prices to inflate their profits so as to attract capital. That is being completely autonomous. Are they always to be

947
subject to the jurisdiction of the Electricity Council? While this is a nationalised industry and the Treasury, on behalf of the taxpayer, guarantee the principal and interest, I can see that the Minister must have the final word and I would do nothing to derogate from that. But then the Boards cannot have autonomy, and the use of the word there is a misuse of language.
If the Boards are to have autonomy, then what the noble Lord envisages at some future date is the break-up of the nationalised industry. That must surely be so; and with twelve bodies with powers such as they have we may revert back to the bad old system, although of course we shall not have the 500 different electricity undertakings that we had at one time. To ease my mind and the minds of other people, could the noble Lord tell us what is the policy? Does he think that the financial structure is right? Have Her Majesty's Government, in their eagerness to give autonomy to the Boards, not gone too far? I would agree with the noble Lord; I am not a centraliser, and up to a point I am all for decentralisation. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said on Second Reading, that can be carried too far. I suggest that it can be carried too far in finance, especially where Treasury money—the taxpayers' money—is being used.
If you are going to break up nationalisation entirely, say so and do away with Treasury guarantees. Let the Boards go into the money market. If that is the idea, then at some future date the Electricity Board must fade out, with the Minister. I have put down this Amendment in order to try to elucidate some clear statement of financial policy, because the noble Lord will appreciate the mystification that surrounds it at the present time.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 32, leave out from (" by ") to (" the ") in line 33.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
5.32 p.m.
LORD MILLS: The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, have gone a lot further than this Amendment, but I will try to deal with them. Clause 7 (4), to which we are referring, requires the Minister's approval to the Boards' capital programme: and the proposal in the Bill is that the Electricity Board shall consult with the Electricity
948
Council and then get the approval of the Minister to their programme. The Amendment would seek to make the Electricity Council responsible for drawing up the programme and getting it approved. Clause 4 of the Bill as it stands carries out the Government's intention, which is to use the Council in an advisory way and get the Board to put forward their programme, consult with the Council and then get the approval of the Minister.
On finance, which we have discussed in your Lordships' House on a previous occasion, the intention is that the Electricity Council shall be responsible for raising funds because it is recognised that as the industry stands to-day that is the only way that it can be done; and that a Treasury guarantee will be necessary. Clause 17 gives the Electricity Council the duty of finding out the Boards' requirements for borrowing by the issue of stock and of allocating to them the final responsibility for servicing. The noble Lord has referred to the power taken in the Bill whereby the Boards, with the consent of the Minister and the Treasury, are empowered to raise stock themselves without a Treasury guarantee. It was felt advisable to make that provision in the Bill, but there is, of course, no question of ending the nationalisation of this industry. I think everyone is convinced that the nationalisation of this industry has come to stay: and what we want to do is to improve the industry in every possible way. Therefore it is inevitable that we should make suitable provision for any contingency.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask the noble Lord this question while he is on that point? Does he envisage that one Area Board might be given permission to raise capital on the market without the Treasury guarantee, while other Boards carried on with subventions from the Treasury and with the Treasury guarantee?
LORD MILLS: I do not envisage anything of the sort. The Minister and the Treasury have both to come into it and they would take care that nothing was done which the noble Lord would not find right and proper. So I do not envisage anything of the sort.
As I was saying, this is a general power to cover an emergency that might arise.

949
To return to the noble Lord's Amendment, I should prefer that we pursued the course laid down in the original wording of the clause. It is simple and I think it is right. The Minister wants to be in touch with the Board. He wants the Board to put their programme to him, but he wants them first to have discussed it and gone into it and to have taken the advice of the central Council because that is one of their functions. The Minister would feel greatly fortified to have the arguments both of the Board and the Council before him when he is dealing with such an important matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I confess that I look upon the matter with grave apprehension, but I cannot hope at this stage to reorganise the whole financial set-up of the Bill, and I am not going to try. But many people in the country share my apprehension, and I put the Amendment down with a view to ascertaining whether the noble Lord could say something that would allay their fears. I do not know whether he has done that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, put the matter in a nutshell when speaking on Second Reading. While many of us believe in decentralisation for functional purposes, I am afraid that we cannot help thinking that this autonomy can be carried too far and be very expensive. As I see it, the logical conclusion of the financial policy outlined in this Bill will be to break up the nationalisation of one of the great public utility services. I do not think that that is what the noble Lord wishes to do, but I think it will be the result. If the present trend goes on—complete financial autonomy for twelve separate entities—I think you will find that, as the old and very true adage says, "The man who pays the piper calls the tune". With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Machinery for settling terms and conditions of employment]:
5.44 p.m.
LORD MILLS LORD MILLS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Electricity Board" and insert "of the Scottish Electricity Board". The noble Lord said: Clause 11 deals
950
with labour relations. This is a drafting Amendment consequent on the changes made in the clause on Report in another place. Negotiating machinery for safety, health and welfare is not to be, as originally intended, partly the responsibility of the Generating and Area Boards, but the responsibility of the Electricity Council and the Scottish Boards only, in the same way as machinery for negotiating terms and conditions of employment. Hence only the Council and the Scottish Boards will be parties to agreements with the unions for this purpose, and therefore the Council and the Scottish Boards only should be required to send copies of the agreements to the Minister of Power, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Minister of Labour and National Service. This is the object of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 1, leave out (" Electricity Board ") and insert (" of the Scottish Electricity Boards ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Tariffs and special agreements
(2) In subsection (3) of the said section thirty-seven (which relates to the prices to be charged by Area Boards), the following words shall be substituted for the words from the beginning of the subsection to the words "fixed from time to time by them":—
" Subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to railways, the prices to be charged by Area Boards for the supply of electricity by them shall be in accordance with such tariffs as may be fixed from time to time by them after consultation with the Electricity Council ".
LORD MILLS: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to take this Amendment and Amendment No. 38 together. Both these Amendments are consequential on the repeal of Section 49 of the 1947 Act (which relates to the supply of electricity to the railways), and on the insertion of new provisions for the same purpose by Clause 27 of the Bill. The fixing of retail tariffs (a) by Area Boards under Section 37 (3) of the 1947 Act as amended by Clause 13 (2) of the Bill and (b) by the Scottish Boards under Clause 10A (1) of the 1943 Act are in either case to be subject to the special

951
provisions for supplying electricity to railways. But the railway provisions referred to in the retail tariff sections are the provisions of the 1947 Act. Since those provisions are to be replaced by new railway provisions in Clause 27 of the Bill the references to the railway provisions of the 1947 Act must be replaced by references to the railway provisions of the Bill. That is the object of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 26, leave out (" this Act ") and insert (" The Electricity Act. 1957 ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.48 p.m.
LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (2), after "consultation with" to insert:
"the appropriate consultative council and with the approval of"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Milverton on the Marshalled List. This is quite a simple Amendment and it brings the consumers into the picture. As I read the clause as it stands, the approval of any proposal to increase or vary charges by an Area Board must be submitted to the Electricity Council and agreed to by that body. But on the Electricity Council, if my arithmetic is correct, there will be a majority of chairmen. I suggest that on the submission of any proposal to vary charges or tariffs to that body, the protection of the general public will obviously be very illusory. I would further submit that, in a great concern like this, the consumers who have to pay at least have a right to have their representatives brought into the picture when there is any proposal to vary the charges or tariffs. That is not to say that I am satisfied with the proposed constitution of the Consumers' Council. Be that as it may, I suggest that it would be a very good thing if the public were given a measure of protection and brought into the picture as the Amendment suggests. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 30, after (" with ") insert (" the appropriate consultative council and with the approval of ").—(Lord Burden.)
LORD MANCROFT: There are two separate ideas wrapped up in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton,
952
which the noble Lord, Lord Burden has just moved for him. I see what the noble Lord is getting at, and I think that I can probably set his mind at rest. His Amendment would require Area Board retail tariffs to be fixed after consultation with the Consultative Council and with the approval of the Electricity Council. These are two separate things; let us consider them separately for a moment. To take the first, the interests of the Consultative Council can be represented, as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, probably appreciates, at all stages in the evolution of new retail tariffs, because under the 1947 Act the Consultative Council chairman is a member of the Area Board. I suggest to the noble Lord that that is as much as the Statute could provide for in practice. There are also fairly close contacts between the Area Board and the Consultative Council on tariff questions, and I think that the noble Lord can rest assured that on important tariff questions this practice will continue when the Area Boards become financially autonomous. I do not feel that it would be suitable to provide in the Bill for formal consultation with the Consultative Councils in addition to consultation with the Electricity Council. That would make the procedure unduly cumbersome.
The second point embodied in the Amendment is not one which I favour. It is inconsistent with the responsibility on Area Boards to pay their way individually. I would submit this point to the noble Lord for his consideration. I do not think that an Area Board can be answerable for running its own affairs if it cannot fix tariffs without the approval of another body. Consultation with the Electricity Council before an Area Board fixes its tariff is reasonable in order to ensure that the Board's ideas on tariff policy are discussed in the forum of the industry as a whole, but I think that that is about as much as is required in a decentralised organisation. I have sympathy with what the noble Lord is trying to do. We are trying to do the same thing, but I think that the Amendment goes too far and gets the procedure involved in too much consultation and too much detail, which would defeat our aims. The existing procedure and the proposals contained in the Bill will meet the noble Lord's requirements and will, in practice, go

953
some way to coping with the difficulties that he has put forward. I do not think that we can go much further than that.
LORD BURDEN: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but I am afraid that I am not quite satisfied. I am prepared to meet the noble Lord half-way. If we took out the words "and with the approval of", and it were provided that there should be consultation with the Consumers' Council in the area, I should be prepared to accept that. I do not think that that is asking too much. After all, we know how a Council like the Electricity Council will work, having, as it will have, the chairmen of the separate Area Boards in the majority. "Dog does not eat dog." If a proposal comes up from one Area Board to increase its tariff, obviously that will go through the Council almost formally.
I agree that the noble Lord made a substantial point when he said that the responsibility would be placed upon each Area Board to pay its way, and if a Consultative Council agree to veto any proposal for variation of tariffs, they would have the power without responsibility. I agree that that is a substantial point, but I feel that the presence of the chairman of the appropriate Consultative Council is not quite enough, and I think that the noble Lord could concede that there should be consultation between the Consultative Council and the Area Board.
LORD MANCROFT: One thing that is worse than drafting on one's feet is accepting the drafting of someone else who is drafting on his feet. At first sight, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has a substantial point here, but I hope he will forgive me if I do not accept it at once. If he would like to put it down on Report stage, I will have it carefully considered.
LORD BURDEN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord and will do as he suggests. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Transfer of assets and liabilities of Central Authority]:
LORD MANCROFT: The 1947 Act provided that, subject to any pension regulations made by the Minister, the
954
customary obligations of former undertakers in respect of pensions should be transferred to the Electricity Boards, although they were not legal obligations. A number of the former undertakings, particularly company undertakings, had no pension schemes until just before nationalisation, and their customary practice had been to sanction pensions as an act of grace in individual cases. It is necessary to make sure that obligations of this kind inherited by the Central Authority in 1948 should be among the liabilities and obligations to be apportioned between the Generating Board and the Electricity Council under Clause 24 of the Bill. I do not think that that will give rise to any objection. Amendment No. 23 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 8, at end insert—
(" (6) In this and the next following section "obligation" includes any such customary obligation as is referred to in subsection (5) of section fifty-four of the principal Act (which relates to certain customary obligations in respect of pensions). ")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
5.59 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:
For protection of amenities
".—(1) The Generating Board, the Electricity Council and the Area Boards in the exercise of their functions under this Act and the principal Act generally shall have due regard to the preservation of natural beauty and to landscape amenity.
(2) The power of the Minister to give general and specific directions as to the application of any moneys comprised in any general reserve fund which the Electricity Boards are required to establish and maintain under section nineteen of this Act shall include power to direct the Generating Board or any Area Board to pay due regard to the preservation of natural beauty, to landscape amenity and the setting or amenities of any building which has been made the subject of a preservation order under section twenty-nine of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, notwithstanding that compliance with such direction involves a reduction in the net income accruing to any such Board and in particular the Minister may direct the Generating Board or any Area Board to seek the advice of a landscape consultant in connection with the carrying out of a work of development the effect of which on natural beauty and landscape amenity will be important and with the settling of a general programme in accordance with subsection (4) of section seven of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a series of Amendments in which other noble Lords and I invite your Lordships to do something in this Bill towards the preservation of the amenities of this country. There is no doubt that they are in great danger. I do not deny that we must have electrical energy. I have told the noble Lord, Lord Mills, that nobody disputes that. But there are some of us—I think the large majority of the people of this country—who are afraid of the devastating effect of this development upon the countryside. Your Lordships have ever been conscious of the need to preserve it. The statement in the first subsection of the new clause I am moving is one with which I do not think any noble Lord will dissent. It has precedent. There are many injunctions of that kind in many Acts of Parliament. Subsection (2) in essence invites the Minister to take the initiative in this matter of preservation. Clause 19 of the Bill is most interesting, in that it sets up reserve funds and provides that the reserve funds that are at present held shall be transferred to the new bodies. The funds are there primarily for the equalisation of tariffs and such things. But, to my mind, the significant part is that it gives to the Minister for the first time power to give to all the Electricity Boards specific directions as to what they shall spend their money on. That is a marked step forward. I admit that the draftsman has not got as much confidence in the noble Lord as I have, because the Bill then goes on to hedge him around with all the usual paraphernalia that he cannot do it without the consent of the Treasury.
I think the subsection in the proposed new clause is self-explanatory. What it says is:
" The power of the Minister to give general and specific directions as to the application of any moneys comprised in any general reserve fund which the Electricity Boards are required to establish and maintain under section nineteen of this Act shall include power to direct the Generating Board or any Area Board to pay due regard to the preservation of natural beauty to landscape amenity and the setting or amenities of any building which has been made the subject of a preservation order under section twenty-four of the Town and Country Planning Act. 1947, "—
then come these significant words—
" notwithstanding that compliance with such direction involves a reduction in the net income accruing to any such Board and in
956
particular the Minister may direct the Generating Board or any Area Board to seek the advice "—
and so on. That is put in specifically so that if the Minister can now, as I understand from this clause he can, for the first time, give specific directions that a line shall be put underground—as I understand it, the law up to now has always been that, while the Minister can say that the line shall not go overground, he cannot say that the line shall go underground—and if there is any extra cost, it shall be met out of the reserve fund, and the cost shall be spread over the entire price structure of the area. That means that the consumers, as a whole, will then be responsible for payment, and not, as has been in the past, the few people who are going to benefit directly by the line going underground.
The noble Lord will remember that on many occasions in the past, opponents to overhead lines on amenity grounds have been frightened off by the fact that if the line were put underground their electricity would cost much more money, otherwise they might not get it at all. There was a celebrated case, I think, in Langdale, Westmorland, that went on for years and years because the Central Electricity Authority would not put the line underground and if they could not put it overground they would not put a line there at all. As I have said, I think this Amendment is self-explanatory. The Minister has power under Clause 19 of the Bill to give specific directions as to:

" (a) any matter relating to the establishment or management of a fund which the Board are required to maintain under this section, or

(b) the making of contributions to such a fund, or

(c) the application of any moneys comprised in such a fund."

The purpose of the Amendment is to give the Minister power to direct in any specific case that the amenities shall be preserved, how they shall be preserved, and how the cost shall be met. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD HURCOMB: I added my name in support of this Amendment at the request of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, a responsible and reasonable body to whose vigilance all

957
lovers of the countryside owe a great deal. I do not intend, especially so late in the afternoon, to embark on any discussion about the detailed machinery which is embodied in this Amendment. I believe that the Minister's Department has had some opportunity of considering it, but that it may need further consideration, as may the actual wording and drafting of the Amendment. However, there is a clear and broad important principle on which I would earnestly submit to your Lordships you should give an expression of view.
There is no doubt that we are facing the possibility of alterations in the landscape and the familiar appearance of our country which may transcend what happened in the early days of the nineteenth century. As I have ventured to say to your Lordships before, the recent generation has been quick to blame the nineteenth century and those who were responsible for the industrialisation of that century for doing a great deal of social and other damage which they ought to have avoided. I feel that, whatever degree of blame attaches to the men of that time, they acted largely in ignorance, without full realisation of the consequences of what they did. That cannot be said now: we know full well what is likely to happen; we know the ways in which a great deal of the damage can be avoided, and all we have to do is to face some degree of expense.
That brings me to the root of this matter. In the past, many of the electricity undertakings, and certainly the Central Authority since nationalisation, have not taken an altogether unenlightened view of these matters. Indeed, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board took a very enlightened view of many questions connected with the preservation of the natural amenities of the Scottish landscape and its natural life, to such an extent that when many distinguished foreign naturalists visited Scotland last year they were very much struck with the care that had been taken. I feel that that practice should be general, and that it should be accepted as part of public policy that, in carrying out all these works and developments, reasonable regard should be had to the preservation of amenities and the natural features of the landscape.
958
There is a tendency on the part of an undertaking and its engineers who are charged with a specific duty, which in my time used to be to promote a cheap and abundant supply of electricity, to say that that was all that they had to do, and that anything which added even fractionally to the cost was no concern of theirs. I do not believe that that was ever a correct view; I do not think it followed in any way from the Statutes themselves. But I do think that it is very important, at a time like this, when we are facing great new developments, that it should be declared as part of public policy that regard should be had by this great national undertaking to these important considerations. I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of this Amendment whatever he may wish to say about the details, and that he will write it into the Bill. I am quite sure that he will be profuse, and quite genuinely profuse, in his sympathy, but that is not enough. One or two good decisions and a statutory declaration which has the backing of your Lordships' House behind it will be worth a large amount of expressions of sympathy. I feel, therefore, that this is a point on which the Minister, who has not been unreasonably pressed hitherto in this debate, should be pressed to be quite categorical and to say that he accepts this principle; that he will give it some statutory expression.
I am sure that the cumulative cost of doing something to prevent what has happened so widely, not only in this country but all over the world, in damage to natural landscape, is going to prove to be very little indeed. In any event, that cost is a reasonable part of the price which those who enjoy the great benefits of the development of electricity should pay. I do not think it is a case for public subsidy or for throwing direct burdens upon the Exchequer, although I notice that in The Times this morning Dr. Julian Huxley suggested that the cost of underground lines should be met out of the Land Fund. I myself feel that it is not unreasonable that a great industry which has a monopoly, and is given privileges and rights over other people's property, should carry the cost of doing as little harm as they can, along with their other necessary expenses. Where it is necessary and reasonable to put a line underground or to re-route a line,

959
the cost should be treated as a normal part of the capital cost of the improvement. But there may well be cases where the amount is substantial and could be conveniently borne out of the reserves, as this Amendment proposes.
I hope that I have made my general point of view clear to your Lordships. Now is the moment when, if your Lordships are so disposed, you can do something, beyond mere expressions of sympathy, to see that the future appearance of our country and the enjoyment of future generations are safeguarded. I do not wish to tie the Minister in any way to the exact wording of this Amendment. There may be means of improving it. There may be snags about it which have not been foreseen by those who drafted it. But the Minister should accept the principle wholeheartedly, and agree to give it statutory expression. That is a reasonable request, and I press it on him with all the earnestness I can command.
6.15 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I do not wish to delay the Committee for a long time, but I think it is appropriate that an Amendment which has been moved from the Opposition Benches and supported from the Cross Benches should also be supported most strongly from the Government Benches. This Amendment is as completely non-Party as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England itself. I am quite certain that some such provision as is here embodied is required in this measure. When the Bill becomes law, it should be plain on the face of it that there is a duty to consider these questions of amenity. We know that the noble Lord, the Minister of Power, himself does care for these things, and pressing this Amendment does not mean any doubt whatever of his good intentions. But we are, after all, working to create an Act of Parliament, and the need to consider the amenities ought to be clear on the face of the Statute.
It should also be quite clear that, if necessary, funds can be used, should the Minister so decide, in order to protect amenity. I do not agree that in all cases expenditure of any money will be necessary. Sometimes amenities can be protected by the mere avoidance of stupidity, and many of us who have
960
worked in these causes for many years could give examples—indeed, examples have been given in other debates. But where there is a question of money being required, it may be an extremely cheap investment in the national interest to save and not to destroy the beauty of the country.
The second part of the Amendment merely makes it clear that the Minister, if he is so disposed, can give appropriate directions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I do not suggest that the wording of this Amendment is incapable of being improved. In particular, I can think of one matter in which I should like to see it improved. Nothing whatsoever is said about the protection of architectural amenity except the reference to:
" … any building which has been made the subject of a preservation order … "
That applies to very few cases, even in some of the places that are most valuable from the point of view of architecture; so I think the wording of that part of the new clause could certainly be improved. I hope very much that the Minister will not say either that some such Amendment as that for which we plead is impossible, or that it is unnecessary. I do not believe that either of those two pleas can be sustained. It is possible to accept an Amendment of this kind, and I do not believe that anybody who cares for amenity, both amenity of the countryside and architectural amenity, will be content that we should pass this Statute without any reference to the preservation of these values to which so many of us, in all quarters both of this House and of another place, attach great importance. I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to add my support to this Amendment. Surely the provisions in it are sound. We all want the preservation of natural beauty—of course, within reason. As the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has stated, what is set out in this Amendment is a clear and important principle. As we all know, amenities are being destroyed by such things as new oil refineries and all kinds of industrial expansion which, I am quite sure, could be better placed if greater thought were given to it. I am sure we should be careful not to destroy our heritage, and I fully support this Amendment.
EARL BATHURST: I, too, beg to support the noble Lord opposite in his Amendment. The noble Lord who is to reply is a business man, and he knows full well the importance of good will in his business. If the noble Lord can, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, sympathetically consider the sentiments that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has expressed in his Amendment, it will receive throughout the country the enormous good will not only of his customers as electricity users but of people in all walks of life. Not only those in the countryside but those who take their pleasures in motor cars or coaches or on push bicycles will appreciate it if the noble Lord can accept the sentiments expressed in this Amendment. I beg to support the noble Lord opposite.
6.21 p.m.
LORD MILLS: I am greatly impressed with the weight of opinion on this matter in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to the noble Lords for what they have said. I unreservedly accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, and accept the principle set out in the first subsection of this proposed Amendment. I have the greatest possible sympathy with the object of the Amendment, and I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to go again over ground which we discussed when we went into the general question of amenities on March 13 on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. But I should like to re-emphasise that I am as anxious as everyone else is that, in carrying out this power programme, which we must carry out if we are to maintain and improve our standards of living, we shall do our best to ensure that the amenities of the countryside are preserved.
There are, however, some difficulties in this Amendment as it is drafted which I am sure your Lordships will appreciate. I am advised that the second subsection of the Amendment might lay the Boards open to serious obstruction or even litigation in carrying forward the power programme, which they must do and for which they must have our support. In any event, I can assure your Lordships that the Boards will be given orders to pay the greatest possible attention to the protection of amenities which I know, and your Lordships know, will become all the more necessary as the programme
962
advances. On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, the Central Authority have appointed three distinguished architects to ensure that power stations are not incongruous to the countryside. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me, having said that I accept the principle unreservedly, to look at the matter again.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am sure the whole Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. Frankly, I did not expect him to say anything else. The noble Lord has given plenty of evidence of his desire to meet your Lordships on this question of amenity. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that the draftsmanship is not as good as it might be. It never is, because Treasury counsel did not draft it. But, if the Minister is going now to let his expert advisers draft it, we shall look with great interest at what is produced.
I hope the noble Lord is not going to be quite satisfied with only the first subsection of this Amendment. I hope he takes it to heart very seriously that the Committee will expect him to redraft subsection (2). I do not want the noble Lord to be under any illusion about that. He has accepted the principle. We want this principle written in concrete terms into this Bill. I am not a lawyer, and I therefore should not quarrel with his statement that his legal advisers think that this might engage the Area Boards in litigation, but I do not see how it possibly can, because it is within the power of the Minister to give specific directions. If the Minister gives specific directions, then I do not see what harm can come to any Area Board. However, that is a matter for the noble Lord and his expert advisers. He has one legal adviser close to him and another has just arrived, but I do not suppose that they would care to venture any opinion on this now.
May I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hurcomb, Lord Conesford and Lord Teynham, and also the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, for their strong support? This, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said, is an Amendment which we were asked by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England to support. I am sure it is a cause which we all have at heart, and we have now enlisted Lord

963
Mills as an active propagandist in the cause. I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment and await the result of the noble Lord's deliberations.
LORD HURCOMB: Before the noble Lord actually withdraws his Amendment, may I point out that I do not think the noble Lord the Minister actually said, though he implied, that he would on the next stage write into the Bill the principle contained in the first subsection of this Amendment, but I hope that I shall be right in drawing the inference that that is what he undertakes to do. If that be so, then I would venture to suggest that on the wording of the second part, or on any detailed points, he might consult with the organisation which is interested in seeing this done. As for legal difficulties, none could arise from a general statement that it shall be the duty of these various Boards to have regard to these particular things. The Statute Book is surely full of statutory directions of that kind to organisations of this type. If it were relevant, I would say that not only in this country but in the United States and in some European countries, such as Switzerland, the Legislatures have found no difficulty in giving similar instructions.
LORD MERTHYR: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I point out one thing, and that is in regard to what the Minister said about the possibility of embarrassment or litigation being caused by subsection (2) of this Amendment. This subsection only gives the Minister power to act; it does not in any way compel him to do anything whatever. That being so, I find it difficult to fit in that fact with the fear of the Minister that litigation or embarrassment might result.
LORD CONESFORD: Further to that point which has just been made by my noble friend, the Minister will see that subsection (2) of this proposed new clause says:
" The power of the Minister … shall include power to direct … "
No doubt his advisers may have discovered something in this clause which could be used in the way he suggests, but nothing is more likely to promote litigation and delay than a doubt whether the Minister's powers do, or do not, include what it is here said they shall include. I would strongly support
964
what has been said by the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, that we regard the Minister's undertaking, I know with justice, as not merely an unqualified acceptance of the principle of the first subsection but a promise to do something effective also about the second subsection.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful for the support of two eminent lawyers. I hope the noble Lord will weigh that up with the legal advice that he has received. I think I am within the recollection of the Committee that it is the wish—and I think the Minister has acceded to it—that we shall have the second subsection in the Bill, as modified by the noble Lord to suit the wishes of the draftsman.
LORD MILLS: May I make myself clear? I accepted the principle which Lord Hurcomb invited me to do, and I said I would agree that something went into the Bill to give effect to that principle. I asked permission to reconsider the whole matter. I pointed out some of the dangers which I am advised lay in the second part. I did not say that I rejected the second part; I said I would reconsider the matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Of course, Parliamentary draftsmen are there to get over dangers. With the permission of the Committee, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Maximum charges for reselling electricity, supplied by Electricity Boards]:
LORD MILLS: There is an incorrect reference in subsection (5) of this clause to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, as the Act with which the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, is incorporated. The Amendment substitutes the correct reference, which is to the Electric Lighting Act, 1882. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 9, leave out (" Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, ") and insert (" Electric Lighting Act, 1882, ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
6.32 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 29 to insert the following new clause:
Procedure on application for consent to erect new power stations, transmission lines, etc.
(". —(1) No development, within the meaning of section twelve of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as amended or of a kind which but for the provisions of section thirty-five of the said Act would otherwise require the permission of a local planning authority under the provisions of the said Act, shall be carried out by the Generating Board or by any Area Board without an order made by the Minister authorising the same in accordance with the provisions of this section and of any regulations made by the Minister here-under.
(2) Before applying for an order by the Minister authorising development or incurring any substantial expenditure upon surveys or the preparation of plans in connection with any proposed development the Generating Board or any Area Board concerned shall consult generally about the proposals—

(i) with the local planning authority or authorities and with the owners and occupiers of any land or building likely to be affected by the carrying out of such proposals; and

(ii) whenever the proposals are likely to affect any area designated as of special landscape value in any development plan approved in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or with the setting or amenities of any building which has been made the subject of a preservation order under section twenty-nine of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, also with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the National Trust, the National Parks Commission and the Royal Fine Arts Commission and, in the case of building as aforesaid, with the Council for Historic Buildings.

(3) Provision may be made by Regulation under this Act with respect to the procedure to be followed in connection with any application for an order by the Minister authorising any proposed development by the Generating Board or by any Area Board and such regulations shall in particular make provision for securing—

(a) that adequate notice shall be given to any body or person entitled to be consulted under Section 2 of this section of the application to the Minister for an order authorising the proposed development and of the right to object or to make representations in relation thereto;

(b) that adequate notice shall be given by advertisement in at least one newspaper circulating in the area or areas concerned of the application to the Minister for an order authorising the proposed development and of the right to object or make representations in regard thereto;

(c) that copies of the plans and details of such proposed development shall be available for public inspection at a convenient place or places within the area affected;

966

(d) that objections or representations in regard to the proposed development may be made in writing to the Minister by any body or person likely to be affected thereby.

(4) The Minister may in any case where an order by him authorising development is required under this Act and shall in the event of any objection or representation in regard to the proposed development being made in accordance with the regulations made under subsection three of this section cause a public local inquiry to be held by an independent and competent person appointed at the Minister's request by the Lord Chancellor. The person conducting such a local inquiry shall be required to hear and consider the proposals for development made by the Generating Board or by an Area Board and any objections or representations with regard to the proposals which have not been withdrawn, and which may be made either orally or in writing.
(5) After receiving and considering the report of a public local inquiry from the person conduting the same and any recommendations such person may make the Minister shall cause the same to be published and to be laid before Parliament. The Minister shall at the same time lay before Parliament a draft of the order, if any, authorising development which, he proposes to make.
(6) If at any time within forty days after the report, recommendations and the draft order have been laid before Parliament either House resolves that the proposed order shall not be made or that it shall be made only as modified in a way specified in such resolution the Minister shall not make the order or shall make it only as modified as the case may be. ")
The noble Lord said: This is the second Amendment which primarily affects the amenity question. Let: me be quite frank with the Committee. I found the drafting of this most difficult, and as for that, nobody is responsible but myself. The Electricity Statutes go back seventy-five years and have never been consolidated, and to fight one's way through them is the work of a Trojan. Therefore I do not put forward the drafting of this Amendment as immaculate. Another thing about which I can be frank is that it seeks to set up an entirely new code, which I should think, if I may use such an expression, is pretty "strong meat" for Her Majesty's Government. However, in my view something like this will have to be done at some time in the future to satisfy the needs of the future.
What this Amendment really seeks to do is to remove from the Statute the deemed planning permission given to the Electricity Boards by the Minister, and to bring the erection of new power stations and transmission lines more under Parliamentary control. Two or three times to-day I have said that we are embarking upon the most outstanding project in the industrial

967
history of this country, and I think that the erection of these new nuclear power stations and super-grids will have to come more under Parliamentary control than it is to-day—by that, I mean the expenditure, erection, the siting and everything. That is what subsection (1) of the new Clause attempts to do. There is no doubt whatever that the Minister of Power is all-powerful in this direction.
I have gone to the trouble of going through the Statutes, such as Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act, and the circulars that have been issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. There was a circular, to which noble Lords may like to be referred, Circular No. 63/51, and accompanying it was a document called Development by Local Planning Authorities, Other Local Authorities and Statutory Undertakers. It was issued in 1951. That was a document in which authority to give deemed planning permission was given to the Minister of Power in respect of the erection of power stations and transmission lines. The only other Minister to have that outstanding power in this country is the Minister of Agriculture in relation to drainage works of river boards and catchment boards. What does this mean? It means that a statutory undertaker—here the Central Electricity Authority—can go to the Minister and apply to him for deemed planning permission for any project they want. It is obligatory then for them to consult a planning authority. If the planning authority objects, and takes its objection to the Minister, the Minister can order a public inquiry. The public inquiry reports, but the Minister need not heed any advice that is given him. The consultation with the planning authority is, to put it in quite plain language, purely complimentary. Then the Minister has a public inquiry, presided over by one of his own officials, inquiring into the action of a statutory undertaker to which he has given deemed planning permission before the inquiry starts.
I know that the Minister will absolve me from any wish to be critical of him personally. But how can the inquiry be anything other than a façade when it is held by an official of the Minister's own Department and, if I may say so without
968
being critical of an individual—I do not know them personally—one not very high up in the hierarchy of the Civil Service, one who is about halfway between the rank of a Permanent Secretary and the lowest order in the Ministry (that is what my researches have disclosed) and one who must at least, shall I say, to use everyday language, "keep in with" the departmental chiefs and with the statutory undertakers with whom he has to live? When I have questioned the noble Lord upon this matter on many occasions he has said that side by side with his own inspector there is an inspector from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Then I have said, more or less by way of a joke, "Yes, I suppose just to lend respectability to the proceedings." The Minister does not have to listen to one word from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It is his responsibility alone.
To make the farce even worse, the first public inquiry, held at the behest of a planning authority, is into the line that it is proposed to take with one of these transmission cables. The Minister then receives a report. It is never published; we do not know what is in it. Then the Minister makes a decision and the course of the line is decided. Then, when the wayleave department comes along and wants to negotiate wayleaves over private property, the owner of the private property can have another inquiry—into what? The line has already been settled by the first inquiry, so that the second inquiry is a bigger farce than the first. The proposal I make in my Amendment is that, first, everybody who is affected—planning authorities and ordinary property owners—shall be acquainted with the proposals before any principle is accepted: in other words, before the official view has become a vested interest, and entrenched so that it has to be defended. That means that the wayleave inquiry and the line inquiry should be held at the same time. Also—and this is very important—that the inquiry should be held by an independent person.
If the noble Lord is to be the last arbiter, and I would not seek to take that position away from him, if he has to give a quasi judicial, independent verdict, then he must have a report from an independent person. I say that that independent person should be appointed by

969
the Lord Chancellor. I do not mind who he is. With all the good will in the world, the noble Lord's inspector who will hold the inquiry is an engineer. He works with a slide-rule. He has no interest in amenity. He has an interest to see that the project is carried out, because his was the Department which authorised it. The second thing for which I believe justice and the public weal calls no less is that the report of the inspector should be published. If justice is going to be done, let it be made apparent that it is going to be done. Then, and only then, can the Minister make the order. My Amendment then says that the order shall be laid before Parliament, to be prayed against if necessary by Negative Resolution.
That, in essence, is what this Amendment proposes, and those are the bones of it. There is one thing in this Amendment about which I am unhappy. As it is worded, this procedure would have to be put into motion for practically every overhead line, which includes any service line. But when I tried to find a definition of a transmission line that was not a service line I could not do so. A service line can be anything from a yard to two to three miles long. I do not want to set this procedure in motion for every service line that runs from a pole to a house: but public anxiety about these super-grid transmission lines is such that we can no longer allow these things to go forward by the stroke of the adminstrator's pen.
I happened to read in The Times of May 15 the report of the public inquiry into the atomic power station project at Hinkley Point. The deputy chairman of the Central Electricity Authority, quite "out of the blue", talked about duplication; there are very likely going to be two power stations—not one. And according to the report in The Times another official—I believe it was the development engineer of the Central Electricity Authority—said that out of this power station, which is already practically decided upon, two huge super-grids are to sprawl their way eastward across the country; and that when there is another power station there will be four such lines.
All this may be necessary; I am not going to question that. But I do question the propriety of these lines going out, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying
970
so, by a stroke of the administrator's pen, with Parliament powerless to say anything. I have asked the noble Lord before where Parliamentary authority comes from for the spending of all this money; and surely Parliament should have the right to question whether or not there should be an alteration.
During the discussions on this Bill we have talked about administrative powers to put lines underground. The noble Lord will see from my Amendment that I say definitely, in subsection (6):
" If at any time within forty days after the report, recommendations and the draft order have been laid before Parliament either House resolves that the proposed order shall not be made or that it shall be made only as modified in a way specified in such resolution the Minister shall not make the order or shall make it only as modified as the case may be."
It may be that Parliament in its wisdom may say: "This line shall go here," or "That line shall go underground." But I hope the noble Lord will accept it from me that I do not want to take away ministerial authority. The Minister makes the order, but Parliament should have the final word. If the noble Lord realises the disquiet and resentment that exists over the present procedure, I believe he will understand that all I am trying to do is to see that public opinion is properly mollified and that three great principles are observed. The first is that all those who are to have their rights and amenities affected shall be acquainted with the proposal. As the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, has said, there is compulsory wayleave to go over the property of anybody in this country, and any Government Department or any Minister who holds that power owes it to the British people to see that they shall have; every opportunity of safeguarding their rights; and they should be given that opportunity before these things are cut and dried. That is the first principle: that all affected parties shall be notified when the preliminary consultation is opened.
The second is that the public inquiry should be held by an independent person; and the third that the report to the Minister shall be published and that the matter cannot proceed without an order which shall be laid before Parliament and be subject to Negative Resolution. That is the simple intention of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 29, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD TEYNHAM: I should like to add my support for this Amendment. I believe it is a very important one. I am j quite sure that Parliament should have more control over these matters, though, like the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment, I am not sure that it is drafted as it should be. The noble Lord will remember that only a short time ago I moved in this House a Motion dealing with a very similar point about having an independent person in public inquiries in connection with the proposed establishment of a new oil refinery at Hook, opposite Fawley. I feel that it is essential that we should have an independent, competent person appointed, at the Minister's request, by the Lord Chancellor; and I hope the noble Lord will look into this point.
6.50 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: May I say a word in support of the very eloquent plea of my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth? It is nearly twenty-eight years since the late Lord Hewart startled the country with his story of The New Despotism. If the public were then scourged with whips, they are today being scourged with scorpions. The ever-increasing power of the bureaucracy is causing tremendous feeling throughout the country. My noble friend has put an absolutely unanswerable case. If the beauties of England are going to be preserved for those who come after us, or if we are going down before the Managerial State, let us know where we are going. If the Philistines are not to have their way, and if we are to have something of beauty left in this country, then I say: "Please accept this Amendment or something like it."
EARL BATHURST: I beg to support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I speak as one who has been aggrieved by measures of just the kind he has described. I can confirm to your Lordships that the machinery of these inquiries does operate in the ponderous and "steamroller" manner he has described. I assure your Lordships that what I have to say is not on my own behalf. I am thinking of the small man, of men and women property owners—or maybe
972
tenants—whoever they may be, throughout the country, who will be aggrieved by measures that are taken under the enormous powers we are granting to the Minister with regard to these pylons and stations which will supply electricity.
Great nationalised industries are with us to stay—I say "great" because of their size and the amount of capital concerned. How great the effect of these industries will be on the national prosperity only the future can show. But great though they may be in size, should they be thwarted in their desires they behave just exactly as any spoilt child behaves. A spoilt child goes shouting straight away that he will "tell Daddy" "Daddy" duly appears with a large leather belt—in this case in the shape of the Minister with a compulsory wayleave order or, worse still, a compulsory purchase order, which he is able to enforce by statutory enactment. Even so, as many of your Lordships will remember, an agile child has many a card up his sleeve to play against "Daddy," never mind how heavy that leather strap may be.
The best card to play, of course, is to find another Minister or Ministry or statutory undertaking to fight the particular Ministry which has aggrieved one. Where the Electricity Authority is concerned, that is not always possible. In my own case, we had to use a little more guile. I was lucky enough to find an adviser who pointed out to me that this great statutory undertaking had forgotten to take the precaution of seeing that they had acquired a wayleave across what is marked on a one-inch ordnance map as a disused canal—it is no larger than the distance across the Woolsack. By this means, we held up the entire proceedings on this line for a year. I do not take any great honour to myself for doing that. I can assure your Lordships that had justice been done to small owners at the other end of the line, and had an inquiry been promised at the time when we found this error in the authority's calculations, that delay would not have happened.
But I am afraid that if we do not check in some way the power of these authorities it will become a national sport to bait these great nationalised industries. One of the most recent and typical instances of this was the case of Mr. Bryn Jones, who with one stroke of a sledgehammer capsized one of these pylons.

973
Overnight, in the popular Press and on television he became a hero. I think that when he was summarily fined he got away with a very small punishment indeed, considering the seriousness of the sabotage—for it was no less—which he had carried out.
I am certain that in these inquiries, as the noble Lord has said, the private individual does not get a fair deal. Whatever the Minister may say from his brief, supplied by the Department, the individual does not get a fair hearing. At the inquiry which was held into the proposal in connection with a super grid at Cheltenham over five years ago, there was an engineer on behalf of the Minister and there was a very skilled and well-spoken lawyer whose job it was to travel the entire countryside putting the point of view of the Electricity Authority. The engineer carefully explained to us that not for a generation would we see atomic power as a practical means of producing electricity. Within a fortnight, the United States had launched the first atomic submarine, and another one was launched only yesterday. Of course we now know of Calder Hall. At that date, five years ago, the principles of the Calder Hall project had already been expounded in a newspaper in Sydney, Australia. Could the engineer understand that possibly atomic power would take the place of coal? That was impossible for us, as laymen, to put over at that inquiry.
I beg that the Minister will consider setting up a really independent inquiry when such vital issues are at stake. As a suggestion, a most humble one, may I submit that noble Lords who have been appointed for services they have rendered in Her Majesty's Forces and who sit on the Cross-Benches might possibly be suitable members to be appointed to sit on such inquiries. They are men who have the confidence of the public. As the inquiries are constituted to-day (and the electricity industry is only one industry which needs such inquiries; there will be projects for trunk roads and many other things soon) they cannot possibly have the confidence or the good will of the public. I know that what the noble Lord the Minister needs in his great industry is the good will of the public to see that his measures go through and to advance the prosperity of the country. I beg to support the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: So far as I am aware, I have no personal interest in any matter of this kind, but I have on more than one occasion been made painfully aware of the impact of a projected public enterprise on the people whose property it is designed to make use of. Rumours spread. Word goes round that the enterprise is coming. Everyone is uneasy. They do not know where or how to voice any objections which they may have. There may not be a public inquiry at all; or, if it is held, it may not take proper account of their objections. These people are often quite small people. Some of them, perhaps, are working enterprises which may be completely ruined by the great public enterprise which in the national interest is going across their property, or is even to take possession of it. They may be in personal financial difficulties; they may wish to realise their enterprise. But they cannot do it because it is under a threat, and they do not know even how they can resolve the threat. They do not know how or where they can represent their case. For those reasons, of which I am dreadfully conscious—as are many of my neighbours and friends, of all ranks of society—I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider this Amendment favourably.
7.0 p.m.
LORD MILLS: I hope that in what I said about the new clause after Clause 26 I have already made it plain that I have every sympathy with the motive which has prompted the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to put down this new clause. I am at one with him in the need to ensure that damage to landscape amenities is reduced to the minimum, but I am also responsible—and I would emphasise that your Lordships, too, share my responsibility—for seeing that this country gets the power supply which is vital to its interests. On the one hand, we have a beautiful country, and if we could avoid it, none of us would like to see power stations or lines. On the other hand, power stations and lines are evidence of the fact that we are advancing the happiness of our people, even at some cost to the amenities of the countryside. Our job is to see that that interference with amenities is kept down to the lowest possible extent.
The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said that I should be reading from a brief

975
supplied to me by my Department. Perhaps he will forgive me if I point out to him that the job of a Minister is to receive a brief from his Department, and the job of a Minister is to tear up the brief if he does not like it and have it re-written in the way he wishes. I have given effect to all those parts of my duties. I should like to put one or two things straight. Deemed planning permission is not given before a public inquiry. It follows after the Minister gives his consent under the Electricity Supply Act. I must dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said about the engineering inspector being a prejudiced person. The project has to be approved before the inquiry is held, and these inspectors are men of long experience in this problem and are instructed in what they have to take into account.
On March 13, I explained to your Lordships fairly fully the procedure which is followed at present by the Boards, and I am sure that you would not wish me at this point to go into that again. But this new clause presents serious difficulties. By laying down in detail every step in the process of consultations which have to be carried out, there is a danger that the Boards themselves will be deprived of their initiative and discretion. After all, they are responsible bodies, and the advantage of leaving detailed compliance with the Statutes to administrative arrangements is that action can be suited and modelled to the particular circumstances which the interests of individuals and of the public might require. I see a real danger that, if Boards are to be restricted by being told everything they may or may not do, they might tend to stand on the letter of the law, and I think that that would be a bad thing.
I am not at all happy about subsections (5) and (6). Any order which the Minister proposed to make on the report of a public inquiry would have to be laid before Parliament in draft, subject to rejection or alteration, for a period of forty days. This procedure would be obligatory in every case where there was a single objector. The Minister would not be permitted to dispose of any case unless it was completely uncontested. In other words, the Minister's statutory responsibility for ensuring that the Electricity Board's plans are in the best
976
interests of the community would be largely taken away from him and given to Parliament instead. I suggest to your Lordships that, apart from the delay—which is important—this procedure would be extremely cumbersome.
I recognise, however, the strength of feeling among noble Lords and among members of the public about the need to make certain that all legitimate interests are taken account of before consents are given. At the same time, I think we must see that the procedure is not too elaborate and costly for the cases with which we have to deal. I can assure your Lordships that in every case where the local planning authority object to a project I will order a public inquiry. This, with other assurances I have given with regard to the proposed new clause after Clause 26, should, I think, assure your Lordships that great attention will be paid to this question of amenities. On procedure, I am already in the middle of an examination to see what can be done to ensure that interests are consulted at the first possible moment and not later on, when a project might have been formulated. I hope that this will go a long way to meet the apprehensions of noble Lords, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask one point? I took the point of people who suffer financial embarrassment and possibly are ruined through a great public project taking possession of their property. These things are often rumoured long in advance. If some procedure could be devised, whereby people would be able to object to a scheme, by taking the matter up by a letter to the Minister or something of that kind, that would help, because I know only too well how these long-deferred projects, which sometimes are carried out and sometimes not, cause tremendous embarrassment to people whose business might be affected. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could do something to help that position.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am not at all happy about the noble Lord's explanation about the man from the Ministry being in charge of the inquiry. That is like a man being judge and jury. Surely that cannot be right. I wish that the noble Lord would look at this point again. I

977
feel that it is essential that the inquiry should be conducted by an independent and competent person, apart from the Ministry altogether. We have had this argument on other Bills, I admit, but it is a very important point.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for what he has said; but, frankly, I do not think that under the procedure set out in the Amendment there would be nearly the delay that occurs to-day. The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, gave a graphic illustration of the delay that occurs when people's backs are put up. What happens, times without number, is that they go to a lawyer, the shrewdest and "slickest" lawyer they can find. Their attitude is: how can we humbug these people about? The noble Lord should know that that is what happens. The reason for this is that the general public are not satisfied that they are getting a square deal. If only the noble Lord would realise it, that is the whole crux of the matter. I am willing to accept his assurance that all proper people will be consulted first. It is no good consulting the poor fellow the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has in mind, when the first inquiry has decided that the line shall go through his property. The crux of the matter is whether the noble Lord will give us an assurance that in future an independent individual will hold the inquiry and that the inspector's report to him will be published.
EARL BATHURST: Perhaps I may interrupt to say that the Minutes, also, might be available to the public. At present it costs £25 to get hold of a copy, if it can be found.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the report is the report of an independent inspector, the noble Lord will suffer no embarrassment. Here we have the Report of the Herbert Committee, but the noble Lord has not felt obliged to accept every one of the recommendations of that Committee; and he has said precisely why. I am going to say, frankly, that it is asking too much of human nature for a member of a Government Department to be impartial in these matters. The inspector is a civil servant who, as I say, is not at the top. I have done a good deal of research, and I find that his salary bracket is half way down the hierarchy of the Civil Service. Is it in human nature
978
that that man is going to present the Minister with a report which is directly contrary to the Minister's instructions to the Central Electricity Authority? If you had an independent inspector—I have put in "appointed by the Lord Chancellor", because that is the usual procedure in these matters—then the public would be satisfied that they were getting a square deal; and if, then, someone had a pylon put up outside his back door, at least he would have the satisfaction of knowing that Parliament had decided to do it.
I think this procedure, with an independent inquiry, the publication of a report, and a draft order, in the last analysis would be far quicker than this continual battling between the Central Electricity Authority, the planning authorities and the private individual. It is a war that goes on and gets more embittered as time goes on; and it is losing the most admirable project of the noble Lord a lot of good will. I am convinced that he understands the point, and that he will tie up the ends and the administrative part of it. But let him make it apparent to the British public that they are getting a square deal. They are convinced that it is the most hole-and-corner business that ever was. I have had correspondence from eminent people who have attended these so-called public inquiries to say that what they heard made them sick at heart. It is the biggest farce ever; everybody goes away knowing the decision is cut-and-dried before ever the inquiry is held. If the noble Lord would agree to the procedure I suggest, he would earn the gratitude of all those who are trying to be helpful on this matter.
LORD MILLS: I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that, as I informed your Lordships, I have been busily engaged in looking into this problem of procedure to see that the earliest possible notice can be given to everyone affected. I should like to get this matter into its proper perspective. I know the importance of it. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, one would think that every pylon that was put up gave offence and was contested. Out of 857 miles of super-grid 835 miles were agreed to voluntarily. That may help to put the matter in its proper perspective. Nor do I accept that, because an engineering inspector is not of the

979
high rank to which the noble Lord referred, he is not capable of making up his mind. I have been at these inquiries and listened to them, and I have found, as I find throughout the Civil Service, that there are many men not of high rank who are shouldering enormous jobs and doing them conscientiously and well, in the public interest, and not in a prejudicial departmental way. That is what, I suggest, takes place at these inquiries.
Noble Lords will appreciate that on these questions of whether there should be what I would call an independent inspector, and whether his report should be published, other Departments of State, as well as my Ministry, are concerned. Therefore, all I can say is that I will consider the arguments put forward by noble Lords and go into the matter. I have been quite busily engaged in going into all aspects of this amenity question, because I realise the public concern; and, as I said earlier this afternoon, I realise that the further we go on with this power development, which we must do, as it is vital to every man and woman in this country, the more we shall come up against this problem of amenities. Therefore I am just as convinced as noble Lords that it is important that what we do should be right and above suspicion.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I feel that we have won his support considerably on this matter. I would repeat that I do not contest the noble Lord's good will. I know that he is disturbed about this matter and will do everything possible administratively. I know, also, that for him to stand up at that Dispatch Box and agree with me that we should have independent inquiries, with publication of reports, is a big step to take. However, I am certain that that is the only way the noble Lord will carry good will. That is why the courts of justice in this country are so highly honoured and revered by everybody, and why what they say is not questioned. I want what the independent inspector says to the Minister to be published, and then the Minister must, as I am sure he will, be prepared to accept the responsibility of agreeing or disagreeing; and he can then answer to Parliament, which I know will be his wish. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying
980
that he will take this back and consider the whole problem, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Placing of service lines above ground]:
7.20 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out Clause 30. The noble Lord said: I have delved into Statutes back to 1899, and this clause, if it means anything at all, means that service lines shall now go overground—I am not at all certain about this and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—and shall be deemed to have planning permission. This is what the noble Lord seeks to do. Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 10 of the Schedule of 1899 reads thus:
" The Undertakers shall not without the express consent or authorisation of the Minister and the express consent of the local authority also, place any electric line above ground except within premises in the sole occupation or control of the Undertakers and except so much of any service line as is necessarily so placed for the purpose of supply."
The noble Lord wishes to place, "other than a service line" after the words "electric line", and omit the words "and except so much of any service line as is necessarily so placed for the purpose of supply". That means that every service line shall go over ground, whether it is a yard or a mile long and whether it is low voltage or high voltage. The definition of "service line" is one that supplies a single user.
For what purpose has the noble Lord removed this protection to amenity that has lasted now for fifty years? I cannot understand it. I do not know why he wants to do it. At the present time, planning permission for a service line is given automatically by the planning authority unless there is a serious case, when it goes through the normal procedure. But a service line a hundred yards long can be just as objectionable from an amenity point of view as a 275-kilovolt pylon. I do not know why the noble Lord wants it. Why cannot he allow the matter to stand where it is today? The law is perfectly clear and there is no objection to it. I would hesitate to say that this clause has to be removed to satisfy the insatiable appetite of the Frankenstein monster, but I cannot see any useful purpose. I hope the noble Lord will agree

981
to the deletion of the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 30.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
7.23 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I think the clause as it stands must be wrong, because surely you do not wish to give block protection for all service lines to be placed overhead without the possibility of any question being raised by anybody. I do not wish to go into the immense complications of Statutes or General Development Orders and many other things, but I think the clause as it stands could have ludicrous consequences. I think I am right—I do not claim to be certain—that, if you had a main line which ran underground along a village street of beauty and distinction or in one of our beautiful country towns, every connection into every house could under this clause, if I rightly understand it, be placed overground. The very amenity of the street or the architectural distinction of the street which led you to take great trouble about the main line could be ruined under this clause, if it became law, by every individual house being connected by a line overground. At this late hour I certainly do not wish to labour the point, but it seems to me that the clause as it stands must go too far, and I suggest that the best course for the Minister might be to agree to this Amendment to delete the clause and to restore any part of it which he thinks necessary for his purpose by an Amendment on Report. I beg to support the noble Lord in moving the deletion of the clause.
LORD MILLS: Clause 30, which this Amendment seeks to eliminate, is intended to remove an ambiguity in paragraph 10 (b) of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1889, under which the Minister consents to the erection of overhead lines. Under paragraph 10 (b) of that Schedule, read with Section 21 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, Electricity Boards may not, without the express consent of the Minister—in Scotland, the Secretary of State—place any electric line above ground except within the Board's own premises "and except so much of any service line"—that is, a line connecting a consumer's premises with the main—" as is necessarily so placed for the purposes of
982
supply. "To place the line overhead may well be the only suitable course because, for example, of expense. But it still may be practicable to place it underground. Hence, strictly speaking, the Minister's consent would be required. However, under the General Development Order, 1950, made under the Town and Country Planning Act, the erection of service lines above ground is permitted development and does not require planning permission in individual cases.
The interests of owners and occupiers of land are safeguarded by Section 22 (1) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919. If an Electricity Board wants a wayleave for any electric line, the owners and occupiers of the land must be served with notice. If any of them object, the way-leave cannot be obtained without the consent of the Minister or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State, who may order an inquiry. This provision applies to service lines, as it does to other lines. I think the purpose of this Amendment is merely to remove an ambiguity which has arisen and its intention is; not to compel service lines to go overground.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I do not doubt for one moment that that was the Minister's purpose. But my advice is precisely the same as Lord Conesford's, which is that every service line will go overground. Would the noble Lord look at it again? It is a technical point. The noble Lord does not want to disfigure the countryside by putting every service line overhead. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who is far more learned in the law than I am, could give his view about it.
LORD MILLS: It is a technical point, and I will gladly look at it again.
LORD CONESFORD: I am most obliged, and I may have got it wrong. I do not go so far as the noble Lord in saying that every service line will henceforth go overground. What I do say, if my reading of the clause is correct—it may be incorrect, and I will study most carefully what the Minister has said—is that if it does go overground nobody, however legitimate his objection may be, will have any means of making that objection prevail.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I was rather jumping to conclusions. If

983
they are not forced to go underground they will go overground, because it is far cheaper. I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
LORD MILLS: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Expedition of highway procedure in connection with electricity works]:
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "thirty days" and insert "eight weeks". The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to the period during which members of the public may, first of all, inspect and examine and, secondly, lodge an objection to a draft order for the closure of highways. I am going to admit at once that the existing period of three months is too long as a minimum, and nobody suggests that it should be retained at as long a period as that. On the other hand, the period of one month which appears in the Bill is, in the opinion of a number of people, too short. We have to remember that the people who examine these orders are largely voluntary workers, unpaid people, not officials, and it may take some time to go round and see people. People may be on holiday, if it happens to be in the middle of the summer. I can only add that this point has been examined by a number of people interested in the question of the closure of highways and, whilst it may be, as I have said, that three months is unnecessarily long, it is strongly submitted that one month is unnecessarily short. Therefore, would the Minister meet us by agreeing to eight weeks? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 20, leave out (" thirty days ") and insert (" eight weeks ").—(Lord Merthyr)
LORD MILLS: It is, of course, a question of opinion as to what is the proper length of time. I maintain that the period of thirty days should give ample opportunity to interested parties for lodging objections, because before the notice is
984
published the consent procedure for the construction of the generating station will already have been completed. I explained in detail to the House on March 13 what this procedure involves.
Before formal application for consent is made at all, the Central Authority consult all Government Departments likely to be interested, and other appropriate bodies such as the local planning authority, local authorities, the National Parks Commission, the Royal Fine Art Commission, river boards and statutory water undertakings, as well as the Nature Conservancy, where they are concerned. When formal application is received from the Central Authority, notification is given, as required by Section 2 of the Act of 1909, to the owners and lessees of land within 300 yards of the site, and arrangements are made for making plans and papers available for public inspection locally. Frequently, there are objections necessitating a local hearing or a pubic inquiry; and, on an average, as I explained to your Lordships before, about nine months elapse between the date of formal application and the date of consent. When all this has gone before, surely thirty days' notice should suffice for lodging objections to any consequential order for stopping up or diverting a highway. I might mention that this clause was not opposed in another place, and my right honourable friend, the Postmaster-General was told by the Opposition that he was quite right
" in abbreviating what is really an unnecessarily long time in this context."
I hope noble Lords will accept the proposal that the time should be reduced to thirty days.
LORD MERTHYR: Of course, this is only a question of degree. I am afraid that nothing that the Minister has said has altered my opinion that thirty days is on the short side, but I do not want to dispute further about it to-night. I wonder if the noble Lord would consider lengthening it somewhat, perhaps to six weeks, if he could again split the difference. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 to 38 agreed to.
First Schedule [Consultative Councils in England and Wales—Amendments of Section 7 of Electricity Act, 1947]:
7.35 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph 1, in the proposed new subsection (2) to leave out "so appointed". The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I will take Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 31 together. They all hang together.
LORD MANCROFT: And Amendment No. 30?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: No. Amendment No. 30 is a bit different. On reflection, yes—I suppose Amendment No. 30 does come into it as well. I was keeping Amendment No. 30 "up my sleeve" to "do a deal" with the noble Lord about it. This is a simple point. The new subsection (2), which gives the machinery for setting up the Consultative Councils and their composition reads like this:
" Each of the said Councils shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and of not less than twenty or more than thirty other persons so appointed of whom—
(a) not less than two-fifths or more than three-fifths shall be appointed from a panel of persons nominated by such associations as appear to the Minister to represent local authorities in the area … ."
I want the Minister to agree that the local authorities concerned in the area shall nominate the representatives, not put forward a panel from which the Minister can make a selection. There is a feeling that local authorities, which are democratically-elected bodies, should elect the folk to go on the Consultative Councils as representatives of the people, and it should be their responsibility to propose people for them. It should not be for the Minister to select them from a panel. He cannot be expected to do every housemaid's job in the Ministry, and so the selection is eventually made by the Department, and perhaps they have an eye on somebody who will not be quite so unreasonable as somebody else. There is a feeling among local authorities that, as they are democratically-elected bodies and the Minister desires the representatives of the democratically-elected bodies on his Consultative Councils, they should agree amongst themselves who should be the representatives to be put on the Consultative Councils. That is all that these three Amendments boil down to.
986
The first four lines of subsection (2A), which I propose should be omitted, are the lines that I read out to the Minister earlier on. I seek to omit them because I thought to myself, "They are really a useless bit of jargon, and the Minister thought that one of my Amendments was a bit of jargon." I was going to see if I could "do a deal" with him; that, if I did not press him to take those words out, he might help me by agreeing to my Amendment. I did not see how anybody within the Ministry—and there are some very clever men in the Ministry; we found that out this evening—was going to advise the Minister on the lines of subsection (2A), which says:
" In the appointment of any person under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection the Minister shall have particular regard to his ability to exercise a wide and impartial judgment on the matters to be dealt with by the Council generally "—
those are the words which, by my Amendment No. 30, I seek to omit. The result of accepting these Amendments would mean that the Bill would read:
" not less than two-fifths or more than three-fifths shall be appointed by such associations as appear to the Minister to represent local authorities in the area."
The other consequential Amendments of drafting tie up with that. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to agree with that. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 12, leave out (" so appointed ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
7.40 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: I must make it perfectly clear to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that I cannot be party to any "shady" deal between him and my noble friend Lord Mills. I propose to deal with this Amendment and any other Amendments on their merits. That there are merits one would concede. What the noble Lord wants to do is to improve and strengthen the Consultative Councils. We, too, should like to do that, but I think I can show the noble Lord that if we do what he has set out to do here we run into considerable practical difficulty.
What he is trying to do is this. His Amendments would take out of the Minister's hands the appointment of local authority representatives to Consultative

987
Councils and give the power to the local authority associations. Members appointed by the associations would not necessarily have to be selected with due regard to their ability to exercise a wide and impartial judgment on matters to be dealt with by the Council generally. Here is where we run into trouble. In almost every area account has to be taken of some four local authority associations. There is the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which the noble Lord, Lord Burden and I were Vice-Presidents for some years, the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association. Of course, in London there would be more.
The appointment of 12 to 18 members by the associations themselves would in practice be very difficult. I will tell the noble Lord why. First, not all local authorities in an area can be given representation. There are some 57 local authorities in the London area, and in the north-western area, for example, there are some 40 boroughs and county boroughs alone, apart from county, urban and rural authorities. These will be competing for the limited vacancies, 12 to 18 in all, allotted to local authority representation on the Consultative Council. The noble Lord's Amendment leaves in the air the question of who is to decide between the competing claims. In giving this task to the Minister, the Bill puts it in the hands of the person in the best position to view the composition of the Consultative Council as a whole.
There is another point which I should like the noble Lord to consider. It is necessary, as I think he will agree, to have a proper geographical spread of representation which should not be weighted unduly in favour of some local authorities rather than others. If appointments to the Consultative Council were made in each area by several associations I can see great difficulty in getting the proper geographical balance. The Herbert Committee commended the practice of Ministers in trying to secure that some of the members appointed represented a second and outside interest, as, for example, the retail trade in addition to the local authority. The balance of interests which is aimed at in making local authority appointments as well as
988
in making other appointments could not be achieved if the appointments were in the hands of several associations.
Periods of appointment could not be effectively co-ordinated. It is usual to appoint a member for a fairly short period to begin with, to see how work in a Consultative Council suits him. It does not suit everyone, even though he may be a good local councillor. If all the local authority representatives were appointed by the associations, they would no doubt be appointed for the maximum period of five years and the general quality of representation would probably suffer. In short, if Consultative Councils are to be well balanced, both in the geographical and in the occupational distribution of their members, and if the proportion of useful members is not to decline, all appointments must be in the hands of a single appointing authority, and this should continue to be the Minister.
The Herbert Committee also stated (and this is an important point):
" We have heard that the quality of local authority representation on the Councils is not always of the same standard as that of the representation of ' other interests ' … "
The Committee recommended that selection of local authority representatives should, like the selection of members to represent special interests, have regard to candidates able to exercise a wide and impartial judgment on matters to be dealt with by- the Council generally. The Government accepted this recommendation as tending to improve the standard of representation, and included it in the new paragraph (2) (a) of the First Schedule of the Bill. Lord Lucas of Chilworth's Amendment would remove it, so that local authority representatives need not be capable of exercising a wide and impartial judgment. The chance of effecting an improvement in this category of representation would, I suppose, be lost.
I appreciate what the noble Lord wants to do, and I wish we could help him; but it seems that the Amendments taken together would not enable the Bill to strengthen the position of the Consultative Councils. I am afraid that in the long run, for the reasons I have given at some length—because they are matters of detail—the procedure might well weaken them as the instrument for protecting consumers' interests. Perhaps the

989
noble Lord will consult with some of his friends who have local government experience. Perhaps they will agree that there is a fair amount of strength in the argument which I have put forward about the complexity of the various conflicting interests. Perhaps the noble Lord would look at the matter again and consider it, and in the meantime let the matter rest.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his careful reply. He has put forward quite valid reasons which I appreciate. Of course, the difficulty is to equate the sum amongst a number of local authorities. The only thing I have to say, with reservation, is that perhaps the local authorities would far sooner settle their own differences than let the Minister settle them. I am not going to press this matter because I quite see the difficulties. Before I withdraw the Amendment perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will agree to look again at the matter of these Consultative Councils. I was interested in the Minister's statement that the Consultative Councils have power to subdivide their activities. That would meet my case to a large extent, because that would mean some progress. I hope he will issue instructions for them to do it. I do not know of a case where they do it.
Also I think that the names of the local authority representatives upon the Consultative Committee, when the Minister eventually chooses them, should receive the widest publicity in the areas from which they come. After all, they are the people that the local folk should get at; that is what they are on local authorities for. Then the Council can bring their local complaint from the ordinary consumer to the main body at more frequent intervals than is the case now. I will look at this matter and carefully read what the noble Lord has said. I am not disposed to press these Amendments. I will willingly withdraw them, because I agree with much of what the noble Lord has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: After all that we have had to say this afternoon, I should think the noble Lord might let this Amendment go by "on the nod ", so to speak. The new subsection (2) (b) says:
990
" the remainder shall be appointed, after consultation with such bodies as the Minister thinks fit, to represent agriculture, commerce, industry, labour, and the general interests of consumers of electricity and other persons or organisations interested in the development of electricity in the area."
I seek to insert at the end
" and in the preservation of the natural beauty of the area."
If the noble Lord can accept that, I shall be most grateful. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 22, after (" area ") insert (" and in the preservation of the natural beauty of the area. ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD MILLS: I appreciate the noble Lord's anxiety and his willingness to do anything to have this question of amenities properly looked after, but I think that here he has chosen the wrong vehicle. Even if the language of Section 7 (4) of the 1947 Act were to be repealed to permit the inclusion of landscape amenities in the terms of reference of Consultative Councils (which, I am advised, it does not), I suggest that their inclusion would be unsuitable. The function of the Consultative Councils is to look after the interests of those who use or require electricity from the public supply. The consultations and inquiries which take place before the project of an Electricity Board finally receives consent ensure that organisations and persons specially concerned with landscape amenities are heard; but to appoint such members as members of Consultative Councils—if we could do it—would be to introduce into the discussions of the Councils a source of conflict which might well be detrimental to their efficiency. I trust the noble Lord will have further thoughts on this matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have already had further thoughts and I agree with the noble Lord. As this is my last Amendment, before I withdraw it I hope the noble Lord the Minister will accept my grateful thanks for the kindness, courtesy and good humour with which he has treated this rather protracted Committee stage; for the way in which he has listened to my arguments; and for his promises to give our case his sympathetic consideration. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Transitional provisions]:
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 20 which your Lordships have already approved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 46, at end insert—
("(3) In this paragraph ' obligation ' has the same meaning as in section twenty-four of this Act. ")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Amendment and Adaptation of Enactments]:
LORD MILLS: Before I move this Amendment I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I have been very impressed by his earnestness and sincerity, and his desire to help, and I have accepted everything which he has said in that way. The noble Lord is of the greatest use to me in enabling me to form such judgments as fall to me to form. This Amendment excludes subsection (4) of Section 3 of the 1947 Act (which disqualifies Members of Parliament from membership of the Central Authority and Area Boards) from the Adaptation Schedule of the Bill. This subsection has just been repealed by the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, which itself provides for the disqualification in another way and is to be amended by the Bill so as to cover the members of the Electricity Council and the Generating Board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 43, leave out (" (4) ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.52 p.m.
LORD MILLS: The reason for this Amendment is that under Section 21 of the 1947 Act a stockholder's representative was appointed for each undertaking at nationalisation, to represent stockholders entitled to compensation. Under subsection (3) the remuneration, allowances and expenses of stockholders' representatives are payable by the Minister and recoverable from the Central Authority. As all possible claims have not been exhausted, it is necessary to retain this provision and to make the payments recoverable from the Electricity Council. Similarly, Section 33 (4) of the
992
1947 Act provides for the payment of remuneration, allowances and expenses of the Electricity Arbitration Tribunal set up under Section 31 of the 1947 Act to determine disputes arising from the nationalisation of undertakings. Payment is made in the first instance by the Minister and recouped by him from the Central Authority. There are some matters still outstanding between the Central Authority and local authorities for which arbitration may be necessary, and if the arbitration tribunal has to be reconvened for this purpose the Electricity Council will be the proper body to reimburse the Minister for the Tribunal's expenses in place of the Central Authority. The Amendment effects the necessary change. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 28, at end insert—

(" Section 21.

In subsection (3), for the words ' Central Authority' there shall be substituted the words ' Electricity Council '.

Section 33.

In subsection (4). for the words ' Central Authority ' there shall be substituted the words ' Electricity Council '. ")—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The Third Schedule of the Electricity Act, 1947, deals with the issue of compensation stock at nationalisation. There is, I understand, still a small amount of compensation stock which has not been allocated because the persons entitled to it have not been identified. Adaptations are required in that Schedule for the purpose of transferring to the Electricity Council certain functions of the Central Authority regarding compensation stock. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 13, at end insert—
(" Third In paragraph 5 of Part I, and in Schedule paragraph 2, and sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5, of Part II for the words ' Central Authority ', in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words ' Electricity Council '; and in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 of Part II, the words ' by the Central Authority ' shall be omitted, and after the words ' in respect of any securities' there shall be inserted the words ' whether by the Central Authority or by the Electricity Council'.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 40, at end insert—
(" The Electric Lighting Act, 1882
In the provisions of section eighteen of the Gaswork Clauses Act, 1847, incorporated with the said Act of 1882 by virtue of section twelve thereof, the words from ' or shall supply any other person ' to the words ' by the Undertakers ', and the words ' or such supply furnished ', shall be omitted. ")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 43, at end insert (" and, in the Appendix, the provisions of section eighteen of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, therein set out shall be modified in accordance with the last preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule ").—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MILLS: This Amendment, again, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 11, at end insert—
(" In section ten A, in subsection (1), for the words' Electricity Act, 1947', there shall be substituted the words ' Electricity Act, 1957 ' ").—(Lord Mills.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MANCROFT: The remaining Amendments are matters of machinery only. They contain no point of controversy of any kind, and unless your Lordships want me to deal with any point individually it may be convenient at this hour if I ask the Lord Chairman to put them en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 50, line 7, at end insert—
(" In section ninety-seven, in subsection (1), after the words ' British Electricity Authority ', there shall be inserted the words ' or the Electricity Council' ")
Page 50, line 21, at end insert—
(" The Gas and Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1954
In section one, for the words ' the said Acts ', there shall be substituted the words ' that Act ")
Page 50, line 21, at end insert—
(" The Electricity Reorganisation (Scotland) Act, 1954
In section twelve, in subsection (1), after the words ' transfer; and ' there shall be inserted
994
the words ' subject to the next following subsection ' and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the following subsection—
'(1A) Where any regulations made under subsection (1) of this section provide for appeals to be brought as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of the said section fifty-five, the referee or board of referees on any such appeal may, and if so directed by the Court of Session shall, state a case for the opinion of that Court on any question of law arising in the proceedings. ' ")
Page 50, line 25, at end insert—
(" The Rating and Valuation Act, 1957
In section two, after the words ' Central Electricity Authority', in each place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words ' or the Electricity Council '; and any reference in that section to any provisions of the Local Government Act, 1948, shall be construed as a reference to those provisions as amended by the preceding provisions of this Part of this Schedule.")—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
LORD MANCROFT: The same applies to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 35, at end insert—

(" 2 & 3 Eliz. 2. c. 52.

The Gas and Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Act, 1954.

In section one, the words ' the British Electricity Authority and Area Electricity Boards, and of', and paragraph (a).")

—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
MARINE SOCIETY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  GUARANTEE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EGGS
  GUARANTEE ARRANGEMENTS FOR EGGS